3 ms·
This is true if we make all sorts of ideal case assumptions. Patents should expire but don't always do due to all sorts of shenanigans between corporations and
by jeegsy 7y ago
This is true if we make all sorts of ideal case assumptions. Patents should expire but don't always do due to all sorts of shenanigans between corporations and govt. In the end I prefer corporations innovating in "optional" items like iphones, tvs and hamburgers. We however need to take a communal interest in the essential stuff. I mean, a lot of damage could be done to societies before patents expire.
- weberc2 7y ago> Patents should expire but don't always do due to all sorts of shenanigans between corporations and govt. I'm not familiar with this. Genuinely didn't know it was an issue. > We however need to take a communal interest in the essential stuff. Yeah, I'm 100% on board so far. > I mean, a lot of damage could be done to societies before patents expire. This is where you lose me. What's the threat model? Monsanto releases a food product that is so good that they capture the entire food market in some way that anti-trust regulators aren't able to regulate and then jack up the price, all before the patent expires? Presumably yours isn't a food safety concern because you're advocating for lowering the bar to GMO technology. This sentence sounds like FUD; help me understand why I'm mistaken.
- jeegsy 7y agoYou are correct in that my concerns are not primarily food safety although still a concern. I am more interested in food security. When whole countries are in the thrall of companies like Bayer/Monsanto because their farmers have become dependent on these companies' seeds partly due to 'well-meaning' initiatives like golden rice can feed millions, thats where i say 'hol up'