Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses 284
Doc Ruby writes "The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection.' The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, newly illegal. Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from IP developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, shared freely like agricultural 'open source.' Other IP provisions for technology in the law further integrate Iraq into the American IP economy."
Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
Giving them the choice to buy GM seed is fine; forcing them to buy GM seed and abide by North American terms and conditions is debilitating.
Much bigger impact than RIAA, MPAA & co (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe the summary was overstated. They are not forced to buy GM seeds; they are just not allowed to save GM seeds. They can still use other seeds however they desire.
The ethics of disallowing GM's seeds from being used in this way are debatable, but the other thing...yeah, that'd be awful. Fortunately, that isn't what's happening.
Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
By including the R&D of third world countries into our patents (when those countries have no IP relationship with us at all) THEN invading their country and supplanting such arduous unwanted agreements and regulations on the conquered third world country, we guanrantee their eternal indentured-servant status.
They have modified their crops for hundreds of years, and our patents have incorporated their research. Why would a farmer there care if someone in the US used their discoveries for a patent that only affects the US? Now, the tables are turning, and they suddenly do have to care?
Seems like a nice way to make every Iraqi farmer go quickly bankrupt, selling all their holdings to US corporations that are extorting huge sums of money for seeds the Iraqi farmers invented in the first place.
I don't see people starting, but I do see the farm ownership changing from ~100% Iraqi owned to 99% US owned within five years.
no choice (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot both "support it" and think you or anyone else can have any practical alternative. Joe farmer down the street has IP protected corn, you don't, next year the seed you save from your own crop that had nothing to do with the patented stuff will have a certain percentage of "their" genetic material in it. You lose. Every crop you try to grow will become more infected. The wind and the law won't allow it. It's only a matter of time now before global food monopolies. And in iraq you can see they aren't even waiting for it to spread semi naturally, they are just mandating it, showing exactly where they have always been coming from, exactly like we have warned against and been told it was "tinfoil hat" or "luddism". Now here, you see the proof, what they intend for not only iraq, but the planet, as much as they can.
No different (Score:2)
Re:No different (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever grown a plant? Or bred a plant? Do you have any idea how stupid this sounds? You can't tell by the seeds which ones are infected. That means you plant all your seeds, and now you have to monitor your crops to see if they're infected. Depending on the degree of the rogue polinaztion, you could find yourself killing sizeable portions of the plants you worked hard to get started.
And what if the infection is not easily visible, but could be detected via genetic testing? Guess what? You're fucked. Not all traits of a parent show up in the offspring.
I can't believe people take the attitude you're expressing here. Do you realize Mansanto has already developed and patented a technology that has been called "terminator"? The technology can be used across a wide species to introduce the characteristic of plants producing sterile seeds. They will bring that tech to market, once the idea of patenting plants takes root. I can't wait until that trait escapes into the wild.
I'm not anti-GMO's at all. But mansanto is one company that consistantly goes too far. And this "ip" law, what's next? Patenting air? This is absurdity and I'm shocked that people don't see the slippery slope this is. Protecting patents for inventions is one thing, changing the rules of nature through law, depriving farmers of an age old right, fuck that. Let mansanto make money somewhere else, don't legislate monopolies into existance. This is insane.
yes it is different (Score:5, Informative)
-- plants haven't been patented for hundreds of thousands of years
-- "easily removed" is simply
-- the cost of even testing is huge, and guess who pays it
-- to use the word "stealing" referring to someone who's crop got infected is blaming the victim, it's like if someone chucked a baseball through your window, you had to pay for the window, and they guy who threw it calls you a thief for stealing his baseball and not giving it back, and the way this plant IP law works it's exactly like that. It is pure nuts, unfair, stupid, misguided, harmful, and does not promote the useful arts and sciences, it promotes the establishment of a small handful of international corporations owning the planets food supply.
This action by the US government and it's appointed stooge puppets in iraq is heinous and proves what utter corrupt bastards they are, along with the companies pushing this scheme.
Once again we have proven we have the best government big corporate money can buy. You can approve of their actions, I disapprove, so we'll leave it at that.
Re:yes it is different (Score:5, Insightful)
But Intellectual Property, which is not actually property, is worse, because in transfering the seeds to you I have not been deprived of the genes in question. So a better analogy would be me hacking into your computer system, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to your files in the process, and installing a copy of MS office licensed to me -- and then reporting the infraction to MS, who sues the pants off of you for having an unlicensed copy. But but wait, it gets worse! I install said copy in such a way that the only way you can remove that copy is by deleting most of the rest of your files in the process.
