5 ms·

It would seem more reasonable to limit commercial activities (i.e. resale) than the rights of individuals to grow food.

gruez 6y ago
>than the rights of individuals to grow food. Is it really a tragedy that your average home gardener can't grow cotton candy grapes after he bought some from the grocery store? It's already pretty hard to do that, given that many (most?) of the commercial varieties are hybrids, so you can't really reuse the seeds to begin with.
- ddingus 6y ago
  If it is that hard, why is any restriction needed?
  - gruez 6y ago
    Because the general principle of patents is that the owner is granted a monopoly on its use. You can add in exceptions, but it turns into a can of worms. eg. should "home" users be able to bypass patent laws in any product? what counts as "home" users? can other companies abuse this to bypass the patent system entirely? eg. you invent a widget, you patent it so competitors can't rip you off, but they sell widget kits: parts that allow a home user to assemble their own widget, exploiting the home use exemption. should that be allowed?
    - ddingus 6y ago
      Well, in a way, home users do violate patents now. It is not like anyone is looking all that hard. Seeing an EULA on food doesn't seem like it will end well. We are already struggling with who owns something. Software, in many cases results in what is essentially a rental without the advantages inherent in rentals, and lots of downsides. Right to repair is a matter of growing importance. Now food? Frankly, I would much prefer do it at home get a broad exemption for self sufficiency reasons, if nothing else. Arguably, nobody needs this food. I won't have anything to do with it. Fine. But the EULA will spread. Clearly someone has thought it time to maximize revenue in this way, and if they are successful, more will follow.
- kube-system 6y ago
  It is very rare that anyone would file suit, or even be aware of, a home gardener breaking this patent for personal use, no? Pretty sure many countries even require commercial use to even be considered patent infringement.
- Broken_Hippo 6y ago
  In a vague sense, no. Not really, as long as they do neither sell grapes/plants nor give away new plants and as long as they either destroy the plant before selling the home or alert the next homeowners that the grapes have restricted use. (grape plants live more than a year). No one will check, either, so long as use is restrained, and you aren't telling other folks how to do it with those particular grapes. But on a larger scale than home use? Selling? Making jams or juices? It isn't really a tragedy, but someone did the work to develop the grapes, and I do think they should be rewarded for their labor.

>than the rights of individuals to grow food. Is it really a tragedy that your average home gardener can't grow cotton candy grapes after he bought some from the grocery store? It's already pretty hard to do that, given that many (most?) of the commercial varieties are hybrids, so you can't really reuse the seeds to begin with.

ddingus 6y ago
If it is that hard, why is any restriction needed?
- gruez 6y ago
  Because the general principle of patents is that the owner is granted a monopoly on its use. You can add in exceptions, but it turns into a can of worms. eg. should "home" users be able to bypass patent laws in any product? what counts as "home" users? can other companies abuse this to bypass the patent system entirely? eg. you invent a widget, you patent it so competitors can't rip you off, but they sell widget kits: parts that allow a home user to assemble their own widget, exploiting the home use exemption. should that be allowed?
  - ddingus 6y ago
    Well, in a way, home users do violate patents now. It is not like anyone is looking all that hard. Seeing an EULA on food doesn't seem like it will end well. We are already struggling with who owns something. Software, in many cases results in what is essentially a rental without the advantages inherent in rentals, and lots of downsides. Right to repair is a matter of growing importance. Now food? Frankly, I would much prefer do it at home get a broad exemption for self sufficiency reasons, if nothing else. Arguably, nobody needs this food. I won't have anything to do with it. Fine. But the EULA will spread. Clearly someone has thought it time to maximize revenue in this way, and if they are successful, more will follow.
kube-system 6y ago
It is very rare that anyone would file suit, or even be aware of, a home gardener breaking this patent for personal use, no? Pretty sure many countries even require commercial use to even be considered patent infringement.
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
In a vague sense, no. Not really, as long as they do neither sell grapes/plants nor give away new plants and as long as they either destroy the plant before selling the home or alert the next homeowners that the grapes have restricted use. (grape plants live more than a year). No one will check, either, so long as use is restrained, and you aren't telling other folks how to do it with those particular grapes. But on a larger scale than home use? Selling? Making jams or juices? It isn't really a tragedy, but someone did the work to develop the grapes, and I do think they should be rewarded for their labor.