Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Helgoland]

Still, it's piss worthy one can basically patent food.

You know, breeders already have something like a patent system. Nobody's ever complained about that.

Also, studies (a.k.a. American turist visiting and staying in EU) show Americans are surprised how actually tasty our non-GMO fruit/vegetables are so there.

Our delicious Dutch non-GMO red water balloons tomatoes?

[scriver]

I'd possibly join a protest against it. I don't mind GMO, I mind GMO companies being money grubbing assholes.

I'd need to look into the laws to see if they'd be allowed to pull the whole 'sue farmer for wind pollination' shit that can happen in America over here before deciding.

Actually, if you look into that wind pollination issue more closely, you'll find that Monsanto was right. Basically, what the farmer did was finding that his field was contaminated, then sprayed his field with Roundup(thus killing all the non modified plants), gathered the seeds that survived, and used them for next year. I mean, he ended up with a 97% Monsanto crop contamination, hardly accidental.

On a side note, Monsanto also made a good case that the original contaminiation  also wasn't an accident, though they dropped that part of the case.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser

That doesn't actually change the situation at all.

[Sinistar]

Basically it just bugs me because it's something as basic as food. Just like privatizing water sources. Without going into long-winded discussion (because while I'm sure we could discuss this like rational grown-ups with everyone putting up their pros and cons... I'm just too tired for this right now) I'll excuse myself and just say it feels morally wrong.

ninja edit:
See, I'm already too tired to even think straight.

You know, breeders already have something like a patent system. Nobody's ever complained about that.

You'll have to explain with examples what you mean by that, sorry I don't get it right now.

[Sheb]

Well, do you also oppose privatization of fertilizer, tractor, fuel? They're all agricultural input.

Helgo mean that patents on crop have existed for a very long time (I think some apple varieties where patented in the 19th century), and that the whole issue pre-date GMOs.

[10ebbor10]

That doesn't actually change the situation at all.

Uhm, it kinda does.

It changes the situation from

"Evil Monsanto sues farmer because his fields were pollinated by their product, which he could not have avoided"

To

"Farmer specifically and deliberately selects for Monsanto crops in his seeds, obtains 97% pure feedstock for continued useage. Gets sued after Monsanto friendly asks him to buy a license."

[Helgoland]

You know, breeders already have something like a patent system. Nobody's ever complained about that.

You'll have to explain with examples what you mean by that, sorry I don't get it right now.

It's exactly what it says on the tin. Plant patent act, Plant breeders' rights.

[Frumple]

Well, do you also oppose privatization of fertilizer, tractor, fuel? They're all agricultural input.

Helgo mean that patents on crop have existed for a very long time (I think some apple varieties where patented in the 19th century), and that the whole issue pre-date GMOs.

I'd... personally, I'd probably draw a line at any staple crops, especially if they weren't tailor made for very specific, very extreme environments. Luxury-ish crops -- like most fruit and probably many vegetables, as well as anything really exotic -- would be okay to patent, but stuff that could -- does -- have the potential for massive impact, especially in less developed areas... shit really should be public domain. Trademark a specific way of branding it, maybe -- that's going to net you plenty of profit in and of itself -- but keep the making of it open and readily available.

There's some scientific advancements we as a species really need to get off our asses, point to, and say, no, this is not going to be sacrificed for greed. Many food related advancements strongly fall under that umbrella, imo. If GMO et al is really doing as well as its proponents say, most it should be being spread as far and as wide as we can manage, not being parceled out for profit. And if the law is getting in the way of that, the law probably needs a pitchfork shoved up its bum.

[Helgoland]

There's some scientific advancements we as a species really need to get off our asses, point to, and say, no, this is not going to be sacrificed for greed. Many food related advancements strongly fall under that umbrella, imo. If GMO et al is really doing as well as its proponents say, most it should be being spread as far and as wide as we can manage, not being parceled out for profit. And if the law is getting in the way of that, the law probably needs a pitchfork shoved up its bum.

Two things:
1) Patents only last a couple of years. Any threat current technologies can counter won't be coming up for another twenty years, so we'll be fine.
2) Most people opposing the patenting of food only oppose it because it's a GMO issue, and so their opposition is really just another way of opposing GMOs in general, rendering your last point moot.
And how does trademarking have anything to do with the issue at hand?

[Antsan]

I don't like GMOs, specifically because they lead to monoculture. Diversity in domesticated plants is going down and quite a few varieties have vanished due to how aggressively GMOs grow.

I am against patents generally. The concept is outdated in my eyes.

[Sheb]

Please expand on how GMOs are responsible for the long-existing trend of farmers choosing to plant a few high-performing varieties.

It's also false than GMO have to lead to monoculture. For exemple, the World Agroforestry Center is currently analyzing the genome of Faidherbia trees to understand what cause its special "loosing leaves in the west seasons" phenotype and apply it to other fertilizer trees.

[Helgoland]

I don't like GMOs, specifically because they lead to monoculture. Diversity in domesticated plants is going down and quite a few varieties have vanished due to how aggressively GMOs grow.

I am against patents generally. The concept is outdated in my eyes.

AFAIK monoculture developed waaaaay before GMOs, and the decrease in varieties is due to unmitigated market effects, not GMOs - just look at the many pig breeds that have anished in Germany, and remember that there's no way in hell the German pigs are genetically modified.

Why do you believe patents to be outdated?

[Frumple]

Two things:
1) Patents only last a couple of years. Any threat current technologies can counter won't be coming up for another twenty years, so we'll be fine.

