4 ms·
Problem 1: most (if not all) of the plants we eat have been intentionally improved upon at some point in their history. Many of the varieties that we consume
by II2II 6y ago
Problem 1: most (if not all) of the plants we eat have been intentionally improved upon at some point in their history. Many of the varieties that we consume are quite recent, so this is not a recent phenomena.
Problem 2: an EULA is a dangerous twist that goes beyond patent protection. At least patent protection is of limited and reasonable duration, while an EULA is of indefinite duration.
Problem 3: especially considering the scale of modern agriculture and the limited variety that reaches consumers, this is dangerous for food security.
- onetimemanytime 6y ago1. so what? does it mean that I can't make a living improving grape qualities? Even kitchen pots have improved during the last 500 years. So has everything. 2. EULA is useless, essentially it will be enforced if you plant them and start selling grafts 3. The state can take all it wants for food security, if needed.
- II2II 6y agoThere is nothing saying that you couldn't make a living off of improving grapes, though it would admittedly be more difficult. At the end of the day though, I am far more concerned about food security than the right of people to profit from IP. You can't simply wave the problem away by stating the state can take all they want. Many democratic states would be hesitant to do that and it would have far more grave long term consequences. If agriculture was more diverse, perhaps that wouldn't be a concern. The problem is the lack of diversity creates the potential to concentrate power over the food supply under the current model, never mind one with strong IP rights.