|
Post by castanea on Nov 22, 2011 0:31:54 GMT -5
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 I don't think plant patents have very much to do with fostering innovation at all. I think they are designed to encourage theft and monopolization of plant resources.
|
|
|
Post by paquebot on Nov 22, 2011 21:04:59 GMT -5
I don't think plant patents have very much to do with fostering innovation at all. I think they are designed to encourage theft and monopolization of plant resources. Burbank dedicated much of his life to innovation and often got nothing in return for his efforts. Plant Patent Act was instituted to correct that. It was enacted so as to be an incentive for others to follow in his footsteps. Martin
|
|
|
Post by castanea on Nov 22, 2011 22:54:53 GMT -5
I don't think plant patents have very much to do with fostering innovation at all. I think they are designed to encourage theft and monopolization of plant resources. Burbank dedicated much of his life to innovation and often got nothing in return for his efforts. Plant Patent Act was instituted to correct that. It was enacted so as to be an incentive for others to follow in his footsteps. Martin Burbank is the undeniable proof that patents are not needed, either to spur innovation or to make money. Burbank did all of his work without the incentive of patents and also made a very comfortable living without patents. Same with Felix Gillet, Albert Etter etc. On the other hand, with patents, what has Monsanto done? Poisoned generations with their toxic products. I'll take Luther Burbank, Felix Gillet and Albert Etter over Monsanto any day.
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Nov 26, 2011 10:25:35 GMT -5
I don't think anyone,not even yonnyyamu believes one second that plants grow better because there are markers in their genes.
So,there exist (really!) companies that spend lots of money in the useless innovation of markers. ok But the problem is that they want to have loooooaads of money for this useless work.
WHAT IS THIS?
Are this the right guys to feed humanity?
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 26, 2011 12:05:55 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. This is what I am interested in Grunt. If Monsanto fails and goes away, what happens to the wider discussion? This is why I think it is a little dishonest of an argument to hang the "movement" on one entity. What are the groups thoughts on this? Thanks again Jonny
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 26, 2011 12:13:56 GMT -5
I don't think anyone,not even yonnyyamu believes one second that plants grow better because there are markers in their genes. So,there exist (really!) companies that spend lots of money in the useless innovation of markers. ok But the problem is that they want to have loooooaads of money for this useless work. WHAT IS THIS? Are this the right guys to feed humanity? I am not sure I understand, but I will take a shot. Markers have nothing to do with the performance of the variety per se. Markers are used to move things around and keep track of them with out having to phenotype the cultigen. Phenotyping is the most expensive and time consuming part of any breeding program. For example (as I don't think I explained it very well). You have a trait controlled by 10 genes and they are all recessive. Your chances of finding one is 1/4 to the 10th power. That is an exceptionally small number. You can use markers to increase the chances of finding that combination of 10 genes w/o having to go to the field and phenotype. Markers have nothing to do with the performance of a cultivar/variety and more to do with moving genes around and tracking the performance of your families. Does that make sense? I never feel like i explain anything well. Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 26, 2011 12:23:24 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. I missed this as related to my previosu post. I am not saying it is a choice between the scale or practice. I am asking why some companies seem to get a free pass for no other obvious reasons than size and notoriety. I think you are reading too much into my quesiton and applying rhetoric when none exists. "Guilty" was in quotes so as to make it a discussion point, i.e. many companies are guilty but get a pass, so I quoted "guilty" to try point this out. I guess I failed on that count. Also, I never asked for anyone to pity Monsanto. Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Nov 26, 2011 16:33:42 GMT -5
I don't think anyone,not even yonnyyamu believes one second that plants grow better because there are markers in their genes. So,there exist (really!) companies that spend lots of money in the useless innovation of markers. ok But the problem is that they want to have loooooaads of money for this useless work. WHAT IS THIS? Are this the right guys to feed humanity? I am not sure I understand, but I will take a shot. Markers have nothing to do with the performance of the variety per se. Markers are used to move things around and keep track of them with out having to phenotype the cultigen. Phenotyping is the most expensive and time consuming part of any breeding program. For example (as I don't think I explained it very well). You have a trait controlled by 10 genes and they are all recessive. Your chances of finding one is 1/4 to the 10th power. That is an exceptionally small number. You can use markers to increase the chances of finding that combination of 10 genes w/o having to go to the field and phenotype. Markers have nothing to do with the performance of a cultivar/variety and more to do with moving genes around and tracking the performance of your families. Does that make sense? I never feel like i explain anything well. Thanks Jonny Well,I was more thinking of markers as means of identification of a "patent". I admit I don't know much technical about markers,but I thought this was one of the applications. In fact,if you mean that markers allow identification of genotypes without growing them it makes sense to me that in some cases it can speed up things. What I think about seed companies is that most of them,big or small are focusing on "innovations",that's hybrids,gmo's,and stufffing the whole genomes with markers. And they turn away from plant breedingn based on sexual reproduction. This is not for scientific reasons,but for reasons of business strategie. I know,the argument is that if you don't make big money,no progress will be made. A living proof that that idea is wrong,is a man like tom wagner,who,on his own created more new varietiesof tomatoes and potatoes(and crossed lots of newfeatures in) than any of those seed companies. And that's because sexual reproduction is terribly efficient for that. Every new variety is a starting point for further breeding,where every hybrid is a dead end. Breeding hybrids is expensive and from a plant breeding point of view very ineffficient. Seed companies are not stupid,they know that they can't compete with the old fashioned way of plant breeding,despite ,or because of,the innovations. They don't want cuncurrence So they want to make outlaws of all the plantbreeders that don't fit their business model. I'm affraid that most small companies try to adapt to the model. Indeed it's difficult to make money if farmers can produce their own seed.And that'swhy seed companies are a disaster for plant breeding. Of course there are exceptions,but this will be rather individuals,like tom wagner or Joseph then companies. I don't know if I expressed myselff like I meant to do,but I just give it a try.
