I agree that the comment is content-free but honestly what did the company expect when they're boasting about their partnership with one of the world's most hated companies?
I'm not exactly alarmed to see this comment at the top because it's ridiculous that the company was dumb enough to issue this press release. We all need to pay our bills but to boast about working with a hated company is just a stupid PR move.
Apple, Facebook, Google, Chevorlet, Clorox, etc, are all not stupid enough to write a press release like this one. Whoever advised them to do so should immediately be fired b/c they clearly don't get PR.
You know what else is hilarious is that they're not only admitting to power one of the most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds), but they're actually touting it as a win for the company.
> they're not only admitting to power one of the most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds), but they're actually touting it as a win for the company.
It is a win for Cloudant. A huge win. They're a data company, not a biological warfare company. Their product will be used in an incredibly data-intensive application to do some really cool analysis. That's awesome for a data startup, and something to be proud of.
If I were a maker of a light-weight, high-strength alloy, should I be ashamed if Lockheed Martin wants to use it in their newest fighter jet? Of course not. I should be stoked that my product is getting such a high-profile endorsement, and excited about what it means for future development.
This announcement lends huge credibility to BigCouch, and will likely lead to future deals. They'd be idiots and incredibly poor businessmen if they didn't announce it with some fanfare.
I personally wouldn't partner with Lockheed Martin if my tech was going to be used for weaponry. We've refused lucrative contracts with certain companies because we don't respect their product or their past behavior. It completely depends on the relative weight of what you find important.
Partnership deals happen in the background without anyone knowing about it unless you are in the scene. Fact is that they could've done this deal without such an announcement and people/investors in the know within SV would've heard about it.
>I personally wouldn't partner with Lockheed Martin if my tech was going to be used for weaponry.
Say goodbye to the vast majority of technological, materials, and aerospace development of the 20th century.
>The fact is that Monsanto has a long history of harmful activities in the United States
So? Sequencing genes isn't one of them.
>Sure, Cloudant isn't a bio warfare company, but the fact is that they are proud to be associated with Monsanto
They're proud that their product has found such a demanding and high-profile customer. They should be. They aren't providing logistical support for Monsanto's campaign to crush independent farmers, they're providing the backbone for gene sequencing.
It doesn't matter what you think of Monsanto or some of their policies. Fact is, Cloudant has found a demanding and bleeding-edge customer for their product, which will lead to big advances both in its adoption and its underlying technology. That's a Good Thing.
"most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds)"
1. Genetic manipulation of seeds is going to feed the world. And at the rate our population is growing, we're going to need it.
2. They weren't talking about genetic insertions, instead they said "Genome Analysis". Genome analysis helps plant breeders find plants that already have advantageous genes and try to quantify their effect of these genes.
3. I don't particularly like Monsanto (I worked for a competitor) but I'm not sure Monsanto is "one of the world's most hated companies" outside hacker and hippie circles.
1. Genetic manipulation by Monsanto has relied on herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. This comes with averse effects and risks. The use of herbicides/pesticides must be reduced. We need pollinators, we need genetic diversity and biodiversity. We must look ahead more than 25 or so years. When it comes to soil fertility and contamination we should be looking ahead 100 years.
2. Is it possible for a group to select and breed their seeds over years, and eventually having a breed that is similar to a patented Monsanto seed?
> Genetic manipulation by Monsanto has relied on herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. This comes with averse effects and risks. The use of herbicides/pesticides must be reduced. We need pollinators, we need genetic diversity and biodiversity. We must look ahead more than 25 or so years. When it comes to soil fertility and contamination we should be looking ahead 100 years.
1. lowered levels of food production have their own averse effects and risks, notably, famine and starvation. herbicides, persticides and monocultures of high yield strains are widely believed to be responsible for saving a billion lives. if you eliminated those things from the planet right now, hundreds of millions of people would starve next year.
2. the things you're talking about aren't monsanto's fault. people are doing business with monsanto willingly. you don't have to buy gmo seeds (or any seeds) from them if you don't want to.
> Is it possible for a group to select and breed their seeds over years, and eventually having a breed that is similar to a patented Monsanto seed?
sure. if you have a breed similar to a monsanto seed, they'd win a lawsuit against you only if your breed had the same gene that they patented. you may think that that's not fair, but that's how things work. if i win a patent for a space engine for interstellar space travel, and you independently invent the same engine, i'd also win a lawsuit against you. also note that no one has actually bred a RoundUp resistant strain of plants independently of monsanto.
1. If we continue our use of herbicides/pesticides to the point of wide-spread colony collapse, spread of plant disease (perhaps canola, soy, or corn), significant reduction of nitrate fixation, increased human cancers we may also see hundreds of millions of people die or be without food.
Obviously, no one is suggesting we stop producing enough food for people to eat. But you need to look past the next 5, 10, 25 years. Those issues listed above are all real. And can all be linked to herbicides/pesticides and monocultures. We need to work on a new solution, a new system. The current situation is not a long-term answer.
2. This is more a theoretical morality issue. How much control/ownership should any one entity be allowed to have on life. What if they aren't just patenting seeds for RoundUp resistance? More so, say I live in a certain climate where I want a certain field tomato to grow. And under those circumstances I end up with a seed similar to a patented Monsanto seed. I lose in court. Other varieties of tomatoes don't grow will in my area. What do I do? I no longer have the freedom or right to grow successful tomatoes. This is not reality, but a possibility. One, that I do not believe in the slightest is worth risking. This could also lead to outrageous seed pricing.
Oh while I'm at it. Let's add climate change, land degradation (http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1214-unu.html). Basically, yes we need to feed billions, but we also need to do that 25-50 years from now. The practices used for high-yield crops are limiting our ability to produce food in the future.
FTR, Pioneer HiBred recently patented their own glyphosate (roundup) resistance gene (a different one than monsanto has), although I'm not sure if they have any varieties that have the gene incorporated yet. Obviously, they're excited about it because now they don't have to pay royalty fees to Monsanto anymore.
1. There is plenty of genetic diversity (aka hetrozygosity). The most credible evidence suggests that Colony Collapse Syndrome was caused by a disease, not GMO seed. Also, all of the seed companies take tremendous care to ensure that their patented biotech traits (BT) keep working in future, which is why they all have refuge requirements (meaning a farmer must plant at least X percent of their crop that isn't BT, which makes sure that various pests continue to breed with genes that will make their offspring susceptible to herbicide/pesticide treatment).
2. Corn has tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of genes and has roughly 22 million nucleotide base pairs. Having two breeders from two different companies come up with roughly the same plant interdependently is in the astronomical range.
As a follow-on, Paul, based on your standards, "everybody" accepts money from anybody even if they're evil. This is also a policy that YCombinator apparently supports?? I would have preferred to be voting up a post about "Why Cloudera turned down Monsanto's business" to illustrate the fact that they have ethical standards and believe that those are important in business.
I'm not exactly alarmed to see this comment at the top because it's ridiculous that the company was dumb enough to issue this press release. We all need to pay our bills but to boast about working with a hated company is just a stupid PR move.
Apple, Facebook, Google, Chevorlet, Clorox, etc, are all not stupid enough to write a press release like this one. Whoever advised them to do so should immediately be fired b/c they clearly don't get PR.
You know what else is hilarious is that they're not only admitting to power one of the most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds), but they're actually touting it as a win for the company.