Obviously, analogies that accurately underscore the injustice of this are hard to come by, because there really hasn't been anything so completely fucked up in a long time.
Otherwise, great post.
Re:yes it is different (Score:3, Insightful)
it's like if someone chucked a baseball through your window, you had to pay for the window, and they guy who threw it calls you a thief for stealing his baseball and not giving it back
Your analogy is close, but not quite there. It is more like someone throwing a baseball through your window, breaking it and impacting several surfaces inside your house. Then demanding that you remove and destroy all portions of your house that were illegally branded with the Major League Baseball logo.
Iraq = Cradle of Civilization (Score:5, Insightful)
How ironic, The root of most civilizations comes from the so-called "Cradle of Civilization" which is a region of Iraq located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
How far do you think we would have progressed if the creators of these technologies demanded we use Their technologies and pay a license fee to use those technologies?
Re:Iraq = Cradle of Civilization (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this the same Paul Bremer that handed over sovereignty a little while back? Is he finally catching up on some old paperwork, or WTF? Either Bremer's just pissing away resources on projects that he knows the Iraqis will shortly overturn(sovereignty), or he really believes that we'll be able to keep the boot on Iraq's neck for the forseeable future(not sovereignty).
Re:Iraq = Cradle of Civilization (Score:3, Insightful)
For the same reason they want to install a phone system which is based on US-created technology despite the fact it would leave Iraqis with an incompatible phone system.
The same reason they plan on billing the Iraqis for the cost of the war out of oil they plan on selling after they've stabilized things.
The same reason that Haliburton gets billions of dollars in re-buildi
What was the original purpose of the patent system (Score:2)
Re:What was the original purpose of the patent sys (Score:5, Informative)
Without getting into details of the patent theory, the 4 most celebrated reasons why patents exist are (according to late Judge Giles Rich)
- Incentive to inovate - back in the 1790s, there wasn't any big pharmaceutical laboratory or Del Monte, so to allow inventors to spend their time inventing and not wasting their talents down the factory, patents were a nice way to insure some subsides...
- Incentive to disclose - the bargain between the patentee and the PTO is protection v. disclosure. Hence, the new discovery is readily available for the rest of mankind, and promote the progress of arts and sciences
- Incentive to comercialize - the patent gives a right to exclude people from using the patented invention, making the inventor the manager of his rights (either licensing to other company or enjoying is own monopoly of distribution)
- Incentive to design around -- Because once you know what is patented, it can give you new ideas. Unfortunatly, it has been struck down somewhat by the so called doctrine of equivalent
More info : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patents [wikipedia.org] ;http://www.1000ventures.com/business_guide/ipr/pa
However, the US have really blown a fuse here... It is enslaving a foreign country to the almighty US. For the oil, well, I could understand the general purpose, even though I do NOT agree with it. But this is just mean and wicked...
Oh well, 51% cannot be wrong. Or can they ?
Just my 2 Eurocents...
All your plants are belong to U.S. (Score:2)
Re:All your plants are belong to U.S. (Score:2, Insightful)
But when a laboratory just decypher the gene pool of something that existed, and slightly change it to make it patentable, it's a harder question. Ex. : when RiceTech patented Basmati rice [biotech-info.net]. [biotech-info.net]
This patent finally got revised but the problem is still there. As a lawyer, I just can't help but wondering how yo
Oh, bullshit.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they could, you know, NOT USE THOSE SEEDS, and instead continue using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years or so. But then we wouldn't have our little whole-cloth pretext for a little political bashing, would we?
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Patents convert free markets into command economies and are therefore fascism, pure and simple.
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2, Informative)
Which doesn't include crops in Iraq, BTW, which kind of blows this whole comment away. The predominant crops in Iraq are barley and wheat, both of which are self-pollinators that do not rely on the wind to propagate. But you still got the obligatory fascism jab in, so it wasn't a total loss, I guess...
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:3, Informative)
The predominant crops in Iraq are barley and wheat, both of which are self-pollinators that do not rely on the wind to propagate.
You're right. Contamination, while possible, isn't likely with the crops being grown in Iraq.
However, one of the most difficult aspects to explain to people is that it doesn't have to be likely for GMO contamination to occur for mass genetic contamination to soon follow.
