4 ms·

>“The recipient of the produce contained in this package agrees not to propagate or reproduce any portion of this produce, including ‘but not limited to’ seeds,

>“The recipient of the produce contained in this package agrees not to propagate or reproduce any portion of this produce, including ‘but not limited to’ seeds, stems, tissue, and fruit." Food, crop and patents on life in general are pure evil. That'a the ultimate in consumer culture right there. 'You have the right to consume the food we produce for you, but we are the only ones who may produce it.' That's legislating control over life itself to companies and corporations. How can anyone possibly believe it's reasonable that someone could be punished because they popped some seeds into the ground and tried to grow some fruit? Agriculture has been the cornerstone of human society for thousands of years. What gives somw corporation the right to tell people they canmt practice one of the oldest human trades in existence?

gruez 6y ago
>Food, crop and patents on life in general are pure evil. That'a the ultimate in consumer culture right there. Is there a reason why it's any more evil than patents on machinery or other industrial processes? Is it just because "life is sacred"? It's only plants and livestock. I'd be much more concerned if it extended to humans, but we're not at that point yet. >'You have the right to consumer the food we produce for you, but we are the only ones who may produce it.' >That's legislating control over life itself to companies and corporations. >Agriculture has been the cornerstone of human society for thousands of years. What gives somw corporation the right to tell people they canmt practice one of the oldest human trades in existence? So? You can still grow grapes, just not the specially engineered/bred ones. Also, it's limited to 20 years, so you can grow all the cotton candy grapes you want two decades from now.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Or patents on live saving medication? You can always buy someone else's grape, but sometimes there's only one cancer med.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    There are zero cancer meds if humans do not dedicate resources to developing them. Right now we incentivize allocation of those resources under the promise that the successful development of a drug results in a financial reward. The change you are suggesting is not just a matter of patents but a broader conversation about economic systems.
    - oehpr 6y ago
      Agreed. This argument about DRM and software rights and redistribution finds its roots in the failure of markets to distribute products that have infinite supply once they are created. Call it an "Idea Product". Information can only be duplicated, not moved. It can only be shared, not taken. And since this feature means that "Idea Products" aren't scarce, how to you price it? The correct price is 0, just looking at it from first principles. But we don't like that because then these "idea products" have no incentive to get made, so we pretend like supplies are limited, we limit them with patents, we limit them with DRM, we limit them with laws, pretend it's scarce so the market can price it. To many, this is an acceptable result. Buuuut... must we use a market for absolutely everything? Even if it's clearly broken in this use case and we're just pretending it works? The fact that we are pretending is fine, even when someone's life is on the line? I think we need something like bug bounties for information. I think we need a different kind of market for novelty.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        > Information can only be duplicated, not moved. It can only be shared, not taken. And since this feature means that "Idea Products" aren't scarce, how to you price it? Non sequitur. Ideas generated (/recorded, transformed, interpreted, etc) by human labor or human capital are scarce because human labor and human capital are scarce. > must we use a market for absolutely everything? Certainly not, the more applicable question is whether the change we make to the status quo results in better conditions for people. Every economic system has strengths and weaknesses. I don't disagree with the concept of a "bug bounty for information" but I'm struggling to come up with an idea of what that would look like in a way that is either more effective or different than patents.
  - pc86 6y ago
    You can always buy someone else's grape right now. Monsanto has already sued farmers that own land next to their farms because their patented pesticides drift into the other property. It's not at all unreasonable to envision a future where Monsanto (or some other company) tries to sue hundreds or thousands of farmers because one of their patented strands of some fruit has overtaken larger populations.
    - gruez 6y ago
      >Monsanto has already sued farmers that own land next to their farms because their patented pesticides drift into the other property I addressed this in an earlier thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24761841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24761841
    - rbecker 6y ago
      The sibling comment pointed out how that Monsanto lawsuit is mischaracterized. But focusing on that lawsuit misses the bigger point - they don't need to sue when they can drive farmers that don't buy from them to bankruptcy because their patented seeds enable slightly better margins. Doing any other kind of farming will simply become unviable.
- thescriptkiddie 6y ago
  Both can be true. Patents and "intellectual property" in general are evil, and expanding them to include genes is even more evil.
- s__s 6y ago
  > Is there a reason why it's any more evil than patents on machinery or other industrial processes? This is way outside my area of expertise, but my understanding is the patent would only prevent others from monetizing the patented technology for x period of time. That to me would be the key difference. In this case the claim is you can’t even grow the grapes in your own yard non-commercially. Is it illegal to infringe on a software patent even if you’re not distributing or profiting from the software you wrote?

