7 ms·

God forbid the farmers benefit for free in some way from the unpredictable and uncontrollable pollination of a plant genetically engineered to be a highly succe

by cnity 4y ago

God forbid the farmers benefit for free in some way from the unpredictable and uncontrollable pollination of a plant genetically engineered to be a highly successful cultivar. I'm not attacking you here, but the logic decided by the courts may be lawful but it is not moral (in my opinion). It's as if a noisy neighbour hosts a late night party and you happen to enjoy the music. The neighbour notices and decides to charge you for the streaming fee.

pfdietz 4y ago
That patents genes spread lightly onto his field didn't give him a "get out of patent free card" to then concentrate those genes by spraying the field with herbicide. The courts properly understood that intent and actions matter here. The farmer was in the wrong and justice was done.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ladyattis 4y ago
  It just demonstrates how patents are a form of rent seeking. You own the product of your labor but you should not be able to assume you own the accidental products that are related to your labor (ex. buying tools from a tool smith which then you use to make your own tool smithy).
  - tptacek 4y ago
    There is no way that analogy holds in this case. The farmer didn't cultivate their own RoundUp to spray, among other problems with it.
    - f-securus 4y ago
      What if the farmer was trying to clear the land with roundup and the accidental gmo modified crops prevented him from doing so. Could he sue for damages?
      - Kalium 4y ago
        Perhaps! Though in this case it seems he engaged in the behavior over an extended period of time and did not consider the patented crops a problem.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        No, if he didn't save seeds from crop plants on that land. That saving of seeds after spraying was the incriminating act.
        UncleEntity 4y ago
        How does the doctrine of first sale not apply here? I could make up some convoluted argument but… the neighbor conducted the first sale so this should have extinguished any further patent claim. Of course, IANAL.
        gruez 4y ago
        From wikipedia: >A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. In this, letting the plant reproduce arguably falls under "making" (ie. manufacture) of the patented thing (the genetically modified plant).
        pfdietz 4y ago
        He is not reselling individual seeds. He is manufacturing new seeds. He is not allowed to do that, and particularly not allowed to do that with intent.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    In no way was that depiction accurate. Indeed, if an innocent farmer were, by no fault of his own, found liable for contamination, he could properly sue the others for contaminating his land. For this reason, Monsanto always said it would never sue just for accidental contamination, and never did.
- BeFlatXIII 4y ago
  > and justice was done That's one of the stupidest things I've read on this website.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    It's perfectly clear it was a correct legal decision. The farmer was deliberately and intentionally trying to evade the patent, as we've explained multiple times in these comments. Perhaps you could explain why the decision was incorrect? Or why justice demanded differently?
Workaccount2 4y ago
But look at the flip side where the court ruled the farmer cannot be liable for a plant naturally spreading into his field (and the farmer upon learning this using the specific herbicide meant for that specific plant strain). You now have precedent that if the plant "accidentally" (wink wink) spreads to your field you are not liable for the cost of the plant
- burkaman 4y ago
  Your logic would apply to all seeds, right? If you have any plant on your property and you can't provide a receipt for its seed or conclusively prove that a bird dropped the seed, you should be convicted of theft.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    No, you can't.
- cnity 4y ago
  To be totally honest, I am fine with the situation you just described. The only argument in favour of IP is "but what about the economics of the seeds?" i.e. "but how will corporations get rich without it?" and my answer is: they will have to find some other way to contribute to humanity than placing a stranglehold on the freedoms of the poor. Edit for those whose rebuttal is all too predictable: I know this affects the incentive structure for developing new science. But I don't think it's at all clear that the current incentives are actually a good thing in the long run. Alternatives for income could be one of the following: providing a service, producing and selling the seeds, working with local farmers to help them maximise yield from the seeds you developed, securing donations from those who stand to benefit from your research... etc.
RajT88 4y ago
The ability to patent life itself is a dangerous one. Imagine where these precedents lead when inevitably we start genetically engineering people. If you yourself carry genes engineered by a biotech firm (cancer resistance or laser eye beams, you can pick according to whim), do you have to pay them royalties when you have children?
- Kalium 4y ago
  Even without patents, there's a whole system of plant breeder's rights. The idea is that even without patents, breeding plants for a particular set of characteristics is a ton of work and the rights system is a patent-like way to commercialize. If you have a different idea for solving this particular financial problem, I expect quite a lot of people would love to hear about it.
  - RajT88 4y ago
    My point is that patents are abused enough already. We should not allow patenting of genomes/genes. Full stop. We should rely on those other systems of breeder's rights.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      You objection to "patenting life" seems utterly spurious and would effectively end GMO seeds (as the effort expended creating them could not be recouped.) But perhaps that's your ulterior motive. I see no legitimate motivation for your position.
      - brnaftr361 4y ago
        $169 for a HiFi Gibson Assembly kit. Up to 8000bp for about $2200-3500. It's not as forbidding as you might think. The insistence on IP law being the only probable, legitimate incentive is what's spurious.
        pfdietz 4y ago
dfxm12 4y ago
the logic decided by the courts may be lawful but it is not moral (in my opinion). Doubly so when you consider that the patent holding company (like Monsanto) has a lot of ability to affect legislation and the (presumably) independent farmer has next to none. The issues here are systemic and not limited to big ag.
tptacek 4y ago
This argument is completely orthogonal to the narrative originally presented, which is that farmers who weren't trying to benefit from the patents at all were tangled up in Monsanto lawsuits. That narrative is false, and that's all I'm here to correct. There's a Motte and Bailey thing that happens with these discussions, the bailey being "Monsanto will sue you even if their seeds just happen to blow onto your property" and the motte being "intellectual property isn't real".
- permo-w 4y ago
  an argument designed to appeal to a court is not necessarily moral or true, and this is generally accepted as normal practice
  - tptacek 4y ago
    It just has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The notion that Monsanto is suing farmers for seeds just blowing onto their fields false, and thus can't have anything to do with whether seeds should be patentable.
    - permo-w 4y ago
      slow down and understand my words. it's perfectly fine and moral to take advantage of the fact that someone else's seeds have blown onto your land, but that's not an argument you can sell to a court. so publicly making a separate legally stronger argument is normal and reasonable behaviour that doesn't lessen them whatsoever
- spywaregorilla 4y ago
  That seems utterly irrelevant. Trying to benefit is irrelevant. Trying to steal is what is relevant. Consider the case where the gene edited crops actually implemented a dependency on roundup, and the neighboring farms were forced to use round up rather than did so because it was simply more useful.
  - 4y ago