Here's why: GM crops are, by definition, better at surviving. While we normally think of animals when
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh, self-pollination is more than "possible" - it's likely with those crops. It's their usual method of reproduction. Read a book sometime - it'll do you a world of good.
You were just wrong, and the grandparent's fascism comment right on the mark. Fascist.
LOL. Does that term apply to everyone who points out that the emperor is naked?
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:3, Interesting)
And you read a book sometime, too - look, wheat can be cross-pollinated. That's an experimental fact, it has been demonstrated that genes will spread from wheat to wheat. It isn't as _likely_ as with some other species of grass, and usually the GMO wh
IP pollution (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that snce a small part of their crop is contaminated by GM seeds, there's no practical way of getting rid of them. They don't have the option to choose not to use them if they've used them in the past (when the IP laws were different), or if any of their regular seeds ever got mixed up with GM seeds by mistake.
-jim
Re:IP pollution (Score:2)
I didn't see that anywhere in either of the articles. Did you?
Re:IP pollution (Score:5, Insightful)
Take for instance recent studies that show that grain that was grown in the U.S. and exported to Mexico for -food- and not in the form of meant-for-planting-seeds has mixed in with the Mexican corn crops.
The Mexicans did not plant the GM seeds, they don't -want- GM seeds, but now they have them. By some interpretations of the current rules it means that the Mexican farmers (if they were in the states) would be unable to replant their existing crops nor sell the seeds elsewhere because they contain protected IP.
Ridiculous. Talk about viral licensing
The end result is that there is a law on it's way from Mexico stating that any corn imported from the U.S. has to be labelled GM (or GM free, which is rapidly becoming impossible) -and- milled before entry into Mexico. Even then Murphy states that some kernels will make it through the process whole and/or migrate naturally and the GM genes will continue to migrate.
Yep
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
And if you go to the linked IP law, you'll see that it says no such thing - propagation of protected varieties is to be illegal, not seed-saving in general. This whole brouhaha is built upon that single essential falsehood in the article and its summary here.
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
As I said above, the staple crops there are not wind-borne pollinators, unlike corn and so forth, which is where that Canadian case came from - cross-pollination of corn crops. So it's probably going to turn out that it's easier to avoid there than it may be elsewhere.
That being said, if it comes to pass that Iraqi farmers have no practical choice except to use GM seeds, then we might have something to talk about. But as
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
There's a big difference between asking for some evidence, and simply not giving a fuck. If - IF - such things should turn out to be the case, I will loudly and forcefu
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Do you frequent these boards? The herd mentality is stronger than it's ever been. The absolute thoughtlessness here can be breathtaking.
They talk the way they've been conditioned to talk. They feel what they're supposed to feel. They're outraged precisely on que.
My advice: Give up being ups
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
If you forgot, there was a war in Iraq recently. Your little Free Market example doesn't apply when
the economy has collapsed, many of the seed stocks are depleted and US was unable to protect the irrigation systems.
If they choose not to use the seeds, they may very w
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Or, since you didn't bother to find a source to support such speculation, it may very well be that you've just invented this scenario.
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Wrong. Your statement obviously doesn't point blame at rich, obese stockholders who devise schemes in dark rooms which end up making them a lot of money at the expense of poor, innocent civilians.
I'd say "you're new here, aren't you?" but not only do I find that to be a rather condescending and arrogant statement, but your UID suggests that a more appropriate one would work better:
How are you not sick of it yet?
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
One minor problem ... (Score:2)
There's one practical problem here: How is your typical Iraqi (or American or Canadian or Mexican, for that matter) farmer going to set up a proper testing lab to determine whether their seeds are contaminated with patented DNA? This is not just astronomically expensive; it's far beyond the technical capability of most small farmers everywhere. And much of the te
Is it a free market (Score:5, Insightful)
Call me crazy, but I think not.
Re:Is it a free market (Score:2)
Re:Is it a free market (Score:2)
No. Nor can I disprove the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. In fact, most of the time, it's pretty damn near impossible to prove that something's not happening. That's why we generally place the burden of proof on the person making the affirmative claim that something is happening. So no, on balance, it's not square, because someone else failing to disprove your outlandish claims is not the same as you proving them. Or perhaps
Prove they have enough food. (Score:2)
Re:Prove they have enough food. (Score:2)
Perhaps. It is not, however, even remotely reasonable to jump from there to the assumption - with no evidence whatsoever - that Iraqis are having GM seeds foisted on them against their will. I see lots of people assuming that. I see lots of people asserting that. But there sure as hell aren't any people demonstrating that.
