Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonster | Hacker News Reader

I agree that this is insane, but I'm not sure what the solution is.

With most patents, the company that developed the technology to be patented has a unique advantage even without the patent. They have a better technical understanding of the technology than the competitors, and they can incorporate it into their products faster.

With crop patents, the patent seems far more necessary as an incentive to innovate. If Monsanto can't patent their new seed, then anyone else who wants to can also sell the seed, and Monsanto will never recoup the R&D costs. Under this scenario, I don't see why anyone would develop new plants.

Assuming we want to encourage selective breeding/genetic engineering of new plant species, what incentives can we devise that don't have the problems posed by patents?

View on HN

> Under this scenario, I don't see why anyone would develop new plants.

Prior to privatization, many universities in ag states developed seed for the public domain and farmers passed seed down from generation of farmer to the next, selecting and improving for conditions and yield along the way. Many of these are now considered heirlooms and can be purchased through Seed Savers Exchange or found in seed banks. Some have well-documented lineage, most are a mystery.

There are plenty of reasons beyond money for developing new plants. I'm a pretty intense gardener. I select and create hybrids based on taste. I'm not particularly concerned about travel time from my back yard to my dinner plate or resistance to pests that don't exist in my backyard.

Then again, "growing your own food is like printing your own money": http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_finley_a_guerilla_gardener_in_s...

So maybe it is about money.

>> "I agree that this is insane, but I'm not sure what the solution is."

I think the core problem is that plant patents mandate that you not reproduce something that naturally reproduces. It just isn't a sensible thing to patent.

I'm generally pretty free-market libertarian, but given the nature of this issue, I think the solution is to do bio-engineering in a way that inherently becomes public domain: by collectively funding crop research with taxes.

Public funding got us the internet. Why not better crops?

> If Monsanto can't patent their new seed, then anyone else who wants to can also sell the seed, and Monsanto will never recoup the R&D costs. Under this scenario, I don't see why anyone would develop new plants.

Could the same apply to GNU or Linux or any other free software project or is it far different thing?

To develop free software, all you need is a PC, Internet and free time.

To develop free GM plants, you need workers, material (host microorganisms, plant fertilizer), green houses, lab time, machines (PCR, sterile workbenches, ideally a sequencer, PCs, maybe a fun electroporator, etc.), space for growth etc. Also, the laws are strict - you can't just create GM-organisms in your backyard, depending on the country you're in you have to be in a certified lab with correct procedures for waste disposal etc.

The upfront costs involved in developing GM are much, much higher. But it's definitely not impossible - there's for example an open source PCR machine for self-builders, I can see more machines like that coming up...

Patents protect incentives to innovate in capital-intensive industries. Software is by and large not such an industry, and is thus a bad point of comparison.

An estimate of the cost of developing a Linux distribution (Redhat 7.1) pegged the cost at about $1 billion (http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html) using software cost models. Monsanto spends that much in just one year on R&D.

Also, note that as a practical matter, most Linux development these days is done by commercial entities that leverage different IP monopolies. RedHat may make the software freely available, but they monetize it by leveraging their trademark in connection with services. IBM puts Linux on patented hardware. Various companies sell commercial copyright licenses for GPL-ed products.

> I don't see why anyone would develop new plants.

A large portion of the most powerful companies are depended on fuel. With constantly climbing oil prices, renewable sources are very much sought after. The military would likely be willing to send top dollars for research into more effective crops and plants. Almost all plants used in farming is also used for biofuel (corn, soy and sugarcane to just mention a few). Animal fat is also used, so basically anything a farm produce could improve the biofuel industry. This is an industry with a loot of money to send researchers regardless of any patents involved.

Monsanto already has a great incentive to make things "roundup ready" - they can sell more roundup as a result. They've done something of debatable patentability that drastically increases the value of their existing assets. If you want to milk it for more, raise the price of roundup, which as a fancy chemical cocktail that isn't self reproducing, is much more viable for patent and trade secret protections.

Roundup is out of patent.

Sucks for them, innovation doesn't always come at the right time for a big payday. But their payday can still be fantastic without (to my mind at least) ignoring what kind of activities patents are supposed to protect.

RR crops still boost demand for roundup and clones, competing on brand is a valid and proven strategy, and you can still sell RR(tm) branded seeds that you guarantee are roundup ready at perhaps a lower markup. And you can target your next herbicide immune crop at a patent protected herbicide.

The roundup ready soybean is also just about out of patent. (I think it has another 6 months or so.)

They of course made a version 2 (and don't sell version 1 anymore, so it's hard to get). But doubt the version 2 is all that much better.

You mean that Roundup(TM) brand broad-spectrum systemic herbicide is still copyrighted. The chemical glyphosate is no longer under patent protection.

Let's keep our facts straight, and respect other's intellectual property, folks. It's dangerous out there.

> Under this scenario, I don't see why anyone would develop new plants.

I wonder how anyone does anything at all without receiving a fucking de jure monopoly first. Opening a store? Not without exclusive license from the city first!

This is madness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com