3 ms·

Mmm, I think your wording is clunky. Most of the crops that have patents have the patent on biotech trait. You can take a patent on a newly developed crop varie

Mmm, I think your wording is clunky. Most of the crops that have patents have the patent on biotech trait. You can take a patent on a newly developed crop variety, just like any other _novel_ invention--plants are no different. Also look up the Plant Variety Protection act (1974?), which also provides IP protection for crops. Without these, it's debatable how much innovation would occur in crops/plants.

AlexandrB 4y ago
Plants are different. Unlike most inventions plants will generally replicate themselves given the opportunity. The idea that you can sue for patent infringement when this happens naturally is absurd on its face, yet here we are: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...
- kickout 4y ago
  Nobody is patenting naturally occurring plants to my knowledge. Plant breeders make specific (usually) sexual crosses and sift through the progeny. Since plants have tremendous variation, many of the progeny are different than the parents. This is the basic form of one invention. Also your comment does not make sense. Some plants are can self-pollinate and are sufficiently inbred so that they 'replicate' themselves. Many plants are out-crossers. There also exists apomixis, asexual reproduction etc. Plant are also well suited to clonal propagation. 'Natural' is a completely vague term. Many of of the crops we have bred and that are IP protected (soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, rice) have effectively 0% chance of occurring 'naturally' in nature because they conditions for their fitness to be high enough likely would never exist.
  - AlexandrB 4y ago
    > Nobody is patenting naturally occurring plants to my knowledge. Plant breeders make specific (usually) sexual crosses and sift through the progeny. Since plants have tremendous variation, many of the progeny are different than the parents. This is the basic form of one invention. I never argued that they were patenting wild plants. But bred plants existed long before they could be patented. Indeed, Monsanto did not start with "wild" strains, but with strains developed over millenia of selective breeding. Plant patents are a form of "enclosure", where a domain that was previously freely available to the public (plant breeding) becomes commercialized and monetized so only a few entities can realistically improve on plant strains without risking a lawsuit. How this benefits innovation in the broad sense is beyond me. But it's certainly good for biotech companies' bottom line.
    - kickout 4y ago
      Go check out crop yields of your favorite crop for the past 20,30,50,100 years. Plant breeding and biotech have done _alot_ to reduce hunger and keep food prices low. Previous generations may have breed crops for pure survival reasons (they needed the best genetics to propagate themselves to ensure a plentiful harvest next year). I enjoy the debate around plant breeding, and there are issues with IP and how that IP is protected/enforced/interpreted. No different than many other industries. It would be difficult to adequately argue that IP in the ag sector has been not been net beneficial for most players (companies, consumers, farmers, etc.).
    - kickout 4y ago
      Private plant breeding corps have only been around for <100 years (many <40). Many research universities and non-profits (CGIGAR, IRRI, CIMMYT, etc.) do plant improvement and had a huge head start. Yet these innovations didn't arise from them. I would argue they've simply been outcompeted. The market has spoken in many cases. You can still buy non-IP seed, easily. But because there is no-IP, its hard to recoup money and reinvest it thus they stagnate.
  - jacobr1 4y ago
    Yes, these things get conflated. The one valid concern though, are adjacent fields - one using licensed, IP protected seed, and the other using a heirloom variety. There have been cases of cross-pollination where the non-IP-purchasing heirloom user is accused of using seeds by evidence of the resulting cross-pollinated results. It isn't clear to me if this a just a fear or something that has happened (the lawsuits, certainly cross-pollination occurs).
    - kickout 4y ago
      If it is intentional, that's a no-no IMO (like the oft mentioned Canadian farmer). If its unintentional, there can be no claim of infringement. Lots of grey area in intent, but heirloom and landraces should have just as much freedom to operate (grow) as bred/biotech varieties
tarakat 4y ago
> just like any other _novel_ invention--plants are no different. They are. E.g. Monsanto didn't invent the glyphosate-resistance gene for their Roundup Ready GM crops. The gene was already present in nature, and Monsanto merely copied it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready#Genetic_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready#Genetic_engineer...
- kickout 4y ago
  The novelty was taking it out of one species and putting it into another for a specific purpose. Mother nature didn't transfer that gene across species. How that isn't worthy of IP is not clear to me.
  - tarakat 4y ago
    If by "that" you mean gene transfer technology, then I agree. But they also want to patent the result - they do not want a different lab with access to that same technology to be allowed to take a naturally occurring gene and transfer it into crops.