by cnity 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

That patents genes spread lightly onto his field didn't give him a "get out of patent free card" to then concentrate those genes by spraying the field with herbicide. The courts properly understood that intent and actions matter here. The farmer was in the wrong and justice was done.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ladyattis 4y ago
It just demonstrates how patents are a form of rent seeking. You own the product of your labor but you should not be able to assume you own the accidental products that are related to your labor (ex. buying tools from a tool smith which then you use to make your own tool smithy).
- tptacek 4y ago
  There is no way that analogy holds in this case. The farmer didn't cultivate their own RoundUp to spray, among other problems with it.
  - f-securus 4y ago
    What if the farmer was trying to clear the land with roundup and the accidental gmo modified crops prevented him from doing so. Could he sue for damages?
    - Kalium 4y ago
      Perhaps! Though in this case it seems he engaged in the behavior over an extended period of time and did not consider the patented crops a problem.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      No, if he didn't save seeds from crop plants on that land. That saving of seeds after spraying was the incriminating act.
      - UncleEntity 4y ago
        How does the doctrine of first sale not apply here? I could make up some convoluted argument but… the neighbor conducted the first sale so this should have extinguished any further patent claim. Of course, IANAL.
        gruez 4y ago
        From wikipedia: >A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention. In this, letting the plant reproduce arguably falls under "making" (ie. manufacture) of the patented thing (the genetically modified plant).
        pfdietz 4y ago
        He is not reselling individual seeds. He is manufacturing new seeds. He is not allowed to do that, and particularly not allowed to do that with intent.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  In no way was that depiction accurate. Indeed, if an innocent farmer were, by no fault of his own, found liable for contamination, he could properly sue the others for contaminating his land. For this reason, Monsanto always said it would never sue just for accidental contamination, and never did.
BeFlatXIII 4y ago
> and justice was done That's one of the stupidest things I've read on this website.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  It's perfectly clear it was a correct legal decision. The farmer was deliberately and intentionally trying to evade the patent, as we've explained multiple times in these comments. Perhaps you could explain why the decision was incorrect? Or why justice demanded differently?

