Hacker News Reader

Comment by chicob | Hacker News Reader

This is the kind of bullshit that infuriates me as a farmer and the only reason for me not to use GMOs and whichever patented cultivars. The rights of farmers to resow has (and must have!) precedence over intellectual or property rights.

These strategies have taken place in the past with GMOs, and I suspect will happen again.

Branded seed sowing can be subject to some restrictions for a single contract and crop for the purpose of the destination of the produce, but the extent of those restrictions should stop there and should not apply to 2nd generation seeds or their crops.

I've had my share of shady contracts with 10 year long confidentiality agreements. Never again.

Indian farmers have all my sympathy and support.

View on HN

All of this belongs in the same bucket as the John Deere (and others) 'no right to repair or modify' bucket.

I never approved of this concept with iPhones, where Apple clearly asserts residual ownership of the phone; and the same concept with Tesla, where parts and repairs can't be done by third parties. Nope, nope, and nope. Find another way. I have a superseding right as a voter and citizen to petition a legislative alternative to certain nonsensical free market outcomes.

I think we handle GMO's in the worst way possible in this regard, the ability to 'own' a DNA sequence seems insane to me.

> I've had my share of shady contracts with 10 year long confidentiality agreements. Never again.

The plague of NDAs has moved to farming? Is there anything more you're allowed to say on the matter?

It was a seed multiplication contract. I'm pretty sure I cannot name the company or plant, or any other specifics.

NDA's are useful for signing contracts with neighbouring farmers so that they cannot argue against differential treatment regarding prices. Of course everybody knows who is being paid what, but no one can officially complain.

> I'm pretty sure I cannot name the company

So I'm assuming it's Monsanto, then

I can say you are wrong, but I won't say anymore!

It's not Monsanto, it's called Bayer now.

Thank you. It's not the specifics I'm interested in, but the generalities, like what the NDA's are used for, and what makes them shady (other than silencing people). Are there other reasons for them, besides hiding prices?

Not that I am aware of. Perhaps deterring people willing to show them to the press, or avoiding class actions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com