... couple of decades is not a couple of years. Twenty years of substantially increased/improved food production in any number of low-development countries would be a serious, serious deal. If patent law as-is is getting in the way of that -- and from what I understand, Monsanto and co's control has, indeed, been impairing that process in some areas (SA, at the very least) -- then I would say patent law needs to change. Some of this stuff is a little too important to be kept under wraps, t'me.

2) Most people opposing the patenting of food only oppose it because it's a GMO issue, and so their opposition is really just another way of opposing GMOs in general, rendering your last point moot.

I really have zero problem with GMOs in general, so any point made was entirely divorced from the general body of anti-science twits that do.

And how does trademarking have anything to do with the issue at hand?

Pretty much the sole reason patents exist is to incentivise profit seeking. Reason trademark was mentioned is because they offer a possibility to accrue profit while still letting the underlying methodology free.

[Larix]

You know, breeders already have something like a patent system. Nobody's ever complained about that.
Plant patent act, Plant breeders' rights.

Those are two US laws that do not directly apply to any other country. If i'm not misreading it, the relevant law for rape is "Plant Breeders' rights" and not the patent act (the latter excludes plants reproduced sexually or through tubers, i.e. it's mainly concerned with vines and tree-borne fruit like apples and plums).
The international institution that enforces property rights of breeders over varieties is the UPOV. The various member countries have their own laws for applying those conventions.

And the fairly wide-ranging property rights of breeders not just over the seeds but over many kinds of re-use (including when they've come into your possession without your direct action) has certainly seen some critique. Clearly not enough.

[Helgoland]

Two things:
1) Patents only last a couple of years. Any threat current technologies can counter won't be coming up for another twenty years, so we'll be fine.

... couple of decades is not a couple of years. Twenty years of substantially increased/improved food production in any number of low-development countries would be a serious, serious deal.

Companies generally patent something as soon as it starts to show potential, when it still is several years away from commercial usage or even wide testing. Thus the delay of the increased benefits of the knowledge being availible for everyone to use is IIRC less than ten years in pretty much all cases.

2) Most people opposing the patenting of food only oppose it because it's a GMO issue, and so their opposition is really just another way of opposing GMOs in general, rendering your last point moot.

I really have zero problem with GMOs in general, so any point made was entirely divorced from the general body of anti-science twits that do.

Okay, point taken - one should still be very careful in supporting a side in that conflict because that can very easily turn into involuntary support for the anti-GMO cause.

Pretty much the sole reason patents exist is to incentivise profit seeking. Reason trademark was mentioned is because they offer a possibility to accrue profit while still letting the underlying methodology free.

No! You don't need to incentivise profit-seeking, you know Patents exist to incentivise research by making it profitable. If you've got another idea for getting private companies to do intensive research with easy-to-copy results, by all means, tell me, because I haven't heard of such a thing yet.
Also the 'letting the underlying methodology free' bit is a main advantage of patents: To apply for a patent, you have to reveal how your patent works*, making it availible for all after the patent has expired. Without patents, much of that knowledge would stay a closely-guarded secret like the Coca-Cola recipe.
And trademarks only relate to brands, not to products...

*Nobody forces you to give a working description, though, so patents usually are rife with inaccuracies and omissions, but the general idea has to be in there.


Ninja: Larix, these two articles were just the first I got my hands on. You yourself have stated that similar laws exist in other countries, including most of the developed world.

[Loud Whispers]

Hahaha, Steve Emerson getting rekt on the BBC all week.
'Are you aware that our prime minister has called you a complete idiot?' - Nick Owen to Steve Emerson.

'When I heard this frankly I choked on my porridge and I thought it must be April fool's day, this guy is clearly a complete idiot.' - David Cameron.

'Are you aware now that in fact only 230,000 Muslims live in Birmingham out of a population of a million?' -Nick
'I am fully aware of the demographics of Birmingham. Fully aware, I have been sent hundreds of emails-' - Steve
'Well thousands and thousands, nay millions will be watching this interview at some stage and listening to what you say, what would you say to people?' - Nick

Steve: '...it was a reckless mistake. You can try to squeeze more blood out of me but unfortunately there isn't much left-
BBC host: [laughing] I don't want to squeeze any blood I wouldn't do that. I'm just interested to know where is it you get your information from - where is it written down anywhere that Birmingham's only a place where muslims live?
Steve: there are mistakes that occur all the time I'm sure your network makes mistakes and I'm sure that the BBC makes mistakes all-
BBC host: Not like this one I can tell you [laughing from everyone across the studio]

'Mr Emerson, who founded a group called The Investigative Project on Terrorism, was giving his perspective on the terror attacks in France to Fox presenter Jeanine Pirro.
'Check your facts.''

'Edgbaston MP Ms Stuart said Mr Emerson's comments had "no redeeming features".
"I checked whether this was some kind of early April Fool spoof, and then I thought he was talking about Birmingham, Alabama, but then I realised he was just utterly and completely wrong," the Labour MP said.'

'Maryam Snape, who started the petition, said: "The fact of the matter is the American people saw this story and they are still going to believe it is the truth until he puts it right."'
Oh come off it Maryam, I trust that the American people wouldn't believe Birmingham is Birmingharam just because some guy on fox noos said so.
Here is the petition if you want to make Steve apologize even more btw. Quite frankly it is something he'll probably never stop apologizing for for the rest of his career. If he has one.


For those in the dark of all this, a 'terrorist expert' in an interview on Fox News stated that Birmingham was a city where Non-Muslims just 'didn't go' and that there were 'Muslim police' who would attack people not wearing 'Muslim attire.' Everyone is in a state of sheer amazement at how anyone - let alone an 'expert' could even think such a thing.