8 ms·

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. Ca

by 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
  - gnaritas 11y ago
    He shouldn't have to pay any fees at all, they were his plants from his normal harvest; it's not his fault roundup ready seeds blew into his fields. Being able to sue someone because your shit got out into the wild and happened to benefit someone else is absurd.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      There's an intellectually coherent argument that Monsanto should not be able to patent the system of glyphosate-resistence at all. I'm assuming that's where you're coming from. But I'm not engaging with that argument. All I'm saying is: the thing that does not happen, but that everyone on the Internet seems to think happens all the time, is Monsanto seeds blowing onto some random field, and then Monsanto suing you when you sell the resulting crop. Everyone who has been sued by Monsanto has taken active steps to capitalize on their "unauthorized" seeds.

by x1798DE 11y ago

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
- gnaritas 11y ago
  He shouldn't have to pay any fees at all, they were his plants from his normal harvest; it's not his fault roundup ready seeds blew into his fields. Being able to sue someone because your shit got out into the wild and happened to benefit someone else is absurd.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    There's an intellectually coherent argument that Monsanto should not be able to patent the system of glyphosate-resistence at all. I'm assuming that's where you're coming from. But I'm not engaging with that argument. All I'm saying is: the thing that does not happen, but that everyone on the Internet seems to think happens all the time, is Monsanto seeds blowing onto some random field, and then Monsanto suing you when you sell the resulting crop. Everyone who has been sued by Monsanto has taken active steps to capitalize on their "unauthorized" seeds.