4 ms·

> If Monsanto can't patent their new seed, then anyone else who wants to can also sell the seed, and Monsanto will never recoup the R&D costs. Under this scenar

> If Monsanto can't patent their new seed, then anyone else who wants to can also sell the seed, and Monsanto will never recoup the R&D costs. Under this scenario, I don't see why anyone would develop new plants. Could the same apply to GNU or Linux or any other free software project or is it far different thing?

a_bonobo 14y ago
To develop free software, all you need is a PC, Internet and free time. To develop free GM plants, you need workers, material (host microorganisms, plant fertilizer), green houses, lab time, machines (PCR, sterile workbenches, ideally a sequencer, PCs, maybe a fun electroporator, etc.), space for growth etc. Also, the laws are strict - you can't just create GM-organisms in your backyard, depending on the country you're in you have to be in a certified lab with correct procedures for waste disposal etc. The upfront costs involved in developing GM are much, much higher. But it's definitely not impossible - there's for example an open source PCR machine for self-builders, I can see more machines like that coming up...
rayiner 14y ago
Patents protect incentives to innovate in capital-intensive industries. Software is by and large not such an industry, and is thus a bad point of comparison. An estimate of the cost of developing a Linux distribution (Redhat 7.1) pegged the cost at about $1 billion (http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html) using software cost models. Monsanto spends that much in just one year on R&D. Also, note that as a practical matter, most Linux development these days is done by commercial entities that leverage different IP monopolies. RedHat may make the software freely available, but they monetize it by leveraging their trademark in connection with services. IBM puts Linux on patented hardware. Various companies sell commercial copyright licenses for GPL-ed products.

a_bonobo 14y ago

To develop free software, all you need is a PC, Internet and free time. To develop free GM plants, you need workers, material (host microorganisms, plant fertilizer), green houses, lab time, machines (PCR, sterile workbenches, ideally a sequencer, PCs, maybe a fun electroporator, etc.), space for growth etc. Also, the laws are strict - you can't just create GM-organisms in your backyard, depending on the country you're in you have to be in a certified lab with correct procedures for waste disposal etc. The upfront costs involved in developing GM are much, much higher. But it's definitely not impossible - there's for example an open source PCR machine for self-builders, I can see more machines like that coming up...

rayiner 14y ago

Patents protect incentives to innovate in capital-intensive industries. Software is by and large not such an industry, and is thus a bad point of comparison. An estimate of the cost of developing a Linux distribution (Redhat 7.1) pegged the cost at about $1 billion (http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html) using software cost models. Monsanto spends that much in just one year on R&D. Also, note that as a practical matter, most Linux development these days is done by commercial entities that leverage different IP monopolies. RedHat may make the software freely available, but they monetize it by leveraging their trademark in connection with services. IBM puts Linux on patented hardware. Various companies sell commercial copyright licenses for GPL-ed products.