5 ms·

Patents for plants expire relatively fast, then the problem is to keep up seed production - code can be copied forever, seeds have to be 'made'. Costly especial

Patents for plants expire relatively fast, then the problem is to keep up seed production - code can be copied forever, seeds have to be 'made'. Costly especially if your plants' yield depends on hybrid vigor, which is lost in subsequent generations, in that case you have to recross the two parental lines to make more seeds. Having said that, there is the Open Source Seed Initiative: https://osseeds.org/ https://osseeds.org/ (you still have to buy the seeds since there is a cost associated with production and shipping) There are also special licenses for some GM plants, for example, if you're a seed company from a poor country you can get the license for golden rice (extra Vitamin A) for free, not the seeds themselves, you have to make those.

thefounder 9y ago
>> if you're a seed company from a poor country you can get the license for golden rice (extra Vitamin A) for free, not the seeds themselves, you have to make those. How convenient....what about not paying any license at all regardless of the "golden" seeds you produce?
- yorwba 9y ago
  Presumably the idea is to have seed companies who can afford the license pay for the R & D cost so that it can be subsidized for poorer countries.
  - thefounder 9y ago
    I see it more like enslaving poorer countries to always pay licenses(as much as they can). These poor countries will always be at the mercy of some corporations. I don't see how they could ever develop their own seeds if the licensors increase the license price. See the "pharma bro" case (Martin Shkreli). I bet the U.S. gov wouldn't be that upset if the customers were from a shwhole country.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      How do free licenses enslave poor countries to always pay licenses?
      - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
        "the first hit is always free" Who decides when they need to start paying and what thought process do they apply to that decision? Profit maximisation probably involves putting alternatives out of business first. Similar to how Microsoft and Adobe we're okay with piracy in developing nations on the basis it would kill competition and they'd get paid later.
      - manicdee 9y ago
        Are the free licences perpetual or time limited? Is Darth Vader going to alter the deal further?
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    No, the idea is to expand the rent-seeking on copyrights and patents to staple foods.
    - yorwba 9y ago
      AFAIK, Golden Rice is a spin-off from university research and not owned by the big agriculture companies, so I think you are wrong in at least this instance. It's really no different from Qt being available both under the GPL and a less restrictive commercial license. Sure, gene patents and proprietary software are both manifest evil, but not everyone working within the existing framework is acting maliciously.
      - jacquesm 9y ago
        That's an exceptional situation in that they determined that they weren't going to be making money on it so they instead turned it in to a pro-GMO PR exercise. Read more on this here: http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who4_IP.php http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who4_IP.php So your claims about ownership appear to be false, and you still need a license.
        yorwba 9y ago
        I'm not sure about the "not making money" -> "use it as PR" causality. From that website, it reads like the researchers retained the right to make it available to poorer countries when they sold the patent, i.e. before Syngenta found that they wouldn't be making money with it. So I don't think it is fair to accuse them (the researchers) of only doing it for the PR.
        makomk 9y ago
        As well as the researchers' patent, actually growing golden rice requires licences for a thicket of patents on the underlying technology from dozens of companies (and it required some wrangling to even get permission to license that patent for free since the government grants they got would usually require commercial licensing). They managed to get free licenses to those as, basically, a PR exercise - it was worth it to all those companies to do it because it let them spin opponents of their profitable products as monsters who wanted third world people to suffer. The licenses also had conditions that made them basically unusable, so if someone did miraculously manage to make golden rice viable they didn't have to worry about losing out on their cut.
AHatLikeThat 9y ago
You still have to buy the seeds; however, once you do they belong to you to plant, create your own stockpile, share with others, crossbreed or use selective methods to create a better strain for your specific environment/needs... The threat of GMO is not in direct health effects, it's in corporate control of the food chain.
- daveFNbuck 9y ago
  Isn't that threat independent of how the seeds are developed? Corporations have controlled the food chain in the US for a lot longer than GM techniques have been around.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    There's a lot more centralization of ownership in farming than there used to be - and the way in which you obtain your seed is one of the biggest examples of that.
    - daveFNbuck 9y ago
      What does that have to do with GM? Doesn't this business model for seeds predate GM crops?
      - TallGuyShort 9y ago
        No the business model is very different now in some key ways. First, I'm not aware of any seed manufacturers having any motivation or ability to prevent the genetics in your seed from spreading before. They didn't license what you could and couldn't do with descendants of your crop. They were suppliers of materials (seeds), not licensors of the genetic code they contain. It's quite analagous to buying and owning a BSD CD with freedom to do what you want with minor conditions vs buying a license to possess a music CD and listen to the music under certain conditions. Second, the higher barrier to entry and how recently GM became a factor (and how significant the advantages are, especially the short-term ones) has essentially allowed a monopoly to form, and there's even less competition than there used to be.
makomk 9y ago
Unfortunately, the usefulness of both herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GMO crops also expires relatively fast as weeds and insects develop resistance.
- a_bonobo 9y ago
  But you can slow down that process by crop rotation, for example in canola there are many known resistance genes for blackleg (fungus) infections. Farmers are in many places advised to rotate their canolas to different resistance genes so the fungus cannot build up resistance so quickly See for example https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-supplements/ground-cover-issue-116-foliar-fungal-diseases-of-pulses-and-oilseeds/rotate-resistant-varieties-to-outflank-blackleg https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/g... I cannot find any data where that particular fungus has gained and then subsequently lost its resistance to a plant resistance gene, but it wouldn't be impossible as long as the particular plant variety is not sown

thefounder 9y ago

>> if you're a seed company from a poor country you can get the license for golden rice (extra Vitamin A) for free, not the seeds themselves, you have to make those. How convenient....what about not paying any license at all regardless of the "golden" seeds you produce?

