3 ms·

My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. Suppose the AquAdvantage Salmon escapes into the wild, reproduced, and flourishes. Suppose that it flourishes so w

My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. Suppose the AquAdvantage Salmon escapes into the wild, reproduced, and flourishes. Suppose that it flourishes so well that it displaces the native population of salmon. Then, finally, suppose that Aqua Bounty starts suing everyone and everything who attempts to fish, catch, or farm these salmon, which are now the only thing left. Such behavior would not be unheard of. See similar accusations against Monsanto: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally...

falsestprophet 11y ago
My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. You mean patent infringement.
x1798DE 11y ago
First of all, it would be patent protections, not copyright. Huge difference. Second, I highly doubt anyone would succeed with such a dubious legal strategy. Catching fish in the wild with your patented genes in them is not a violation of your patent rights - who is the violator? The fish?
- pfisch 11y ago
  What happens when you sell the fish?
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    You earn money from the consumer?
    - gnaritas 11y ago
      You get sued.
- gregcrv 11y ago
  "That case concerned Percy Schmeiser, who discovered that canola growing on his farm in 1997 was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a three- to four‑acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived. Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases edit: TL;DR: Monsanto sues farmers, not seeds ;)
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Schmeiser was found to have deliberately created a Roundup-Ready crop --- he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered, in such a way that he could spray them with Roundup at any point he felt it would be profitable and only then pay the licensing fees.
    - trhway 11y ago
      >he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered this is how typical selection works. And the same way like the antibiotic resistance develops.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        You should just read the trial documentation (there is a shitload of it just a Google search away). Suffice it to say that the trial pretty conclusively established that Schmeiser deliberately created an unauthorized glyphosate crop. You might not care; that's fine. This link might save us an unproductive round-trip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
tptacek 11y ago
Every time this Monsanto story comes up, people leave out the part where Monsanto has only sued people who grew Roundup-Ready crops and then sprayed them with glyphosate, which would kill non-Roundup-Ready crops.

falsestprophet 11y ago

My concern, oddly enough, would be copyright. You mean patent infringement.

x1798DE 11y ago

First of all, it would be patent protections, not copyright. Huge difference. Second, I highly doubt anyone would succeed with such a dubious legal strategy. Catching fish in the wild with your patented genes in them is not a violation of your patent rights - who is the violator? The fish?

pfisch 11y ago
What happens when you sell the fish?
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  You earn money from the consumer?
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    You get sued.
gregcrv 11y ago
"That case concerned Percy Schmeiser, who discovered that canola growing on his farm in 1997 was Roundup resistant. He had initially discovered that some canola growing by a roadside along one of his fields was Roundup resistant when he was killing weeds along the road; this led him to spray a three- to four‑acre section of his adjacent field and 60% of the canola survived. Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998. Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting. Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was pollinated with pollen blown into his field from neighboring fields, he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases edit: TL;DR: Monsanto sues farmers, not seeds ;)
- tptacek 11y ago
  Schmeiser was found to have deliberately created a Roundup-Ready crop --- he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered, in such a way that he could spray them with Roundup at any point he felt it would be profitable and only then pay the licensing fees.
  - trhway 11y ago
    >he weaned out the non-RR crops by spraying them with glyphosate, preserved the patent-encumbered plants, and then cultivated them so that his fields were ultimately 95+% encumbered this is how typical selection works. And the same way like the antibiotic resistance develops.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      You should just read the trial documentation (there is a shitload of it just a Google search away). Suffice it to say that the trial pretty conclusively established that Schmeiser deliberately created an unauthorized glyphosate crop. You might not care; that's fine. This link might save us an unproductive round-trip: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10604755

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

tptacek 11y ago

Every time this Monsanto story comes up, people leave out the part where Monsanto has only sued people who grew Roundup-Ready crops and then sprayed them with glyphosate, which would kill non-Roundup-Ready crops.