4 ms·

Exclusivity.

• Tichy 16y ago
  I still don't understand? Doesn't the Ehtopian government automatically have exclusivity on Ethopian beans?
  • notahacker 16y ago
    By preventing Starbucks from ever having the capability to sell "Sidamo" beans from Kenya or Vietnam, it strengthens the bargaining position of the farmers and allows the Ethiopian government to devise more creative means to control the sale of beans than simple price or export controls.
    • hugh3 16y ago
      But then there's this bit: Starbucks told Ethiopia that geographic certification, which certifies that a product is made in a certain place, was more appropriate. But, Ethiopia knew that certification would accomplish little, since Starbucks could still sell Ethiopian beans, as long as they were grown in the advertised region. which seems to imply that the Ethiopian Government wouldn't have been happy with geographic certification which would nonetheless have prevented Starbucks (or anyone else) from selling "Sidamo" beans which weren't grown in the Sidamo region of Ethiopia. It sounds like the Ethiopian Government wants a trademark on "Sidamo" so that it can step in between Sidama coffee farmers and Western coffee buyers in order to demand a cut. That doesn't sound like "score one for the little guy" at all, it sounds like "little guy gets screwed by government". But the story is written confusingly, so I may be missing something.
    • Tichy 16y ago
      If I was Starbucks I would just rebrand the beans. For example, they could be called after a tribe who lives in the region, or after a mountain that the beans grow on, or whatever. It's not as if any of their customers are ever going to search "Sidamo" on the map.