EULA Found on a Package of Fruit

IIRC it has something to do with tubers also being the part of the plant that is used as food[0]. Why is that considered an exception while something cinnamon, where the bark of the plant is eaten and also used in asexual propagation, is not? No clue. Really most of this boils down to "because the law says so" or "because the courts said the law says so."

[0] https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/types-o...

For plant patents, it actually involves recognizing something. If a branch of your Apple tree mutates nd produces good tasting fruit, then by law, you can patent a plant that exists in only one instance in the wild prior to you recognizing its value and propagating it. That means that you can take that branch of the apple tree and grow it into a new variety and patent it. Because the patent is on asexually reproduced plants, you now have a patent on that variety, but you couldn't get a patent on a tomato for example where it's propagated by seed (good luck gettinga greenhouse to but tomato cuttings from you). The new strain can arise accidentally in the wild (but if there is more than one plant of that variety, then its nonpatentable! It has to be a freak variation that would not persist without your recognition or intervention). Or, it could be something you created through a breeding program, or by irradiation growing shoots (very common way of making new citrus varieties). But the patent is on the end plant, not the method.

These plant patents have nothing yo do with genetic manipulation/bioengineered/"gmo" plants. There, the DNA sequence itself, not the plant, is covered by the patent, its a whole different ball game

> Uh, no, entrepreneurs would be stomped flat, having their ideas stolen and marketed by whomever the fastest mover was.

That is how it works in theory. In reality, large entrenched interests with a large budget for attorneys, and a war chest of their own patents that can be used offensively, can easily stomp over small entrepreneurs. At best, the small entrepreneur gets an invitation to settle.

I'd be fine with code/algorithm patents or other forms of rights if we hadn't made the absolutely insane decision to apply copyright law to something as clearly function-oriented as (non-gaming) software. In fact, hardware was actually denied copyright protection for exactly that reason, and Congress responded by creating a separate property regime for "maskwork" that was far less restrictive.

Of course that's assuming that patents or copyright are actually necessary to allow the creation of new works and inventions. As far as I'm aware, we sort of just assumed that it would be the case when we stuck it into the US Constitution. We never actually produced any sort of proof that this would be true. There were previous civilizations that managed cultural and technological innovation without it, and there were also other legal innovations concurrent with the introduction of copyright and patent law (e.g. freedom of speech, republican democracy, etc) that also have accelerated the pace of such innovations.

We do know that under copyright and patent law, parties that infringe upon others' rights generally gain supra-competitive advantage that has to be remedied by a court. Clearly, if there's a law, then firms that break that law have competitive advantage. However, this is then extrapolated to assume that innovation is a natural competitive disadvantage and that we need copyright and patent law to ensure that it exists at all. This is extremely pessimistic; and probably not the case for at least some markets. Free Software projects generally do not collect licensing fees at all, and sometimes prohibit others from doing so, yet they still have regular innovation and growth.

Well. I have mixed feelings. Emotionally I feel the fact that (big) cooperations can own seed varieties (nearly like with patents) to be quite literally something that makes me boil.

In general I do not like the fact, that it is easy for others to claim something that replicates itself as "their own"/"their property".

On the other hand I saw a small tomato grower who developed and breed their own tomato varieties being ripped of by a bigger player, because they just couldn't afford to register a variety they painstakingly developed over years. The bigger player came, bought their seeds, grew the plants and two years later registered this variety as their own under a very, very similar name forgoing the necessity to develop the variety themselves. At least they did not push the other. smaller player out of the market - but they could have probably.

I would love a system that enables some kind of (short- to mid-term) protection for the development effort of new varieties. But I also feel it is a right of the people to grow from their own seedlings. Something that even hybrid varieties do not offer.

It is a difficult topic without quick and easy answers I fear.

But for me - we buy heirloom seeds mostly locally/regionally, grow them, keep our own seeds every year and regrow from that. We also share with other hobbyists.

Because the general principle of patents is that the owner is granted a monopoly on its use. You can add in exceptions, but it turns into a can of worms. eg. should "home" users be able to bypass patent laws in any product? what counts as "home" users? can other companies abuse this to bypass the patent system entirely? eg. you invent a widget, you patent it so competitors can't rip you off, but they sell widget kits: parts that allow a home user to assemble their own widget, exploiting the home use exemption. should that be allowed?

In the breeding process, I am absolutely sure that during the breeding process they propagated using immature embryos. "Cloning" by definition implies vegetative propagation, and I'm sure when they finished the breeding process that is how they have propagated this cultivar.

If you are interested in more of the details, there is a wikipedia article on cotton candy grapes, If you look in the references, there are several articles with more on how the variety was produced.

To clarify, the reason you are likely ending up with a wild apple phenotype is not because that is intrinsic to the nature of apples. Otherwise, new varieties could never be developed. Crabapples are used as pollinators for farmed apples since apples aren't self fertile, and you'll end up with a hybrid. If you've got the space and the time (in this case a lot of time), breeding is a great hobby for anyone.

Another factor is that apples from seed take a lot longer to fruit, and as you mentioned, you can really control the growth characteristics of the tree with the rootstock. Unlike mangoes, the rootstock can result in the same scion variety of apple growing into a 50 foot tree or a 5 foot shrub- thats a huge amount of control!

Stone fruits are especially easy and fun to propagate on the same tree such as this. You can do this at home and it’s fun! Beware the most vigorous variety will eventually take over the tree!

Incidentally these types of plant patents AND software patents are the two categories that are patentable in the USA but not in most of the rest of the world, so they definitely straddle the line of patentability.

I mean there's a lot of problems with patenting manufacturing processes. How do you argue this is a solid model for growing fruit?

If the field were contaminated to that extent, he could have presented evidence that that happened, and used that to defend himself. But that's not how this contamination worked. He amplified traces far beyond what mere contamination would cause.

If the field was wind concentrated it wouldn't be fully resistant, so he wouldn't be able to apply roundup without killing a large part of the crop. Since he never would apply roundup (it would kill the crop) the concentration would never build up over time.

You mean, Monsanto? No. Monsanto's patents were valid regardless of how the farmer got those seeds. The action of willfully concentrating the resistance genes is what got him in trouble.

All farmed food today was selectively bred. Corn and wheat weren't always as palatable as they are today. Fruits are all bigger and juicier.

At what point do we decide some life capable of naturally and spontaneously reproducing is patentable, and some life isn't? Should it extend to breeds of animals as well?

If someone dumps a pack of grapes by the side of the road, someone else comes along and picks the fruit that later grows, are they pirating fruit? If they decide they like it and plant their own garden, is that a patent violation? They never agreed to an EULA or even knew of its existence. They found it naturally.

I'm sure this all sounds ridiculous. That's precisely because it is.

The difference between patenting a chemical compound is a patentable compound is probably not producing itself naturally without constant human intervention. Someone, for example, won't be patenting oxygen. They can maybe patent a specific process for producing oxygen, but oxygen is naturally occurring. If a plant is growable from a seed or some other self-sustaining method, it'll continue to produce itself naturally without human intervention as well.

Don't be silly; I didn't equate the two.

I was pointing out the weakness of their argument. Just because something is old and established doesn't make it good.

I believe Monsanto sued a farmer accidentally pollenated with their patented genome, wind borne. I believe Monsanto won: he had to pay in some form or another. Not surprisingly, other organic farmers have sued when their non-GM crops were tainted by windborne patent encumbered pollen, and I believe they sometimes lose and sometimes win. It depends.