

No Patents on Seeds - nns1212
http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/

======
kdeberk
It's quite obvious that the maintainers are often being economical with the
truth, for example, from their article on Monsanto (actually Seminis)
receiving a patent of a specific subsort of brocolli: ([http://www.no-patents-
on-seeds.org/en/information/news/monsa...](http://www.no-patents-on-
seeds.org/en/information/news/monsanto-granted-patent-severed-broccoli))

> "Today the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich granted a patent on
> conventional breeding."

Really? The process of conventional breeding is patented? I thought it was
about brocolli?

> "It additionally covers a “plurality of broccoli plants .. . grown in a
> field of broccoli.”"

Quote mining. The patent makes it clear that this sentence is about the
brocolli subspecies that was patented, but the authors of the article rip this
sentence out of context to make it appear that all of brocolli now belongs to
Monsanto.

Also, note that in their article only 5 sentences, about half of the first
paragraph, are relevant to the patent while the remainder of the article (4.5
paragraphs) are about on how terrible these patents are. They barely discuss
what the patent is really about and the article only seems to be a kneejerk
based on a quick scan of the patent. Why should I agree with the author and
sign the petition if he needs to be intellectually dishonest?

I'm not sure what my position on patents on plants are. Almost all plants that
we currently cultivate could never have existed without artificial selection
(unintentional or otherwise). In this specific case, Seminis had to perform
focused work so that these plants could exist. It's not as if these plants
just fell out of the sky.

~~~
throwawaykf02
> economical with the truth

That could be said about pretty much any article about patents that gets
posted to HN. Or heck, most of tech media. It's unfortunate that so-called
geeks and hackers swallow it without the least bit of critical thought. Your
post is a refreshing change.

Not saying the patent system is perfect, just that it's broken in completely
different ways than what the tech media (cough submarine cough) likes to
portray.

------
tehwalrus
I am increasingly of the opinion that patents simply aren't worth the trouble
they cause.

I get that you need them for the lone inventor in their shed in the garden,
but they never seem to be the ones who own all the patents.

~~~
phryk
Indeed. It's pretty obvious that most patents are owned by corporations who
paid someone to do the work and not by the inventors themselves. My personal
assessment is that in contemporary times, patents only slow down progress and
fill the pockets of already-rich people.

That said, I am wary of anything environmentalist since those people often
seem to not have done even the most minute amount of research on their topics
and then continue to spread misinformation or plain lies (see the anti-GMO
people for instance).

The mentioned site for example, seems to imply that plant/animal patents will
diminish biodiversity ("The organisations behind No Patents On Seeds are
especially concerned about […] biodiversity.").

I have no clue how granting patents on plants and animals is supposed to
diminish biodiversity. Won't new plants and animals _increase_ biodiversity? I
mean yes, without the patents you could crossbreed and remix GM and other
plants more freely which would boost the increase even further, but even a
small increase is still pretty much the opposite of a decrease and dismantles
the argument.

And before someone gets into cross-pollination and other ways of patented
species overtaking 'natural' species habitats: For that to happen you need the
GM species to be vastly better at reproducing. The chances of this happening
without it being a goal of the development (which it usually isn't, since they
want you to buy shit again and again…) are pretty small. As far as I know most
GM organisms are even made sterile.

And while the risk of GM organisms "taking over the world" is relatively slim,
naturally occuring species do this kind of stuff right this moment. The so-
called 'Killer bees', some species of fish and crustaceans, red fire ants. et
cetera, et cetera.

Many people have this sense of nature being balanced and that if we don't
touch it, it'll all be alright ("Man made everything bad!", the
environmentalist version of original sin). This is complete and utter
bullshit, just doesn't work that way. Ecosystems are not static, they are
extremely dynamic and _never_ balanced.

~~~
tehwalrus
_> Won't new plants and animals increase biodiversity?_

The issue here isn't that - new plants and animals may be good or bad, but
that's an environmental argument. My concern is allowing people to patent
biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is _clearly_ bad.

EU law doesn't allow software patents, perhaps it's time to define DNA as a
computer program, thus making it illegal to patent it.

~~~
ronaldx
>My concern is allowing people to patent biochemistry/DNA sequences, which is
clearly bad.

I was thinking about this earlier but I concluded that it was morally no
different than any other form of patent - and modestly comparible to patents
on new drugs (or software, indeed).

For example - the protection afforded by patents on new drugs is said to
justify the amount spent by the pharmaceutical industry on R&D/drug discovery.

Why is the argument different for seeds/DNA sequences, _or any other invention
that benefits humanity_ , if it is?

~~~
Retric
The problem seed manufactures get to enforce useless patents. Step 1, patent
junk DNA. Step 2, prevent farmers from using seed banks due to useless patent.
Step 3, profit.

Net value to society... Nothing.

~~~
ronaldx
This argument is against patenting 'junk' DNA: but European and American
patent law both require a patent to have industrial application and to be
novel.

So, I find it unlikely that this situation should apply in practice (although
it is worrying that it _might_ apply). And, I don't find it an argument
against patenting useful non-junk DNA.

Note: I'm probably on your side, at least in that I dislike implementation of
patent law in general.

------
belorn
A much needed work, and I wish them all the luck in abolishing patents and any
other kind of state enforced monopolies around plants, genetic material and
other similar areas.

With some success in the EU, current food industries might feel inclined to
stop trying exploiting state power for their businesses model, and just focus
on creating superior products that are useful for the consumer. There will
never be a lack of potential buyers for superior methods of farming, as the
cost of biofuel are directly linked to the easy of farming. The army would
love to throw money at more effective corn/soy/sugarcane production, if it
would lower their cost in using biofuel. Animal fat is also used, so basically
anything a farm produce could improve the biofuel industry.

------
madaxe
Patents on seeds are particularly worrying as a result of The Patent Box
([http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ct/forms-rates/claims/patent-
box.htm](http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ct/forms-rates/claims/patent-box.htm)) in the
UK. Basically means income from patented "inventions" is tax free, which means
that Monsanto and chums will only get richer, and the market less competitive.
Tweak a gene, repatent, ad infinitum.

Never mind that this is a complete perversion of the purpose of the patent
system (innovation and the common good).

~~~
tehwalrus
The sad thing is that will have been designed to incentivise innovation/R&D,
when in fact it incentivises registering more patents. :/

