4 ms·

What if you get sued by the IP owners for growing 'their' crops?

stickfigure 7y ago
This question is FUD. You are probably referring to Bowman v Monsanto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co. Bowman deliberately bought seeds from a third party that contained Monsanto's patented genes and claimed that because a third party was involved, the patent did not apply. This has nothing to do with accidental contamination.
- knolax 7y ago
  They still tried to patent an organism.
  - dnautics 7y ago
    The authority to patent plants is explicitly granted in the patent legislation from the 19th century.
    - knolax 7y ago
      The authority to own slaves was also explicitly granted in the 19th century.
  - sampo 7y ago
    > They still tried to patent an organism. There is no discussing these topics with people who have quasi-religious beliefs. Red Delicious apples have been patented 42 times along the road, doesn't make them any less edible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutation...
    - benj111 7y ago
      Why is it a quasi-religious belief, to be against the patenting of organisms? Organisms do the things themselves, without the hand of man, that seems a reasonable argument against granting patents by itself. You may not agree with the argument, but it isn't quasi-religious.
      - sampo 7y ago
        Someone spends in R&D for making a better aspirin, they can profit by patenting it. Someone spends in R&D for making a better tomato, you oppose them patenting it? Why do you want patents to protect the ability to profit from R&D investments in one industry, but not in another? Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
        anfilt 7y ago
        Most these genes or modifications are genes from other organisms. It's not like they choose A-T and G-C one by one creating a set of genes whole cloth. They copy something else that already exist. I don't call that an invention. So I don't understand why you can patent genes you find in other organisms. It's not your invention. I don't think it really has anything to do with it being alive. Copying something that exists is not an invention.
        frozenport 7y ago
        Using things that already exist in a new application is perfectly valid subject matter. You could easily say that using these genes is a process to enhance crop yield.
        benj111 7y ago
        Charging money for some arbitrary work isn't some natural right, granting the ability to patent something isn't some natural right. Maths isn't patentable, for a long time it wasn't obvious that computer programs were either. Patents are a construct to encourage R & D, therefore disagreeing about the patentability of something isn't quasi religious. Second plants breed, by themselves. Does someone deserve to patent a plant they just found growing in their garden? What happens if someone does patent a better tomato, and then a tomato naturally does the same thing itself? Do you sue the tomato plant? What about the non obviousness test? If it's so easy a tomato can do it... So yes plant breeding is different to other industries. Patents control how people reproduce your things, plants reproduce by themselves, and the reproductive parts are why we buy 90% of plants for. "viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms." https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/virus.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/virus.htm
- benj111 7y ago
  It isn't FUD, its a small leap. Did you read your link? It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Everyone in the chain becomes implicated. If I accidentally use a patented algorithm, that isn't a defense, and it isn't in this case. What happens if these farmers keep seed aside for next year? They're intentionally planting gm wheat. Worse, what if they sell their crop? What would have happened 50 years ago if a farmer had sprayed weed killer and discovered a resistant wheat? They'd be jumping up and down because they'd be rich, now they have to worry about getting sued.
  - sampo 7y ago
    > It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Which patents are exhausted after first sale, then?
    - benj111 7y ago
      They aren't. Which is why it isn't FUD.
    - bitreality 7y ago
      This question you're posing assumes that all patents and products are created equal. There is a difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Living things replicate through entirely natural processes. It is one of the most basic truths of life. Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year. Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
      - sampo 7y ago
        > Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds [...] is morally wrong Why is it morally wrong? Crop plant patents have been part of US legislation from 1930, or from 1970. Depending on the type of crop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...

This question is FUD. You are probably referring to Bowman v Monsanto: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co. Bowman deliberately bought seeds from a third party that contained Monsanto's patented genes and claimed that because a third party was involved, the patent did not apply. This has nothing to do with accidental contamination.

knolax 7y ago
They still tried to patent an organism.
- dnautics 7y ago
  The authority to patent plants is explicitly granted in the patent legislation from the 19th century.
  - knolax 7y ago
    The authority to own slaves was also explicitly granted in the 19th century.
- sampo 7y ago
  > They still tried to patent an organism. There is no discussing these topics with people who have quasi-religious beliefs. Red Delicious apples have been patented 42 times along the road, doesn't make them any less edible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious#Sports_(mutation...
  - benj111 7y ago
    Why is it a quasi-religious belief, to be against the patenting of organisms? Organisms do the things themselves, without the hand of man, that seems a reasonable argument against granting patents by itself. You may not agree with the argument, but it isn't quasi-religious.
    - sampo 7y ago
      Someone spends in R&D for making a better aspirin, they can profit by patenting it. Someone spends in R&D for making a better tomato, you oppose them patenting it? Why do you want patents to protect the ability to profit from R&D investments in one industry, but not in another? Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
      - anfilt 7y ago
        Most these genes or modifications are genes from other organisms. It's not like they choose A-T and G-C one by one creating a set of genes whole cloth. They copy something else that already exist. I don't call that an invention. So I don't understand why you can patent genes you find in other organisms. It's not your invention. I don't think it really has anything to do with it being alive. Copying something that exists is not an invention.
        frozenport 7y ago
        Using things that already exist in a new application is perfectly valid subject matter. You could easily say that using these genes is a process to enhance crop yield.
      - benj111 7y ago
        Charging money for some arbitrary work isn't some natural right, granting the ability to patent something isn't some natural right. Maths isn't patentable, for a long time it wasn't obvious that computer programs were either. Patents are a construct to encourage R & D, therefore disagreeing about the patentability of something isn't quasi religious. Second plants breed, by themselves. Does someone deserve to patent a plant they just found growing in their garden? What happens if someone does patent a better tomato, and then a tomato naturally does the same thing itself? Do you sue the tomato plant? What about the non obviousness test? If it's so easy a tomato can do it... So yes plant breeding is different to other industries. Patents control how people reproduce your things, plants reproduce by themselves, and the reproductive parts are why we buy 90% of plants for. "viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms." https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/virus.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/virus.htm
benj111 7y ago
It isn't FUD, its a small leap. Did you read your link? It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Everyone in the chain becomes implicated. If I accidentally use a patented algorithm, that isn't a defense, and it isn't in this case. What happens if these farmers keep seed aside for next year? They're intentionally planting gm wheat. Worse, what if they sell their crop? What would have happened 50 years ago if a farmer had sprayed weed killer and discovered a resistant wheat? They'd be jumping up and down because they'd be rich, now they have to worry about getting sued.
- sampo 7y ago
  > It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Which patents are exhausted after first sale, then?
  - benj111 7y ago
    They aren't. Which is why it isn't FUD.
  - bitreality 7y ago
    This question you're posing assumes that all patents and products are created equal. There is a difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Living things replicate through entirely natural processes. It is one of the most basic truths of life. Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year. Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
    - sampo 7y ago
      > Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds [...] is morally wrong Why is it morally wrong? Crop plant patents have been part of US legislation from 1930, or from 1970. Depending on the type of crop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...