Workaccount2 4y ago

But look at the flip side where the court ruled the farmer cannot be liable for a plant naturally spreading into his field (and the farmer upon learning this using the specific herbicide meant for that specific plant strain). You now have precedent that if the plant "accidentally" (wink wink) spreads to your field you are not liable for the cost of the plant

burkaman 4y ago
Your logic would apply to all seeds, right? If you have any plant on your property and you can't provide a receipt for its seed or conclusively prove that a bird dropped the seed, you should be convicted of theft.
- tptacek 4y ago
  No, you can't.
cnity 4y ago
To be totally honest, I am fine with the situation you just described. The only argument in favour of IP is "but what about the economics of the seeds?" i.e. "but how will corporations get rich without it?" and my answer is: they will have to find some other way to contribute to humanity than placing a stranglehold on the freedoms of the poor. Edit for those whose rebuttal is all too predictable: I know this affects the incentive structure for developing new science. But I don't think it's at all clear that the current incentives are actually a good thing in the long run. Alternatives for income could be one of the following: providing a service, producing and selling the seeds, working with local farmers to help them maximise yield from the seeds you developed, securing donations from those who stand to benefit from your research... etc.

RajT88 4y ago

The ability to patent life itself is a dangerous one. Imagine where these precedents lead when inevitably we start genetically engineering people. If you yourself carry genes engineered by a biotech firm (cancer resistance or laser eye beams, you can pick according to whim), do you have to pay them royalties when you have children?

Kalium 4y ago
Even without patents, there's a whole system of plant breeder's rights. The idea is that even without patents, breeding plants for a particular set of characteristics is a ton of work and the rights system is a patent-like way to commercialize. If you have a different idea for solving this particular financial problem, I expect quite a lot of people would love to hear about it.
- RajT88 4y ago
  My point is that patents are abused enough already. We should not allow patenting of genomes/genes. Full stop. We should rely on those other systems of breeder's rights.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    You objection to "patenting life" seems utterly spurious and would effectively end GMO seeds (as the effort expended creating them could not be recouped.) But perhaps that's your ulterior motive. I see no legitimate motivation for your position.
    - brnaftr361 4y ago
      $169 for a HiFi Gibson Assembly kit. Up to 8000bp for about $2200-3500. It's not as forbidding as you might think. The insistence on IP law being the only probable, legitimate incentive is what's spurious.
      - pfdietz 4y ago

dfxm12 4y ago

the logic decided by the courts may be lawful but it is not moral (in my opinion). Doubly so when you consider that the patent holding company (like Monsanto) has a lot of ability to affect legislation and the (presumably) independent farmer has next to none. The issues here are systemic and not limited to big ag.

tptacek 4y ago

This argument is completely orthogonal to the narrative originally presented, which is that farmers who weren't trying to benefit from the patents at all were tangled up in Monsanto lawsuits. That narrative is false, and that's all I'm here to correct. There's a Motte and Bailey thing that happens with these discussions, the bailey being "Monsanto will sue you even if their seeds just happen to blow onto your property" and the motte being "intellectual property isn't real".

permo-w 4y ago
an argument designed to appeal to a court is not necessarily moral or true, and this is generally accepted as normal practice
- tptacek 4y ago
  It just has nothing to do with what we're talking about. The notion that Monsanto is suing farmers for seeds just blowing onto their fields false, and thus can't have anything to do with whether seeds should be patentable.
  - permo-w 4y ago
    slow down and understand my words. it's perfectly fine and moral to take advantage of the fact that someone else's seeds have blown onto your land, but that's not an argument you can sell to a court. so publicly making a separate legally stronger argument is normal and reasonable behaviour that doesn't lessen them whatsoever
spywaregorilla 4y ago
That seems utterly irrelevant. Trying to benefit is irrelevant. Trying to steal is what is relevant. Consider the case where the gene edited crops actually implemented a dependency on roundup, and the neighboring farms were forced to use round up rather than did so because it was simply more useful.
- 4y ago