General Discussion

Lordquinton

(7,886 posts)

94. The original design of patents forbid patenting life

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:33 AM

Jan 2013

and I believe this is the best course. Patents need a serious overhaul in general, see some of the other posts re: patents for things that don't exist yet. How do you feel about the other aspects I mentioned? there are a couple threads about it going around, one relates a documentary about Indian farmers that are committing suicide because they get indebted to monsanto and there is no way out of it in their lifetime.

Upon reflection the current patent laws regarding plants are a form of slavery, you either buy into Monsanto for life, and you are owned by them in all but name, or you risk getting a lawsuit thrown at you that is impossible to fight because technically they are right, you are growing "their" patents, but only because they released them into the wild, and well, science happened. Think of it like if your neighbor is painting their house, they are very sloppy, but they are using their patented color. They end up spraying half of your house with their paint, and then, after documenting in great detail how much of their color is on your house, take you to court and win because technically they are in the right, and the law supports them.

Here's a question: Why is protecting profits more important than protecting life?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

105 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I'm just going to leave this here quietly, then run like hell.... [View all] Rosco T. Jan 2013 OP

He's free to believe whatever he wants. RomneyLies Jan 2013 #1

Did he really "discovered science", or... Tempest Jan 2013 #2

The classic first response. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #5

Follow the money Fumesucker Jan 2013 #7

Wow. Just as the idiots say about the climate scientists. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #9

Do you fully support the way Monsanto is genetically modifying food organisms? Fumesucker Jan 2013 #10

"the way".... business or science? Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #18

What's actually happening on the ground so to speak with Monsanto modified organisms. Fumesucker Jan 2013 #20

No problem with the science. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #22

That wasn't what I asked Fumesucker Jan 2013 #29

Ah. As I suspected. This is a social/economic complaint. Not scientific. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #34

Ah. As I suspected. You support Monsanto, not the human race. Fumesucker Jan 2013 #35

This message was self-deleted by its author Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #72

Do those blinders make you less nervous in traffic? appal_jack Jan 2013 #55

! Berlum Jan 2013 #73

Ain't that the truth. nt raouldukelives Jan 2013 #56

Lives saved by GMO's? Are you kidding? Anything & everything that Monsato claims KittyWampus Jan 2013 #32

As a small organic farmer, for me its BUSINESS and SCIENCE riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #37

There are other sources of seeds. Lots more. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #38

Of course there are, but Monsanto goes after ANYONE they want, regardless riderinthestorm Jan 2013 #46

Their objective is to be the owner of all food produced 2naSalit Jan 2013 #102

Oh good, could you answer a few questions for me? RomneyLies Jan 2013 #19

Do you only eat food that you have 100% knowledge of the chemical processes ... Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #21

Well, I know people have been eating unmodified versions of the foods I eat for centuries RomneyLies Jan 2013 #23

all based on fear? Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #25

No, on rationality RomneyLies Jan 2013 #26

Fine, but no need to fear them. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #30

And you have nothing conclusive to offer RomneyLies Jan 2013 #33

I certainly haven't said that, I think there is immense potential for good in GM Fumesucker Jan 2013 #45

I think the catastrophe is already in the works with GMO Salmon RomneyLies Jan 2013 #85

Do you understand horizontal gene transfer? NickB79 Jan 2013 #66

Your last statement is absurd. RomneyLies Jan 2013 #68

Most people who oppose GMOs lump hybrids into that pool. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #71

I certainly don't! RomneyLies Jan 2013 #81

Great post. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #83

Here's an AWESOME hybrid I intend to grow this season RomneyLies Jan 2013 #86

you going to respond to post #71? snooper2 Jan 2013 #74

Pushy. RomneyLies Jan 2013 #82

People with food allergies have good reason to be leery of GMO's, till the producers can identify pnwmom Jan 2013 #48

I have no argument with identifying food as containing GMOs. None. Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #52

Toxicologist here who specialized in plant toxins Drahthaardogs Jan 2013 #50

... Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #53

What do you think about labeling? The producers are fighting this. n/t pnwmom Jan 2013 #60

I have no issue with requiring labeling, but lets get real here... Drahthaardogs Jan 2013 #79

Hey Jackass, ever hear of a lobbyist? n/t Tempest Jan 2013 #14

Straight for the insults without even a preamble? d Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #17

Let him be a guinea pig then marions ghost Jan 2013 #3

"I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist." Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #4

