3 ms·

Indeed. The relevant language: When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from t

by hga 12y ago

Indeed. The relevant language: When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us.... A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. That's because a lawsuit will be a slam dunk loss for the farmer. As every lawsuit actually filed has turned out to be. When you sign the contract, you are bound by its terms, you won't be able to get away with claiming ignorance afterwords. I'm curious, you feel very strongly about this. Do you have any farming background? Parents raised on farms? Grew up in a farming region?

jacquesm 12y ago
> I'm curious, you feel very strongly about this. Do you have any farming background? Parents raised on farms? Grew up in a farming region? I live in a farming region right now. But that has very little bearing on this, I simply think that there is something inherently wrong about copyright and/or patents on genetic sequences and/or organisms. Several of my close relationships are hip-deep in this subject both on the 'pro' and the 'con' side and my viewpoint is the result of lots of conversations and reading. I feel strongly about it because GMO could be (and possibly will be, see the C4 rice project) a huge benefit but we're actually using them on the international stage as a way to keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us in a way that they can't really refuse and we'll bribe our way there if we have to. See Shell in Africa, Bechtel in Latin America (and Monsanto too for that matter) and so on. It's the new colonialism, now 'roundup ready'.
- hga 12y ago
  Not copyrights, no patents, you'd rather everyone live in genteel starvation, illness and early death than let them be exploited by eeeeevil corporations? As our friendly grad student in the C4 rice project discussion noted, 100 years of this sort of thing has made famine rare and lifted a billion people out of starvation (I knew the world had changed when I read in The Economist in 1982-3 that INDIA was sending relief grain to Ethiopia). As for the "keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us", a lot of us aren't that Manichean and therefore your position falls flat.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > Not copyrights, no patents, you'd rather everyone live in genteel starvation, illness and early death than let them be exploited by eeeeevil corporations? I don't think I said that. > As for the "keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us", a lot of us aren't that Manichean and therefore your position falls flat. A lot of us are exactly that Manichean and that's something to be genuinely worried about. Not everybody has mankinds welfare at heart. Monsanto strikes me as a mixed blessing in that respect, they may do accidental good but in the meantime their goal seems to be to gain control of the worlds staple food supplies.
    - hga 12y ago
      Well, they're doing a poor job of it, the patent on the GMO part of Roundup Ready soybeans has expired or will expire this year in the US. Others will obviously follow. Note that there's a separate patent system for old fashioned plant breeding with a longer 25 year term that will cover a variety of these germ lines if you copy the relevant traits vs. just the Roundup hack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights And I submit you are saying we shouldn't benefit from these inventions. Since you differ, what is the regime you envision in which they get developed and propagated? No points for saying non-profits or the government, the profit motive clearly played a role here (although not in a lot of the Green Revolution developments).
- DenisM 12y ago
  >But that has very little bearing on this, I simply think that there is something inherently wrong about copyright and/or patents on genetic sequences and/or organisms. Do you feel differently about software copyright, or book copyright?
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    > Do you feel differently about software copyright, or book copyright? You write a book you own the rights, no contest. But if you take somebody else's book of 5000 pages, and change six paragraphs you should not own the rights to the resulting derived work.
    - iwwr 12y ago
      Nature should be treated as GPLv3 or greater. Things like suicide or sterile seeds are DRM.
      - hga 12y ago
        Congratulations! You've just wiped out a very large fraction of the world's maize production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed and probably some other significant crops. Millions are starving, many more rarely can include meat in their diet. Let me Godwin this discussion by pointing out the lack of information you have about the subject is an example of why command economies preform so poorly. There's just too much information needed to make intelligent decisions. And then we get things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism because the process is done by people good at politics, and without skin in the game. Farmers have skin in the game. Maybe we should accord their decisions some respect???
        iwwr 12y ago
        Relaxed IP requirements helped software and hardware develop reasonably fast. Imagine if the big corps like AT&T or IBM had the foresight to patent vital early algorithmic research. Or how hardware may have developed if AMD's early reverse-engineering of Intel chips was deemed illegal. Now biotech is still in infancy as far as genetic engineering. Giving a few corporations the right to 'homestead' nature's IP is going to impede startups or small actors to develop the field. It would also prevent development of tech that involves many inter-related concepts, which could be found in different companies' IP pools. That's besides biotech IP trolls or internecine corp trade wars. So we're not talking about farmers, but the ability of this field to develop quickly like technology did in the last few decades. The technological barriers to entry are falling but in their place IP barriers are erected.
unethical_ban 12y ago
I'm like Richard Stallman is for FOSS on this: One case of "sue for cross-pollination" is too much. Our food supply and the freedom of people to survive and save food stores is too important to let Monsanto and others fuck with the food chain. Food is not a place for a EULA. And if you're some sort of liberal hippy who wants to save the entire world, then perhaps the government should buy out these things to ensure it's a public good rather than a Q3 profit driver.

