Thread

1. tptacek · 1789617633 · focus · HN ↗

   These stories have all basically been debunked. Monsanto did sue farmers. But they did so in cases where they had evidence that those farmers were not only planting IP-encumbered seeds, but also spraying them with Roundup. You can't do that accidentally: if your seeds aren't genetically modified, Roundup kills your crop.

   1. free_bip · 1789618274 · focus · HN ↗

      The entire concept of IP-encumbered seeds is cruel and dangerous.

      1. derektank · 1789620894 · focus · HN ↗

         I do not think granting someone an exclusive right to sell their new cultivar for 20 years is particularly dangerous, especially when existing variants don’t disappear. I like that someone was incentivized to grow Pink Lady and Cosmic Crisp apples back in the 90s and 2010s and I struggle to see where any cruelty was involved.

         1. tancop · 1789624230 · focus · HN ↗

            The problem with patented seeds (and everything else) is the owner can decide who gets to use them. No one should hold that power.

            If patents worked as a royalty system where you're guaranteed to get a license if you pay there would be no problem. But right now Bayer can use their control over Roundup Ready plants to make farmers buy more products they don't need, or punish them for dealing with competitors, because they have a monopoly.

            And it also lets them set the price to anything they want because competing with them is illegal. Exclusive rights are always like that.

            1. stephbook · 1789624342 · focus · HN ↗

               Can't you just .. plant something else, lol? I don't think that's a monopoly, then.

               1. ivandenysov · 1789636882 · focus · HN ↗

                  Prisoner’s dilemma: margins are razor thin. If your fellow farmers use better seeds then you are forced to use them as well. Otherwise you won’t be able to match their prices without selling at a loss.

                  1. tptacek · 1789653535 · focus · HN ↗

                     That's true of any productivity enhancement. If your neighbors use more efficient tractors you're at the same disadvantage, but nobody argues that farmers should be able to steal tractors.

                     1. tavavex · 1789658205 · focus · HN ↗

                        The parent has to do with permission, not stealing. Imagine if your neighbors could have an exclusive license to buy the new obviously superior tractor which you will never be able to obtain no matter what you do, simply because you're not them. This is legal today, the argument is that it shouldn't be because it punishes competition and lets the rights-holder wield too much power over the market.

                        1. [deleted] · 1789661590 · focus · HN ↗

                           [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.