gruez 6y ago

>Food, crop and patents on life in general are pure evil. That'a the ultimate in consumer culture right there. Is there a reason why it's any more evil than patents on machinery or other industrial processes? Is it just because "life is sacred"? It's only plants and livestock. I'd be much more concerned if it extended to humans, but we're not at that point yet. >'You have the right to consumer the food we produce for you, but we are the only ones who may produce it.' >That's legislating control over life itself to companies and corporations. >Agriculture has been the cornerstone of human society for thousands of years. What gives somw corporation the right to tell people they canmt practice one of the oldest human trades in existence? So? You can still grow grapes, just not the specially engineered/bred ones. Also, it's limited to 20 years, so you can grow all the cotton candy grapes you want two decades from now.

JamesBarney 6y ago
Or patents on live saving medication? You can always buy someone else's grape, but sometimes there's only one cancer med.
- kube-system 6y ago
  There are zero cancer meds if humans do not dedicate resources to developing them. Right now we incentivize allocation of those resources under the promise that the successful development of a drug results in a financial reward. The change you are suggesting is not just a matter of patents but a broader conversation about economic systems.
  - oehpr 6y ago
    Agreed. This argument about DRM and software rights and redistribution finds its roots in the failure of markets to distribute products that have infinite supply once they are created. Call it an "Idea Product". Information can only be duplicated, not moved. It can only be shared, not taken. And since this feature means that "Idea Products" aren't scarce, how to you price it? The correct price is 0, just looking at it from first principles. But we don't like that because then these "idea products" have no incentive to get made, so we pretend like supplies are limited, we limit them with patents, we limit them with DRM, we limit them with laws, pretend it's scarce so the market can price it. To many, this is an acceptable result. Buuuut... must we use a market for absolutely everything? Even if it's clearly broken in this use case and we're just pretending it works? The fact that we are pretending is fine, even when someone's life is on the line? I think we need something like bug bounties for information. I think we need a different kind of market for novelty.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      > Information can only be duplicated, not moved. It can only be shared, not taken. And since this feature means that "Idea Products" aren't scarce, how to you price it? Non sequitur. Ideas generated (/recorded, transformed, interpreted, etc) by human labor or human capital are scarce because human labor and human capital are scarce. > must we use a market for absolutely everything? Certainly not, the more applicable question is whether the change we make to the status quo results in better conditions for people. Every economic system has strengths and weaknesses. I don't disagree with the concept of a "bug bounty for information" but I'm struggling to come up with an idea of what that would look like in a way that is either more effective or different than patents.
- pc86 6y ago
  You can always buy someone else's grape right now. Monsanto has already sued farmers that own land next to their farms because their patented pesticides drift into the other property. It's not at all unreasonable to envision a future where Monsanto (or some other company) tries to sue hundreds or thousands of farmers because one of their patented strands of some fruit has overtaken larger populations.
  - gruez 6y ago
    >Monsanto has already sued farmers that own land next to their farms because their patented pesticides drift into the other property I addressed this in an earlier thread. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24761841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24761841
  - rbecker 6y ago
    The sibling comment pointed out how that Monsanto lawsuit is mischaracterized. But focusing on that lawsuit misses the bigger point - they don't need to sue when they can drive farmers that don't buy from them to bankruptcy because their patented seeds enable slightly better margins. Doing any other kind of farming will simply become unviable.
thescriptkiddie 6y ago
Both can be true. Patents and "intellectual property" in general are evil, and expanding them to include genes is even more evil.
s__s 6y ago
> Is there a reason why it's any more evil than patents on machinery or other industrial processes? This is way outside my area of expertise, but my understanding is the patent would only prevent others from monetizing the patented technology for x period of time. That to me would be the key difference. In this case the claim is you can’t even grow the grapes in your own yard non-commercially. Is it illegal to infringe on a software patent even if you’re not distributing or profiting from the software you wrote?