Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Do they patent something which is available naturally ?



Define “naturally”. People can spend decades breeding and crossing plants to optimize various properties, and such ‘products’ can get legal protection. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_breeders%27_rights


Nice. But instead of cleaning up licence and all digital protection looks like we are adding more to it.


Because all these grip the commercialization concept very strong. If we have to break the system we cannot do by adding another gate.

This is something which I wanted to convey by mentioning naturally.

Living beings shouldn't be tied up or held in control by means of money and other concepts.

Open source seeding I misunderstood than what it actually means. Sorry.


Yes, Monsanto is the big example.


Wait, I'm confused. I thought people hated Monsanto for their GMO products which the entire argument against is that they aren't available naturally.


I'm OK with GMO products, what I hate is:

* GMO that don't produce viable seeds so I have to buy seeds from you every season.

* GMO that only works with some other supply available only from the same provider (think of a car that only works with gas from Ford).

* Patents on living organisms: a farmer should be allowed to plant the seeds they grew in their own farm, produce hybrids and so on, without paying royalties.

* If GMO strains get accidentally cross-pollinated from a neighbor farm you should not be on the hook for it.


> GMO that don't produce viable seeds so I have to buy seeds from you every season.

This is literally DRM for plants, isn't it?


Now you are getting it.


Strongly agreed. GM proponents try to confuse the issue with what's natural vs unnatural, that kind of thing, but for me (and you) it's never about that; GM is a tool, like a knife, neither got nor bad but for how you wield it. Monsanto want it as a form of IP and lockin.

But watch shills try to divert you from that.


> * GMO that don't produce viable seeds so I have to buy seeds from you every season.

OK, but unstable hybrids predate GMO by decades. Omitting the last, stabilizing cross for maize seeds has been a thing for, what, 75 years? at least.


My understanding is that there is a difference. Many hybrids in nature are sterile. What GMO companies like Monsanto do, however, is

a. Artificially make "terminator seeds"[1] that would naturally be fertile but have been made deliberately sterile, and

b. Where seeds don't have that technology, rely on contracts instead that forbid farmers from saving seeds for next year.[2]

1. http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/impact.html#terminat...

2. https://www.agweek.com/opinion/columns/4390497-what-does-tec...


Wendell Berry once said that agriculture is the "way we enact our dependence on the land."

Monsanto et. al. are the visible symptom of a psychological malady and spiritual poverty. Greed over the sacred bond between ourselves and the life that sustains us.

Both their GMO products and their attempts to enclose and sequester the genetic commons are part and parcel of their underlying epistemological problems.

> "You can't own land, man."

> I can because I'm not a penniless dirty hippie."


No, non-gmo seeds can be and are patented (see https://eorganic.org/node/382#.VZ7hhvlVikp). In Europe it's to the point that some traditional and old seeds can't be sold. See the kokopelli case https://corporateeurope.org/en/news/closing-our-seeds http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-59/11&language=... and https://blog.kokopelli-semences.fr/2017/05/retour-sur-un-pro... (french).




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: