Hacker News Reader

Comment by marquis | Hacker News Reader

It's not about safety, it's about ownership. This quote from the Judge: "Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" - the part about "anyone could grow more and have as many seeds as they want" pretty much sums up farming as we've known it since agriculture began.

Edit: yes, I'm aware of that most farmers don't actually store their own seed for next year for efficiency of another farmer/company providing high-quality seeds yearly for them, however this is not justifying Monsanto's methods. There must be limits on food patents. I simply don't believe Monsanto cannot recover costs on the first-sale of seeds.

View on HN

Actually, no it doesn't. Since the green revolution the vast majority of farming has relied on first-generation hybrids, taking advantage of the phenomenon of hybrid vigour, in which only the first generation show improved agronomic traits. That means it's economically more efficient for farmers to buy the seeds each year from a producer who focusses on breeding, while the farmer focusses on growing.

That's been the case since the early 20th century, and licensed GM seed continues the same practise of breeder-farmer relationship with licenses.

If this is the case it makes Monsanto's eagerness to sue even more ridiculous, as farmers who choose to buy second-generation seeds should be at a commercial disadvantage, preventing it from becoming a major threat to their market share.

Perhaps I didn't explain clearly. With F1 hybrid seeds, farmers buying the second generation will lose the yield traits. But Monsanto's Bt crops are not necessarily F1 hybrids - the major beneficial trait is the engineered one, which is stable across generations. So with the Bt crops, they maintain the breeder-farmer relationship with licenses, because the biology doesn't require it anymore.

> Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed

There was a time when some people actually invented things to make the world a better place, or even to further their academic career. With the help of such judges, this era has apparently come to an end. We will never beat famine, we'll just help the plagued 3rd world become 100% dependent on the likes of Monsanto.

People are still doing that. Thousands of people around the world in fact, just in the very specific domain of improving crop traits to improve nutrition and food security in developing countries.

I see that as a separate endeavour to what companies generally do.

One do not need to look for altruistic motives. Investment into research happens as long it reduce cost and risk for businesses. Its true that a individual farmer might have a hard time to justify research investment, but those companies who is depended on grains as a form of resource has all the reasons in the world to invest in cheaper and more sustainable farming. Its the same business motive as why Microsoft sent in kernel patches as open source. No one doubt that the motive was for-profit.

We've already beat famine. Aside rebel-controlled areas, can you name the last famine?

Using the UN's defintion of famine as "at least 20 per cent of households in an area face extreme food shortages with a limited ability to cope; acute malnutrition rates exceed 30 per cent; and the death rate exceeds two persons per day per 10,000 persons." [1]

Not including Somolia in 2011 (which the UN did declare a famine), "... famines have been declared previously in southern areas of Sudan in 2008; in Gode in the Somali region of Ethiopia in 2000; in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) in 1996; in Somalia in 1991-1992, and Ethiopia in 1984-1985." [1]

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39113#.UWW2dKtA...

1) If I sell you a CD, does that give you a legal right to make as many copies as you like?

2) You're free to plant non-Monsanto soybean seeds.

Monsanto is taking advantage of nature's proliferation to claim increasing ownership of what was originally an abundant resource (plant life).

Taking anything that is naturally abundant and making it artificially scarce is perverse and evil.

If I create a robot that makes more robots and sell you said robot... Should I get to claim ownership of all the robots said robot creates?

Update: So why would I Bother inventing and patenting said robot! To prevent others from creating and using said robot for commercial purposes. I'd then find a business model or revenue stream elsewhere. Said patent would be to protect my other revenue model. I just wouldn't sell any of my robots. Ad a non practicing entity is formed...

No, they are not. GM seeds are not "naturally abundant".

He just said that: "Taking anything that is naturally abundant and making it artificially scarce"

How exactly are they making "naturally abundant plant life" scarce?

By making their seeds more profitable, they are given an unfair advantage. People replace their natural seeds with GM that happen to depend on their pesticides and then forbid you to recultivating 2nd generation seeds. So they become dependent on GM seeds, which are scarce. That process can also be described as taking something that is naturally abundant and making it artificially scarce. Next question.

Monsanto doesn't have competitors, now? It has a monopoly on GM seeds and can charge whatever it wants without a hit to its bottom line? Really?

I never said GM seeds are naturally abundant.

I said "plant life" was.

They are now.

Yeah in this case, Monsanto beans were mixed in with regular seeds he planted that he bought from a grain elevator. It's ridiculous. RTA

Herein lies the problem.

Mixed seeds are still partially owned by Monsanto.

This is why we should never be able to patent life.

You can certainly plant non-GM seeds from Monsanto, but planting seeds that aren't from Monsanto or one of the other massive seed supply companies will get you into legal trouble because chances are they're contaminated with Roundup Ready soybeans.

If you get it contaminated unintentionally, you won't.

Stop lying. You will get sued anyway, you might just have a better chance of winning.

I'm not lying. Don't call me a liar. Monsanto has the same claim on its website. You can read about the suits on Wikipedia. The suits are also public record. Sue them. Go for it. You'll rake in several hundreds of millions and billions of dollars if you can prove its supposedly blatantly misleading claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com