You want the most BASIC reason to oppose GMO's? Our food supply needs diversity for survival. GMO's KittyWampus Jan 2013 #24

Oy. Where did you learn all that stuff? Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #27

The main reason for GMO corn and soy beans is resistence to Roundup. RomneyLies Jan 2013 #31

Yeah, I agree with that, but ... Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #36

Oh I understand completely what's going on with GMOs. RomneyLies Jan 2013 #41

ok Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #43

BTW, the unrelated upside is also health related RomneyLies Jan 2013 #51

If GMO were actually being used to better mankind rather than wring every last drop of profit Fumesucker Jan 2013 #6

Look at all the farmers they're suing for cross pollination. Tempest Jan 2013 #13

I'm an environmental activist and I don't necessarily disagree with GMO's JaneyVee Jan 2013 #8

THIS^^ Canuckistanian Jan 2013 #15

+1 HiPointDem Jan 2013 #49

+666 green for victory Jan 2013 #58

Well, it might be because large numbers of baseless objections are a pain in the ass. sibelian Jan 2013 #96

+1 nt Live and Learn Jan 2013 #39

+ 1000 loyalsister Jan 2013 #92

GM food should NOT be offered to those who are desperate Canuckistanian Jan 2013 #101

End all organism and seed patents and close all present and future legislation. NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #11

Then there would be zero incentive for anyone to develop any new plants Major Nikon Jan 2013 #28

Disagree. Governments can fund research, and philanthopic organizations. NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #40

They already do Major Nikon Jan 2013 #59

The Incentive strawman is a big rightwing talking point Lordquinton Jan 2013 #62

So other than profit, what's the incentive for developing a better hybrid tea rose? Major Nikon Jan 2013 #64

I did take it to the extreme Lordquinton Jan 2013 #90

I think most are motivated by profit Major Nikon Jan 2013 #93

The original design of patents forbid patenting life Lordquinton Jan 2013 #94

Part of what you alluded to is what I mentioned regarding lobbying Major Nikon Jan 2013 #95

So it's the farmer's fault? Lordquinton Jan 2013 #100

You completely misrepresented what I wrote Major Nikon Jan 2013 #104

And you completely ignored all my questions Lordquinton Jan 2013 #105

Touche! Correct on all counts. NYC_SKP Jan 2013 #77

POTD Champion Jack Jan 2013 #44

He holds a degree in history and politics from the University of Edinburgh. lunasun Jan 2013 #12

Then no one should have listened to him in the first place. Ikonoklast Jan 2013 #42

Run and Hide, my friend. Run and Hide (nt) Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #16

People don't require GMOs to have a healthy nutritious diet of their own choosing. HiPointDem Jan 2013 #47

As a species, we have made a choice jberryhill Jan 2013 #54

Great, thoughtful post. nt Union Scribe Jan 2013 #61

Attention Mark Lynas: GFY- it's the new GMO green for victory Jan 2013 #57

Kudzu was going to save the South stultusporcos Jan 2013 #63

Let's see what happens to his lifestyle over the next few years... Egalitarian Thug Jan 2013 #65

The Google doesn't back up Mark Lynas claim ... GeorgeGist Jan 2013 #67

You mean he's lying? Who'd a thunk it. Berlum Jan 2013 #84

Bookmarked, thanks. Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #69

well then, eat some nightshade and let us know how it works out for you. ret5hd Jan 2013 #76

That contains a chemical that is harmful, the DNA itself is not Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #88

Exactly...but WHAT is it in the plant that CODES for those chemicals? ret5hd Jan 2013 #99

The same thing that codes for gills and snouts Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #103

"Science" really? n2doc Jan 2013 #70

Climate change will soon begin to affect food production to a degree we can't ignore. randome Jan 2013 #75

The Effect of Glyphosate on Potential Pathogens and Beneficial Members of Poultry Microbiota In Vitr dkf Jan 2013 #78

I'm an environmentalist and an academic ecologist-- and I agree with the OP.... mike_c Jan 2013 #80

The problem with GMOs is, and has always been, that we don't know what what will happen Taverner Jan 2013 #87

The problem with GMOs is that they're patented. joshcryer Jan 2013 #89

That too nt Taverner Jan 2013 #91

apologies to the scientists in this thread- MONSANTO IS EVIL AND GMO's are an INSIDIOUS DANGER!!! farminator3000 Jan 2013 #97

EEEEEEVIL, i say! monsanto is the king! farminator3000 Jan 2013 #98