|
Post by castanea on Nov 19, 2011 21:10:14 GMT -5
I still don't know why there are so many who think that plant patents are a new thing. The Plant Patent Act was enacted in 1930. The Plant Variety Protection Act dates from 1970. The one has been around for 81 years and the other 41 years. Despite a few people not liking them, revocation any time soon isn't going to happen. Martin The extent to which they are being used is a new thing. Plant patents were never needed to spur innovation and aren't needed now so it took a long time for people to figure out how to abuse the law. As soon as our corrupt legal system is reformed, and it may be much sooner than people think, patents for plants will die.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 20, 2011 21:40:16 GMT -5
As soon as our corrupt legal system is reformed, and it may be much sooner than people think, patents for plants will die. Not in our lifetimes! The rapidly increasing world population will continue to cost billions of dollars/euros/rubles/yen to keep up with the increased demand for food production. It's worldwide, not just our little part of the globe. Those monies are spent by private corporations who expect a return for their efforts just as laborers and farmers expect a return for their efforts. Been that way ever since Man ceased living on wild seeds and carrion. Martin
|
|
|
Post by steev on Nov 20, 2011 23:15:23 GMT -5
Man stopped living on wild seeds and carrion long before money was invented, much less global, immortal, trans-governmental corporations. In the US, corporations had fixed lifetimes (usually not more than 20 years) up to the last century or so. A corporation, by the way, is a "which", not a "who"; if it can't be hung, it isn't a person, no matter how much it may deserve to be hung.
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Nov 21, 2011 0:13:45 GMT -5
As soon as our corrupt legal system is reformed, and it may be much sooner than people think, patents for plants will die. Not in our lifetimes! The rapidly increasing world population will continue to cost billions of dollars/euros/rubles/yen to keep up with the increased demand for food production. It's worldwide, not just our little part of the globe. Those monies are spent by private corporations who expect a return for their efforts just as laborers and farmers expect a return for their efforts. Been that way ever since Man ceased living on wild seeds and carrion. Martin There haven't been corporations ever since man stopped living on wild seeds and corporations. They are a relatively recent plague. Corporations have corrupted food production and distribution. Not everyone in the world needs to be eating GM soy and corn and drinking pesticide laced water. The current economic system is falling apart and it will take the legal system and food distribution system with it, and it will probably happen in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Nov 21, 2011 0:14:05 GMT -5
Man stopped living on wild seeds and carrion long before money was invented, much less global, immortal, trans-governmental corporations. In the US, corporations had fixed lifetimes (usually not more than 20 years) up to the last century or so. A corporation, by the way, is a "which", not a "who"; if it can't be hung, it isn't a person, no matter how much it may deserve to be hung. +1
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Nov 21, 2011 1:07:56 GMT -5
"if it can't be hung, it isn't a person, no matter how much it may deserve to be hung."
Unfortunately, they have managed to get themselves legally viewed as persons, as it is to their advantage.
|
|
|
Post by steev on Nov 21, 2011 10:34:30 GMT -5
Exactly so, and it happened by design. However, legal is as legal does. The current financial mess was also brought to us by sociopaths and poltroons, set loose by changes in laws and weak regulation, allowed to act in unfettered self-interest, looting, pillaging, and buying political power. Note that these are people shielded from responsibility for their actions behind the shield of incorporation. "Legal" is the last refuge of a scoundrel, now that Globalism has outmoded patriotism.
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 21, 2011 22:46:59 GMT -5
This essentially happened with Monsanto and Roundup. The patent expired, but Monsanto had an economy of scale advantage over everyone else in the manufacturing of glyphosphate. The Chinese finally overcame this and flooded the market with cheap generic "roundup". I think the Chinese government finally subsidized the production (I may be wrong about this). Monsanto had to rethink the business and rework the business so that the company as a whole remained healthy. If you watch Monsanto stock prices you can see exactly when this happened. The stock price when they purchased Seminis was $100-120 (i cant remember), now it is around $75 and has been around $60 at times. Now, Roundup was a huge cash generator for Monsanto that is essentially gone and Monsanto is not nearly as cash rich as they were 5 years ago.
Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 21, 2011 22:48:51 GMT -5
I still don't know why there are so many who think that plant patents are a new thing. The Plant Patent Act was enacted in 1930. The Plant Variety Protection Act dates from 1970. The one has been around for 81 years and the other 41 years. Despite a few people not liking them, revocation any time soon isn't going to happen. Martin The extent to which they are being used is a new thing. Plant patents were never needed to spur innovation and aren't needed now so it took a long time for people to figure out how to abuse the law. As soon as our corrupt legal system is reformed, and it may be much sooner than people think, patents for plants will die. I don't think patents are designed to spur innovation, I think they are there to protect it. My opinion is probably considered wrong by many. Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 21, 2011 23:03:12 GMT -5
Yes, and Monsanto's lawyers make a living putting the blame for Monsanto's genetic pollution on those they've polluted, unless they pay "protection" by repeatedly buying Monsanto's products. So the farmer has to knuckle under to Monsanto or stop growing the crop for which his operation is geared. As agribusiness and the commodification of foodstuffs progresses, larger acreages of fewer crops get planted, leading to more crops that are worthwhile developing as GMO's, leading to more patentable crops, leading to more control by giant corporations of the necessities of life. Does anyone here aspire to serfdom? Big Ag will certainly help you realize your dream, if so. Every crop is patentable under US law as it is currently interpreted and written. World wide, it is a different story. Many large seed companies like Monsanto stayed out of China because of the IP issues you face in China. One went in, I forget who, and has the lion share of the market and Monsanto, etc. are playing catch up. I disagree that the US situation is the worlds situation. Row crop and processed acres are where GM will and is making the impact. I see wheat as the next big crop to take the "plunge" so to speak. Anyway, it is open to comment of course. Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 21, 2011 23:13:54 GMT -5
Martin That's pretty funny. I do agree with you, but unfortunately patent lawyers make a living disagreeing with what you said. Thanks Jonny Lawyers have nothing to do with my garden. I will grow whatever I wish as long as it is legal to do so. I do not need anyone else to tell me what I should grow or whom I should obtain the seed from. If there is anyone who thinks that I should do otherwise, submit plan B with the funds to do so. There's a Seminis research facility roughly 3 miles straight south of my main gardens. About the same distance away is a Pioneer facility. Farmer across the road grows for Harris Moran. About 8 miles east is a Ferry Morse station. All get along just fine with each other and none of them are going away no matter how many gigabytes are expended on forums. All interested in the same thing, trying to figure out how to feed 7 billion people now and another billion in another 20 years or so. Martin Martin, it sounds like I have offended you with my shitty joke. I apologize. It sounds like you live in an interesting area. Very similar companies are in my neck of the woods, just working on different crops. Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 21, 2011 23:17:09 GMT -5
I will go back to my original question, as it seems to have gone on a tengent. Probably my own fault posing the question about what a corporation is to do. Is it the practice or the scale/perpetrator? It seems that Monsanto takes all of the debate, whether they are "guilty" or not. Is it a dishonest argument to make one company the focal point of a larger discussion? (I guess i came up with another question, but it relates to the first).
Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by Joseph Lofthouse on Nov 21, 2011 23:52:49 GMT -5
I am generally distrustful of any organization or person which promotes centralization. I left the church I grew up in when it started centralizing it's theology and creating a stronger hierarchy. I buy eggs from individuals rather than from a chicken farm. I heat my home with solar panels rather than with gas piped in from far away. I make my electricity on site. If I ever opened a bank account, it would be in a community bank with only a few branches. I grow more of my own seeds every year. The distrust I have for seed companies is a continuation of this philosophy in my life. The bigger the company, the more I distrust it. The smaller and more localized a company the more I am likely to associate with it. 95% of the money I've spent on seeds recently has been given to small family farms or individual gardeners. The other 5% has gone to The Company, but I don't know or care about which specific sub-organization within The Company.
Due to the uniqueness of my garden, locally produced seeds grow better for me than anything The Company has to offer.
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Nov 21, 2011 23:54:56 GMT -5
Instead of naming names, why not just use the general label of "GMO producers"? Since they all seem to use approximately the same tactics now, they seem to me to be interchangeable. Monsanto is just the name that every one knows and remembers, and they set the practice models for staying on top. GMO's do have the potential of being tremendously beneficial, but I distrust all of the GMO producers, because of the examples set by Monsanto, refusing to properly test before releases, and denial of any bad products or side effects, or the failure of the products to live up to the wildly exaggerated claims for them and Roundup.
|
|
|
Post by steev on Nov 22, 2011 0:18:49 GMT -5
Speaking only for myself, I have serious reservations about GMO's and no faith whatsoever that any company will not rush them into the market asap to begin recovery of its costs. I think there are dangers which will be ignored or minimized to promote the product. I think companies will intimidate, lie, and bully to maximize their control and market share. I think the bigger the company, the more they will do these things; power corrupts.
As for making one company the focal point of a larger discussion, when faced with a crowd of knaves and scoundrels it is good practice to punch out the biggest first, if you can. You will have to confront him eventually, and it's best to do so when most rested, rather than wearing yourself down frying lesser fish. If you fail, you would have eventually, in any event. If you succeed, the others are likely to scatter.
All of which is to say that it is both the scale and the practice, and to pose the problem as being a choice of either/or is to deflect attention from one by suggesting that they are not inextricably joined, when much of the damage is enabled by the synergy of scale and practice.
I'm sure we all are moved to pity poor Monsanto, "guilty" or not (nice rhetorical flourish, there, the quotes) being singled out, so possibly dishonestly.
|
|