AlexandrB 4y ago

Plants are different. Unlike most inventions plants will generally replicate themselves given the opportunity. The idea that you can sue for patent infringement when this happens naturally is absurd on its face, yet here we are: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto-sues-farmers-seed-patents https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/12/monsanto...

kickout 4y ago
Nobody is patenting naturally occurring plants to my knowledge. Plant breeders make specific (usually) sexual crosses and sift through the progeny. Since plants have tremendous variation, many of the progeny are different than the parents. This is the basic form of one invention. Also your comment does not make sense. Some plants are can self-pollinate and are sufficiently inbred so that they 'replicate' themselves. Many plants are out-crossers. There also exists apomixis, asexual reproduction etc. Plant are also well suited to clonal propagation. 'Natural' is a completely vague term. Many of of the crops we have bred and that are IP protected (soybeans, corn, wheat, cotton, rice) have effectively 0% chance of occurring 'naturally' in nature because they conditions for their fitness to be high enough likely would never exist.
- AlexandrB 4y ago
  > Nobody is patenting naturally occurring plants to my knowledge. Plant breeders make specific (usually) sexual crosses and sift through the progeny. Since plants have tremendous variation, many of the progeny are different than the parents. This is the basic form of one invention. I never argued that they were patenting wild plants. But bred plants existed long before they could be patented. Indeed, Monsanto did not start with "wild" strains, but with strains developed over millenia of selective breeding. Plant patents are a form of "enclosure", where a domain that was previously freely available to the public (plant breeding) becomes commercialized and monetized so only a few entities can realistically improve on plant strains without risking a lawsuit. How this benefits innovation in the broad sense is beyond me. But it's certainly good for biotech companies' bottom line.
  - kickout 4y ago
    Go check out crop yields of your favorite crop for the past 20,30,50,100 years. Plant breeding and biotech have done _alot_ to reduce hunger and keep food prices low. Previous generations may have breed crops for pure survival reasons (they needed the best genetics to propagate themselves to ensure a plentiful harvest next year). I enjoy the debate around plant breeding, and there are issues with IP and how that IP is protected/enforced/interpreted. No different than many other industries. It would be difficult to adequately argue that IP in the ag sector has been not been net beneficial for most players (companies, consumers, farmers, etc.).
  - kickout 4y ago
    Private plant breeding corps have only been around for <100 years (many <40). Many research universities and non-profits (CGIGAR, IRRI, CIMMYT, etc.) do plant improvement and had a huge head start. Yet these innovations didn't arise from them. I would argue they've simply been outcompeted. The market has spoken in many cases. You can still buy non-IP seed, easily. But because there is no-IP, its hard to recoup money and reinvest it thus they stagnate.
- jacobr1 4y ago
  Yes, these things get conflated. The one valid concern though, are adjacent fields - one using licensed, IP protected seed, and the other using a heirloom variety. There have been cases of cross-pollination where the non-IP-purchasing heirloom user is accused of using seeds by evidence of the resulting cross-pollinated results. It isn't clear to me if this a just a fear or something that has happened (the lawsuits, certainly cross-pollination occurs).
  - kickout 4y ago
    If it is intentional, that's a no-no IMO (like the oft mentioned Canadian farmer). If its unintentional, there can be no claim of infringement. Lots of grey area in intent, but heirloom and landraces should have just as much freedom to operate (grow) as bred/biotech varieties

tarakat 4y ago

> just like any other _novel_ invention--plants are no different. They are. E.g. Monsanto didn't invent the glyphosate-resistance gene for their Roundup Ready GM crops. The gene was already present in nature, and Monsanto merely copied it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready#Genetic_engineering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready#Genetic_engineer...

kickout 4y ago
The novelty was taking it out of one species and putting it into another for a specific purpose. Mother nature didn't transfer that gene across species. How that isn't worthy of IP is not clear to me.
- tarakat 4y ago
  If by "that" you mean gene transfer technology, then I agree. But they also want to patent the result - they do not want a different lab with access to that same technology to be allowed to take a naturally occurring gene and transfer it into crops.