Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Absolutely, so let me take a different position:

I acknowledge that all of the Monsanto Infringement lawsuits have involved farmers who a) Purchased Roundup-Resistant seed from Monsanto b) under contract with Monsanto c) that included a provision not to replant the seed derived from those crops.

It is my opinion, as a political stance, that that provision c is against natural law as well as the laws of man, and is therefore null and void. Farmers, even big corporate ones, should be allowed to replant the seed of their crops, and it's unconscionable to restrict that.



I thought there had been a lawsuit against a farmer who intentionally planted a crop near someone else's roundup-ready crop and then bred the resulting seeds for roundup resistance.

Like you, I take the view toward that (potentially hypothetical?) case that the farmer's evident intent to infringe Monsanto's intellectual property is irrelevant because he hasn't done anything wrong. In that case, he is not even party to an agreement, though note that violating a patent doesn't require you to be party to an agreement.


You might be thinking of Percy Schmeiser.

Here's a source (with citation). The page also contains an audio version of the text.

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4759


Thanks for the link.

I have to say, that author is slipping in some very questionable policy analysis under the heading of "just the facts, please".


The last paragraph makes interesting claims.

The “against natural law” is an interesting claim to me. Where is the comprehensive list of all natural laws? How can we prove that there is no yet undiscovered law guaranteeing Monsanto/GMO seed patent holder such rights? Didn’t the US founding fathers assert that Natural Rights included private property rights, including of natural things like land? It seems to be more of an assertion of intuitive feeling to assert a claim of “natural law” than any concrete proof.

And the “against the laws of man” seems to be false based on case law that I’ve read about in the news. Is your opinion/assertion that seeds / engineered plants should not be patentable? Should they be patentable, but sold at a loss or smaller profit?

Those seeds exist because they were engineered to solve a need. Is there a legal requirement for a farm to use engineered seeds? How much do you think the engineer would have to charge for unlimited license of those engineered seeds? I imagine it would be 20x - 1000x of a single harvest limited license for the same number of seeds. Do you agree?




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

Search: