3 ms·

> Anybody who buys the grape and tries to propagate it. I disagree. I just don't understand how those words magically enter the recipient into an agreement. T

> Anybody who buys the grape and tries to propagate it. I disagree. I just don't understand how those words magically enter the recipient into an agreement. There are of course other restrictions like patents that apply to everyone regardless of random text put on some plastic, but that's another thing.

coldpie 6y ago
No, protected plant varieties is a thing. It's different from patents, but roughly the same idea. https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection
- CogitoCogito 6y ago
  > No, protected plant varieties is a thing. It's different from patents, but roughly the same idea. https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection Thank you for the information, I'd never heard of this. But I also don't see how this contradicts me.
  - vonmoltke 6y ago
    It's not an agreement, and both the Vice article and original Tweet are wrong to call it one. It's a statement of the law covering protected plant varieties (a.k.a plant patents). That's the contradiction.
    - CogitoCogito 6y ago
      > It's not an agreement, and both the Vice article and original Tweet are wrong to call it one. It's a statement of the law covering protected plant varieties (a.k.a plant patents). That's the contradiction. How does this contradict me? The original text called it an agreement, _not_ me. My point is that it's _not_ an agreement. This is what's printed on the bag: > The recipient of the produce contained in this package agrees not to propagate or reproduce any portion of the produce, including "but not limited to" seeds, stems, tissue, and fruit. In this whole thread I'd posited that this does not mean there is any agreement between the end recipient and the producer. Now you say this contradicts me, but it sounds like you actually _agree_ with me. I also wrote this a couple posts up: > There are of course other restrictions like patents that apply to everyone regardless of random text put on some plastic, but that's another thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24800561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24800561 I honestly don't understand your point.
      - vonmoltke 6y ago
        I see where I got confused. I missed that the original packaging text used the word "agree"; I thought it was merely a statement of patent restrictions and not an attempt to create an agreement. My opinion was based on there never being an attempt to create an agreement in the first place combined with your statement about "other restrictions". It makes sense now, and we do agree on this.
  - coldpie 6y ago
    You're right, I misread your post. I don't think anyone's defending the language on the bag, just explaining what it is trying (very poorly) to convey.
kube-system 6y ago
> I just don't understand how those words magically enter the recipient into an agreement. There are a lot of people and organizations who make legal statements or disclaimers that have inaccurate or even zero meaning. Sometimes, those who are making these statements are less concerned about being legally correct, and more concerned about influencing those who read the statement. In other cases, some people have misconceptions about what the law requires of them for protection, and make unnecessary disclaimers. People love to do this with copyright.

coldpie 6y ago

No, protected plant varieties is a thing. It's different from patents, but roughly the same idea. https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection

CogitoCogito 6y ago
> No, protected plant varieties is a thing. It's different from patents, but roughly the same idea. https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/plant-variety-protection Thank you for the information, I'd never heard of this. But I also don't see how this contradicts me.
- vonmoltke 6y ago
  It's not an agreement, and both the Vice article and original Tweet are wrong to call it one. It's a statement of the law covering protected plant varieties (a.k.a plant patents). That's the contradiction.
  - CogitoCogito 6y ago
    > It's not an agreement, and both the Vice article and original Tweet are wrong to call it one. It's a statement of the law covering protected plant varieties (a.k.a plant patents). That's the contradiction. How does this contradict me? The original text called it an agreement, _not_ me. My point is that it's _not_ an agreement. This is what's printed on the bag: > The recipient of the produce contained in this package agrees not to propagate or reproduce any portion of the produce, including "but not limited to" seeds, stems, tissue, and fruit. In this whole thread I'd posited that this does not mean there is any agreement between the end recipient and the producer. Now you say this contradicts me, but it sounds like you actually _agree_ with me. I also wrote this a couple posts up: > There are of course other restrictions like patents that apply to everyone regardless of random text put on some plastic, but that's another thing. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24800561 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24800561 I honestly don't understand your point.
    - vonmoltke 6y ago
      I see where I got confused. I missed that the original packaging text used the word "agree"; I thought it was merely a statement of patent restrictions and not an attempt to create an agreement. My opinion was based on there never being an attempt to create an agreement in the first place combined with your statement about "other restrictions". It makes sense now, and we do agree on this.
- coldpie 6y ago
  You're right, I misread your post. I don't think anyone's defending the language on the bag, just explaining what it is trying (very poorly) to convey.

kube-system 6y ago

> I just don't understand how those words magically enter the recipient into an agreement. There are a lot of people and organizations who make legal statements or disclaimers that have inaccurate or even zero meaning. Sometimes, those who are making these statements are less concerned about being legally correct, and more concerned about influencing those who read the statement. In other cases, some people have misconceptions about what the law requires of them for protection, and make unnecessary disclaimers. People love to do this with copyright.