3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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.