5 ms·

Monsanto uses the terminator gene technology to stop the seed replication beyond first generation. So why would they fight to patent a seed. If they want farmer

by deepGem 14y ago

Monsanto uses the terminator gene technology to stop the seed replication beyond first generation. So why would they fight to patent a seed. If they want farmers not to use the seed beyond the first generation, they've already done it. What they are now trying to do is to put a 'blanket patent law' that'll prevent farmers from buying seeds from anyone else for any purpose whatsoever. It's like me having to pay royalty to Apple for buying a used macbook :). Also, the analogy to software piracy given in the article is totally flawed. Software is written so that it doesn't self replicate (unless it's a virus), however an organism's default behaviour is to self replicate. Isn't this such a simple argument to win ?

dionidium 14y ago
Monsanto uses the terminator gene technology to stop the seed replication beyond first generation. No, they don't [0]: Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999.[2] Customers who buy patented transgenic seeds from Monsanto must sign a contract not to save or sell the seeds from their harvest,[3] which preempts the need for a "terminator gene". Also, regarding this: It's like me having to pay royalty to Apple for buying a used macbook :). No, this is like your Macbook being able to make copies of itself, so that after you buy one, you've got a new copy every year for the rest of your life. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...
- bhickey 14y ago
  No, this is like your Macbook being able to make copies of itself, so that after you buy one, you've got a new copy every year for the rest of your life. The degree to which a business model is ill-conceived imparts no duty to other actors.
  - dionidium 14y ago
    This is one of those things that sounds sort of clever but is obviously just nonsense. Lots of things are possible that we limit or prohibit because it's desirable that we do so. If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it.
    - einhverfr 14y ago
      But patent law exists largely to balance the needs of the innovators with the needs of the public to create better generics over time. This is far more the case, regarding the creation of better generic products, there than with copyright, but copyright serves the same balance as well. An additional aspect includes the rights of the consumer and balancing these as well. The problem I have here is that the patents are being used in a way here which serves only the innovator, and precludes better generic products over time. This fundamentally unbalanced by corporations which are greedy for both power and money, and in an area where the rights of the consumer are particularly important, namely food supply. So it isn't enough to say: > If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it. I think one also has to add, "provided that the rights and interests of other parties are respected and supported as well." That's what's wrong with Monsanto in this case (as well as Prometheus in their failed case last year, and the breast cancer gene patents, etc).
- deepGem 14y ago
  Hey thanks for the Monsanto information. I was unaware of these updates. Regarding the Macbook analogy, agreed, but why would patent law hold true here ? Just trying to understand. A Macbook doesn't replicate by itself.

by deepGem 14y ago

dionidium 14y ago

Monsanto uses the terminator gene technology to stop the seed replication beyond first generation. No, they don't [0]: Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999.[2] Customers who buy patented transgenic seeds from Monsanto must sign a contract not to save or sell the seeds from their harvest,[3] which preempts the need for a "terminator gene". Also, regarding this: It's like me having to pay royalty to Apple for buying a used macbook :). No, this is like your Macbook being able to make copies of itself, so that after you buy one, you've got a new copy every year for the rest of your life. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...

bhickey 14y ago
No, this is like your Macbook being able to make copies of itself, so that after you buy one, you've got a new copy every year for the rest of your life. The degree to which a business model is ill-conceived imparts no duty to other actors.
- dionidium 14y ago
  This is one of those things that sounds sort of clever but is obviously just nonsense. Lots of things are possible that we limit or prohibit because it's desirable that we do so. If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it.
  - einhverfr 14y ago
    But patent law exists largely to balance the needs of the innovators with the needs of the public to create better generics over time. This is far more the case, regarding the creation of better generic products, there than with copyright, but copyright serves the same balance as well. An additional aspect includes the rights of the consumer and balancing these as well. The problem I have here is that the patents are being used in a way here which serves only the innovator, and precludes better generic products over time. This fundamentally unbalanced by corporations which are greedy for both power and money, and in an area where the rights of the consumer are particularly important, namely food supply. So it isn't enough to say: > If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it. I think one also has to add, "provided that the rights and interests of other parties are respected and supported as well." That's what's wrong with Monsanto in this case (as well as Prometheus in their failed case last year, and the breast cancer gene patents, etc).
deepGem 14y ago
Hey thanks for the Monsanto information. I was unaware of these updates. Regarding the Macbook analogy, agreed, but why would patent law hold true here ? Just trying to understand. A Macbook doesn't replicate by itself.