|
|
|
Post by jonnyyuma on Nov 27, 2011 21:57:51 GMT -5
Hello Nuts It depends on what type of patent you apply for and what you say in the invention disclosure as to whether a marker is required for a patent. I am no expert on patents, but I believe for a utility patent you wouldn't need a marker. Thanks Jonny
|
|
|
Post by PapaVic on Nov 29, 2011 11:03:32 GMT -5
Every new variety is a starting point for further breeding, where every hybrid is a dead end. Every new variety either begins as a mutant or a hybrid. Most new varieties are the result of a human manipulating two selected lines to manufacture a hybrid from which subsequent selections become the new variety. A substantial portion of the work to create new varieties is done in university experiment stations, private foundation breeding facilities, and corporate breeding facilities. Each gardener and commercial grower has the opportunity and I hope the intelligence to determine for himself or herself whether and what horticultural products to purchase, grow, and use.
|
|
|
Post by PapaVic on Nov 29, 2011 11:10:24 GMT -5
I do not see hybrids as a dead end. Rather I see them as an opportunity to employ genetics provided by a professional breeder either to enjoy and profit from as is, or to incorporate into or select toward an even more improved cultivar.
I suppose some people view life as a series of reactions against the wall rather than using components of the wall as a resource from which to build the future. I can tell you from experience that beating one's head against the wall leads only to skull fracture.
|
|
|
Post by steev on Nov 29, 2011 11:54:21 GMT -5
I have no problem whatsoever with hybrids, being one myself. I have a big problem with patents on life-forms, especially when based on publicly-funded research and development, as is so much agricultural advance. I strongly support landraces, which are generally the result of unrestricted recombination of genetic resources for adaptation to a particular locality. I tend to regard life-form patents the same way I regard racial, religious, or ethnic chauvinism: efforts by some to control others for personal comfort, security, or profit.
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Nov 29, 2011 13:33:53 GMT -5
Every new variety is a starting point for further breeding, where every hybrid is a dead end. Every new variety either begins as a mutant or a hybrid. Most new varieties are the result of a human manipulating two selected lines to manufacture a hybrid from which subsequent selections become the new variety. A substantial portion of the work to create new varieties is done in university experiment stations, private foundation breeding facilities, and corporate breeding facilities. Each gardener and commercial grower has the opportunity and I hope the intelligence to determine for himself or herself whether and what horticultural products to purchase, grow, and use. Yes,you're right,hybridisation is the crucial thing in plant breeding,and in a more general way,in evolution. But the hybrids I meant to talk about is a very special case of hybrisation. The hybrid seeds sold by seedcompanies are unsuited for further breeding In fact,that's what they are designed for. That's what I mean by dead end. Thanks for the comment.
|
|
|
Post by grunt on Nov 29, 2011 14:11:54 GMT -5
Nuts: The hybrids sold by seed companies are just that, hybrids. They are not special case hybrids, or produced by some mystical process, they are just hybrids. For the average back yard gardener, they are a dead end, in most cases, because the F2's are going to be extremely variable, and nothing like the F1. To the backyard gardener, this means they are useless for planting. For those of us that see something in the F1 that is worth chasing, it is just a matter of growing out enough F2's to start pursuing the traits we want, and trying to isolate and stabilize the result. A hybrid is a hybrid is a hybrid.
|
|
|
Post by nuts on Nov 29, 2011 14:54:01 GMT -5
Nuts: The hybrids sold by seed companies are just that, hybrids. They are not special case hybrids, or produced by some mystical process, they are just hybrids. For the average back yard gardener, they are a dead end, in most cases, because the F2's are going to be extremely variable, and nothing like the F1. To the backyard gardener, this means they are useless for planting. For those of us that see something in the F1 that is worth chasing, it is just a matter of growing out enough F2's to start pursuing the traits we want, and trying to isolate and stabilize the result. A hybrid is a hybrid is a hybrid. A commercial hybrid is a cross between two strongly inbred lines.In the most extreme case it's a cross between two lines that are 100% homozygote for all the genes. Nothing mystic about it.in fact,yes,it's just a cross like any other. Well let's say,it's a normal cross effected in special conditions,right?? ;D you're right, there is no difference between a mouse and a rodent Yes,if you're stubborn enough you can start your breeding program with commercial hybrids.Why not. Finally,a plant is a plant. Please never say that I recoommanded it. ;D
|
|