by hga 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

> I'm curious, you feel very strongly about this. Do you have any farming background? Parents raised on farms? Grew up in a farming region? I live in a farming region right now. But that has very little bearing on this, I simply think that there is something inherently wrong about copyright and/or patents on genetic sequences and/or organisms. Several of my close relationships are hip-deep in this subject both on the 'pro' and the 'con' side and my viewpoint is the result of lots of conversations and reading. I feel strongly about it because GMO could be (and possibly will be, see the C4 rice project) a huge benefit but we're actually using them on the international stage as a way to keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us in a way that they can't really refuse and we'll bribe our way there if we have to. See Shell in Africa, Bechtel in Latin America (and Monsanto too for that matter) and so on. It's the new colonialism, now 'roundup ready'.

hga 12y ago
Not copyrights, no patents, you'd rather everyone live in genteel starvation, illness and early death than let them be exploited by eeeeevil corporations? As our friendly grad student in the C4 rice project discussion noted, 100 years of this sort of thing has made famine rare and lifted a billion people out of starvation (I knew the world had changed when I read in The Economist in 1982-3 that INDIA was sending relief grain to Ethiopia). As for the "keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us", a lot of us aren't that Manichean and therefore your position falls flat.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > Not copyrights, no patents, you'd rather everyone live in genteel starvation, illness and early death than let them be exploited by eeeeevil corporations? I don't think I said that. > As for the "keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us", a lot of us aren't that Manichean and therefore your position falls flat. A lot of us are exactly that Manichean and that's something to be genuinely worried about. Not everybody has mankinds welfare at heart. Monsanto strikes me as a mixed blessing in that respect, they may do accidental good but in the meantime their goal seems to be to gain control of the worlds staple food supplies.
  - hga 12y ago
    Well, they're doing a poor job of it, the patent on the GMO part of Roundup Ready soybeans has expired or will expire this year in the US. Others will obviously follow. Note that there's a separate patent system for old fashioned plant breeding with a longer 25 year term that will cover a variety of these germ lines if you copy the relevant traits vs. just the Roundup hack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights And I submit you are saying we shouldn't benefit from these inventions. Since you differ, what is the regime you envision in which they get developed and propagated? No points for saying non-profits or the government, the profit motive clearly played a role here (although not in a lot of the Green Revolution developments).
DenisM 12y ago
>But that has very little bearing on this, I simply think that there is something inherently wrong about copyright and/or patents on genetic sequences and/or organisms. Do you feel differently about software copyright, or book copyright?
- jacquesm 12y ago
  > Do you feel differently about software copyright, or book copyright? You write a book you own the rights, no contest. But if you take somebody else's book of 5000 pages, and change six paragraphs you should not own the rights to the resulting derived work.
  - iwwr 12y ago
    Nature should be treated as GPLv3 or greater. Things like suicide or sterile seeds are DRM.
    - hga 12y ago
      Congratulations! You've just wiped out a very large fraction of the world's maize production: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_seed and probably some other significant crops. Millions are starving, many more rarely can include meat in their diet. Let me Godwin this discussion by pointing out the lack of information you have about the subject is an example of why command economies preform so poorly. There's just too much information needed to make intelligent decisions. And then we get things like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism because the process is done by people good at politics, and without skin in the game. Farmers have skin in the game. Maybe we should accord their decisions some respect???
      - iwwr 12y ago
        Relaxed IP requirements helped software and hardware develop reasonably fast. Imagine if the big corps like AT&T or IBM had the foresight to patent vital early algorithmic research. Or how hardware may have developed if AMD's early reverse-engineering of Intel chips was deemed illegal. Now biotech is still in infancy as far as genetic engineering. Giving a few corporations the right to 'homestead' nature's IP is going to impede startups or small actors to develop the field. It would also prevent development of tech that involves many inter-related concepts, which could be found in different companies' IP pools. That's besides biotech IP trolls or internecine corp trade wars. So we're not talking about farmers, but the ability of this field to develop quickly like technology did in the last few decades. The technological barriers to entry are falling but in their place IP barriers are erected.

unethical_ban 12y ago

I'm like Richard Stallman is for FOSS on this: One case of "sue for cross-pollination" is too much. Our food supply and the freedom of people to survive and save food stores is too important to let Monsanto and others fuck with the food chain. Food is not a place for a EULA. And if you're some sort of liberal hippy who wants to save the entire world, then perhaps the government should buy out these things to ensure it's a public good rather than a Q3 profit driver.