4 ms·

I think the expert they talked to had a good take. A plant reproducing is something the plant does. It's unclear whether you can be required by law to prevent

I think the expert they talked to had a good take. A plant reproducing is something the plant does. It's unclear whether you can be required by law to prevent it from doing its thing. (Well, it's actually not unclear; the supreme court says the law has that power. The law should probably be changed, though.) It would be more interesting with something with a bit more free will. Someone will eventually patent a dog breed. A boy dog will meet a girl dog and they'll have dog babies. Do you put the dog in prison for patent infringement? Do you kill the babies? All I can say is that nobody really cares about soybeans or grapes, but it will be a mess when the result is cute and fluffy.

gambiting 6y ago
>> A boy dog will meet a girl dog and they'll have dog babies. Do you put the dog in prison for patent infringement? Do you kill the babies? It's the same as if your dog attacks someone - even if it's "in their breed" it doesn't matter, you as the owner are responsible for its actions. If the dog is particularly aggressive it might be destroyed though.
- krageon 6y ago
  An attack is violent and definitely bad for society. A dog making puppies is just a dog making puppies, nobody loses anything, nobody is hurt.
  - Thiez 6y ago
    The hypothetical company holding the patent will argue that they are suffering financial damage, so they are losing something. I think the dogs are a bit of a red herring here, drug patents are generally accepted by most of society, and it's patenting a natural process that happens when you throw the correct chemicals together under the correct circumstances. The "it's just chemicals reacting, nobody loses anything, nobody is hurt" argument will not get you anywhere.
    - setr 6y ago
      One major difference is your involvement in creating the process: for drugs, you have clear intent to produce it. For the dog example, where you haven't encouraged the reproduction, by intending nothing at all, you've violated the patent
      - Thiez 6y ago
        One might argue that by putting a male and a female dog together, both of them fertile, there is a clear intent for them to (eventually) reproduce. When the puppies are born you can throw your hands up in the air and pretend to be surprised, but I suspect that the judge will know how babies are made, and be very hard to convince that you did not.
        Teever 6y ago
        Dude, dogs hump inanimate objects. Sooner or later a pair of patented dogs will breed without any human being involved. What then?
        Thiez 6y ago
        They also bite inanimate objects, but as an owner you are still liable when they bite another dog or person. At the end of the day it's up to the judge to decide what a reasonable punishment should be, which may be based on the reasonable precautions that you did or did not take. If you can't accept that then just don't own an un-neutered patented dog. I'm not sure why you find this so complicated or unreasonable. And contrary to copyright, patents actually expire in a reasonable amount of time.
    - krageon 6y ago
      "financial damage" to a company isn't bad societally, that's something lawyers yell about to each other. By and large nobody suffers.
  - h2odragon 6y ago
    I have seen more than one lawsuit involving French Bulldogs that were bred by the wrong dogs. The Bulldogs owners sued because a litter from French Bulldogs is C-section and heavy investment in pups that can sell for $10k each.
kube-system 6y ago
> A plant reproducing is something the plant does. This is not necessarily the case for a quite large number of genetically modified organisms. Many do not propagate without human intervention, as I believe is also the case with seedless grapes.
Igelau 6y ago
Dog breeds are different from produce varietals. With produce they get consistently the same fruit with grafting and such. The genome is locked in place. Animal breeds are more subjective. There isn't really an analogous way to pin one down a create consistent copies. If the hypothetical dog company could do this kind of cloning, they would probably spare themselves the hassle by producing only sterilized clones.
dariusj18 6y ago
It is already a thing for breeders to require you to sign a contract to prevent you from allowing a puppy you are buying form breeding in the future.
- jiveturkey 6y ago
  unenforceable, of course. what they can and do do, though, is refuse to certify the parentage. and other breeders, with which you would want to breed for purpose of heritage, will refuse you.
- m463 6y ago
  I was just hearing about a spay/neuter contract from someone I know buying a dog. I think I recall they make you pay a deposit, which is refunded when the dog is "fixed".

gambiting 6y ago

>> A boy dog will meet a girl dog and they'll have dog babies. Do you put the dog in prison for patent infringement? Do you kill the babies? It's the same as if your dog attacks someone - even if it's "in their breed" it doesn't matter, you as the owner are responsible for its actions. If the dog is particularly aggressive it might be destroyed though.

krageon 6y ago
An attack is violent and definitely bad for society. A dog making puppies is just a dog making puppies, nobody loses anything, nobody is hurt.
- Thiez 6y ago
  The hypothetical company holding the patent will argue that they are suffering financial damage, so they are losing something. I think the dogs are a bit of a red herring here, drug patents are generally accepted by most of society, and it's patenting a natural process that happens when you throw the correct chemicals together under the correct circumstances. The "it's just chemicals reacting, nobody loses anything, nobody is hurt" argument will not get you anywhere.
  - setr 6y ago
    One major difference is your involvement in creating the process: for drugs, you have clear intent to produce it. For the dog example, where you haven't encouraged the reproduction, by intending nothing at all, you've violated the patent
    - Thiez 6y ago
      One might argue that by putting a male and a female dog together, both of them fertile, there is a clear intent for them to (eventually) reproduce. When the puppies are born you can throw your hands up in the air and pretend to be surprised, but I suspect that the judge will know how babies are made, and be very hard to convince that you did not.
      - Teever 6y ago
        Dude, dogs hump inanimate objects. Sooner or later a pair of patented dogs will breed without any human being involved. What then?
        Thiez 6y ago
        They also bite inanimate objects, but as an owner you are still liable when they bite another dog or person. At the end of the day it's up to the judge to decide what a reasonable punishment should be, which may be based on the reasonable precautions that you did or did not take. If you can't accept that then just don't own an un-neutered patented dog. I'm not sure why you find this so complicated or unreasonable. And contrary to copyright, patents actually expire in a reasonable amount of time.
  - krageon 6y ago
    "financial damage" to a company isn't bad societally, that's something lawyers yell about to each other. By and large nobody suffers.
- h2odragon 6y ago
  I have seen more than one lawsuit involving French Bulldogs that were bred by the wrong dogs. The Bulldogs owners sued because a litter from French Bulldogs is C-section and heavy investment in pups that can sell for $10k each.

kube-system 6y ago

> A plant reproducing is something the plant does. This is not necessarily the case for a quite large number of genetically modified organisms. Many do not propagate without human intervention, as I believe is also the case with seedless grapes.

Igelau 6y ago

Dog breeds are different from produce varietals. With produce they get consistently the same fruit with grafting and such. The genome is locked in place. Animal breeds are more subjective. There isn't really an analogous way to pin one down a create consistent copies. If the hypothetical dog company could do this kind of cloning, they would probably spare themselves the hassle by producing only sterilized clones.

dariusj18 6y ago

It is already a thing for breeders to require you to sign a contract to prevent you from allowing a puppy you are buying form breeding in the future.

jiveturkey 6y ago
unenforceable, of course. what they can and do do, though, is refuse to certify the parentage. and other breeders, with which you would want to breed for purpose of heritage, will refuse you.
m463 6y ago
I was just hearing about a spay/neuter contract from someone I know buying a dog. I think I recall they make you pay a deposit, which is refunded when the dog is "fixed".