yorwba 9y ago
Presumably the idea is to have seed companies who can afford the license pay for the R & D cost so that it can be subsidized for poorer countries.
- thefounder 9y ago
  I see it more like enslaving poorer countries to always pay licenses(as much as they can). These poor countries will always be at the mercy of some corporations. I don't see how they could ever develop their own seeds if the licensors increase the license price. See the "pharma bro" case (Martin Shkreli). I bet the U.S. gov wouldn't be that upset if the customers were from a shwhole country.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    How do free licenses enslave poor countries to always pay licenses?
    - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
      "the first hit is always free" Who decides when they need to start paying and what thought process do they apply to that decision? Profit maximisation probably involves putting alternatives out of business first. Similar to how Microsoft and Adobe we're okay with piracy in developing nations on the basis it would kill competition and they'd get paid later.
    - manicdee 9y ago
      Are the free licences perpetual or time limited? Is Darth Vader going to alter the deal further?
- jacquesm 9y ago
  No, the idea is to expand the rent-seeking on copyrights and patents to staple foods.
  - yorwba 9y ago
    AFAIK, Golden Rice is a spin-off from university research and not owned by the big agriculture companies, so I think you are wrong in at least this instance. It's really no different from Qt being available both under the GPL and a less restrictive commercial license. Sure, gene patents and proprietary software are both manifest evil, but not everyone working within the existing framework is acting maliciously.
    - jacquesm 9y ago
      That's an exceptional situation in that they determined that they weren't going to be making money on it so they instead turned it in to a pro-GMO PR exercise. Read more on this here: http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who4_IP.php http://www.goldenrice.org/Content1-Who/who4_IP.php So your claims about ownership appear to be false, and you still need a license.
      - yorwba 9y ago
        I'm not sure about the "not making money" -> "use it as PR" causality. From that website, it reads like the researchers retained the right to make it available to poorer countries when they sold the patent, i.e. before Syngenta found that they wouldn't be making money with it. So I don't think it is fair to accuse them (the researchers) of only doing it for the PR.
        makomk 9y ago
        As well as the researchers' patent, actually growing golden rice requires licences for a thicket of patents on the underlying technology from dozens of companies (and it required some wrangling to even get permission to license that patent for free since the government grants they got would usually require commercial licensing). They managed to get free licenses to those as, basically, a PR exercise - it was worth it to all those companies to do it because it let them spin opponents of their profitable products as monsters who wanted third world people to suffer. The licenses also had conditions that made them basically unusable, so if someone did miraculously manage to make golden rice viable they didn't have to worry about losing out on their cut.

AHatLikeThat 9y ago

You still have to buy the seeds; however, once you do they belong to you to plant, create your own stockpile, share with others, crossbreed or use selective methods to create a better strain for your specific environment/needs... The threat of GMO is not in direct health effects, it's in corporate control of the food chain.

daveFNbuck 9y ago
Isn't that threat independent of how the seeds are developed? Corporations have controlled the food chain in the US for a lot longer than GM techniques have been around.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  There's a lot more centralization of ownership in farming than there used to be - and the way in which you obtain your seed is one of the biggest examples of that.
  - daveFNbuck 9y ago
    What does that have to do with GM? Doesn't this business model for seeds predate GM crops?
    - TallGuyShort 9y ago
      No the business model is very different now in some key ways. First, I'm not aware of any seed manufacturers having any motivation or ability to prevent the genetics in your seed from spreading before. They didn't license what you could and couldn't do with descendants of your crop. They were suppliers of materials (seeds), not licensors of the genetic code they contain. It's quite analagous to buying and owning a BSD CD with freedom to do what you want with minor conditions vs buying a license to possess a music CD and listen to the music under certain conditions. Second, the higher barrier to entry and how recently GM became a factor (and how significant the advantages are, especially the short-term ones) has essentially allowed a monopoly to form, and there's even less competition than there used to be.

makomk 9y ago

Unfortunately, the usefulness of both herbicide-tolerant and insect-resistant GMO crops also expires relatively fast as weeds and insects develop resistance.

a_bonobo 9y ago
But you can slow down that process by crop rotation, for example in canola there are many known resistance genes for blackleg (fungus) infections. Farmers are in many places advised to rotate their canolas to different resistance genes so the fungus cannot build up resistance so quickly See for example https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-supplements/ground-cover-issue-116-foliar-fungal-diseases-of-pulses-and-oilseeds/rotate-resistant-varieties-to-outflank-blackleg https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/g... I cannot find any data where that particular fungus has gained and then subsequently lost its resistance to a plant resistance gene, but it wouldn't be impossible as long as the particular plant variety is not sown