4 ms·

> Since when does people have a right to make a profit, even if their business plan is stupid? As long as it provides value for the society. If you allow farme

by pingou 14y ago

> Since when does people have a right to make a profit, even if their business plan is stupid? As long as it provides value for the society. If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. Do you think it's better for the society? Well Monsanto isn't probably the best example because it's the worst company I can think of, but you get my point. That's the same with vaccines, it costs a lot of money to develop, if you allow everyone to copy it then there's no market and no vaccines. I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it. > But if these Monsanto seeds are so effective, then this patent acts as a de-facto tax on a whole range of foods, as unlike Ibuprofen, if they are effective enough to affect competition, "everyone" will need them So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market? I agree with you these technologies should be public and subsidized by the taxpayers because it benefits everyone. But people don't want to pay for it, and that's their right, so we use private companies that sell it to people willing to pay.

sergiosgc 14y ago
> As long as it provides value to the society. Such a simple phrase, so difficult to implement. In fact, the only true and proven method of valuing something, in History, has been the capitalist market. I think you accidentally supported the parent comment author's point.
- pingou 14y ago
  Well I don't know your method of valuing something but if farmers want to pay for it (or "steal" it) I would probably say it brings some value to them. Which point of the parent comment am I supporting exactly? We both agreed these technologies shouldn't be developed for profit, I'd love to see some international organization doing the research and giving the results for free. Actually I think it already exists, I can't remember exactly which organization but there are some non-profit groups researching better crops.
randomdata 14y ago
> If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. Like I mentioned in another post, their seed division is over 100 years old. I don't think they are going to disappear overnight because a patent they recently acquired, relatively speaking, went away. Their biggest sell is that they are able improve the yields on the crops year over year. Replanting the seed you grew last year will leave you falling behind the competition, and probably out of business after a few years. Just one bushel per acre difference means tens of thousands of dollars for the average farm. With razor thin margins, you cannot afford to miss that. Also, Monsanto is a huge business. The thing they seem to be most excited about right now is their precision agriculture division. (i.e. applying electronics and software to grow better crops) Given the nature of this site, I'm sure you can see the potential there alone.
vidarh 14y ago
> As long as it provides value for the society. .. and this is the basic assumption of patents: They should provide value for society. If they don't, then they are a bad bargain and should be taken off the table. They are not some perpetual right. They are a grant from society in return for certain things. If the benefits don't exceed the costs or damages accruing from taking away the freedoms they curtail, then we should take these grants off the table. > If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. Someone else addressed that better than me. > I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it. ... or change the law, to take this business model off the table, if the software company abuses the rights to place restrictions that we as a society finds not to be worth the benefits we get from it. Again: They do not have a right to profit from their chosen business model when this business model is based on exploiting a grant of rights that depends on the restriction of the freedom of the public that society chose to offer with specific goals. They have a right - as long as we continue to offer that trade - to try to profit from it. But we also have a right to take that deal away if we don't benefit sufficiently from it, or if the restraints it adds prove too harsh. > So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market? You miss the point entirely, which was that if we're already paying for this technology, then for society there is no cost saving in leaving the R&D to Monsanto vs. paying for it from public funds. And the argument

by pingou 14y ago

sergiosgc 14y ago

> As long as it provides value to the society. Such a simple phrase, so difficult to implement. In fact, the only true and proven method of valuing something, in History, has been the capitalist market. I think you accidentally supported the parent comment author's point.

pingou 14y ago
Well I don't know your method of valuing something but if farmers want to pay for it (or "steal" it) I would probably say it brings some value to them. Which point of the parent comment am I supporting exactly? We both agreed these technologies shouldn't be developed for profit, I'd love to see some international organization doing the research and giving the results for free. Actually I think it already exists, I can't remember exactly which organization but there are some non-profit groups researching better crops.

randomdata 14y ago

> If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. Like I mentioned in another post, their seed division is over 100 years old. I don't think they are going to disappear overnight because a patent they recently acquired, relatively speaking, went away. Their biggest sell is that they are able improve the yields on the crops year over year. Replanting the seed you grew last year will leave you falling behind the competition, and probably out of business after a few years. Just one bushel per acre difference means tens of thousands of dollars for the average farm. With razor thin margins, you cannot afford to miss that. Also, Monsanto is a huge business. The thing they seem to be most excited about right now is their precision agriculture division. (i.e. applying electronics and software to grow better crops) Given the nature of this site, I'm sure you can see the potential there alone.

vidarh 14y ago

> As long as it provides value for the society. .. and this is the basic assumption of patents: They should provide value for society. If they don't, then they are a bad bargain and should be taken off the table. They are not some perpetual right. They are a grant from society in return for certain things. If the benefits don't exceed the costs or damages accruing from taking away the freedoms they curtail, then we should take these grants off the table. > If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. Someone else addressed that better than me. > I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it. ... or change the law, to take this business model off the table, if the software company abuses the rights to place restrictions that we as a society finds not to be worth the benefits we get from it. Again: They do not have a right to profit from their chosen business model when this business model is based on exploiting a grant of rights that depends on the restriction of the freedom of the public that society chose to offer with specific goals. They have a right - as long as we continue to offer that trade - to try to profit from it. But we also have a right to take that deal away if we don't benefit sufficiently from it, or if the restraints it adds prove too harsh. > So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market? You miss the point entirely, which was that if we're already paying for this technology, then for society there is no cost saving in leaving the R&D to Monsanto vs. paying for it from public funds. And the argument