Re:Is it a free market (Score:2)
The heading of this discussion, to which you, with your oh so superior UID have posted so many silencing contributions, is "Is it a free market". I would ask you whether Adam Smith would have found a market, in a current situation of war and occupation, to be free. I would ask you whether that was a position likely to be held by the modern doyen of the liberal right, Issaih Berlin, but I've met him
Re:Is it a free market (Score:2)
A question which will remain unanswered by me, because I am not quite so stupid as to bite at such a red herring, despite the apparent desires of many that I should. Whether it is a free market or not is irrelevant to the question of whether GM seeds are being forced on the Iraqi people, as we have yet to establish that GM seeds even EXIST in Iraq in any sort of
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
From one of TFAs:
Moron, read the fucking law.
The law does say you have to license seeds from corporations which "own" them.
None of them say any such thing. Moron.
They most certainly do.
Who does that make the moron?
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Yeah, now go find where the law says that. Find where anyone in the US administration says that. Find anyone anywhere - besides the author of that article - who says that.
Who does that make the moron?
The guy who believes such trash without evidence, merely because it confirms a pre-existing worldview? Just a guess...
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
"None of them say any such thing. Moron."
The article in fact does. Maybe the article is wrong, but you never claimed that (until just now).
The guy who believes such trash without evidence, merely because it confirms a pre-existing worldview?
The *article* is evidence. Past history is evidence (right now Monsanto is claiming ownership of natural Indian plants, and Monsanto has, in the past, sued farmers for violating Monsanto's so-called IP rights).
My world view is not "pre-existing
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
No, it's an *anecdote*, and worse, it's one whose claims are directly contradicted by the *authoritative* source on this matter, the law itself. Call me when you have something more than hysteria from the veggie crew. And don't forget to let me know why you believe them when they're clearly lying to you.
Your serve.
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
Re:Oh, bullshit.... (Score:2)
"Pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia" (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe you haven't seen this [informatio...house.info] story/editorial from Harper's Magazine.
Confusing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Confusing. (Score:2)
If you read further, you'll see that they can use non GM seeds as they wish. GM seeds are indeed the intellectual property of someone else, and they are bound by the license under which they acquired it. I don't see a reason to not bind them to this.
With that said, I'm sure that it is hard to not use GM seeds or even to find non-GM seeds.
In the future, in
Re:Confusing. (Score:2)
Re:Confusing. (Score:2)
I'm surprised it hasn't gotten jumped on and clawed to death by fundamentalists, in fact...
Typical bias (Score:3, Interesting)
Only if the farmers are using GM seeds. If they use normal seeds, then there is no problem with holding back seed for next year.
Typical bias.
Be it software or grain, the rules are the same - if you don't like the license, don't use the product - use a competing product with a license you can accept.
Re:Typical bias (Score:5, Insightful)
You seem to have forgotton about the war in Iraq and the chaos that followed "Mission accomplished".
There aren't many seeds.
Many of the fields have withered and died because there hasn't been enough irrigation, or money to pay the labor to support the fields. Grain houses have been destroyed. Crops have been contaminated. The agricultural economy has collapsed... hard to sell your produce when there are warplanes bombing your village.
The US solution to this problem is to provide GMO seeds, which require a license to use. The Iraqis don't have much choice in the matter... the economy has been devistated, and they need to take whatever they can get.
Re:Typical bias (Score:3, Insightful)
The use of food aid for strategic gain is common. The typical course of action for the US is to give food aid that includes GM plants and crops. There are countries that refuse to accept this (much to the dismay of the US), in favour of keeping good relations with the EU (which tries to control distribution/use of GM crops). There may be little choice in Iraq, not nece
Re:Typical bias (Score:2)
I just saw something on the news about opening the markets for rice in South Korea. The problems with this are similar to the problems involved with accepting food aid. The idea that "aid" is given with harmful intent (specifically, weaking the local production [american.edu] of similar products and progressively create a captive market) but it's a reality that's become far more profitable for the aid-giving country with the advent of IP protected GM foods.
http://www.american.edu/TED/KORRI
Re:Typical bias (Score:5, Informative)
Only if the farmers are using GM seeds. If they use normal seeds, then there is no problem with holding back seed for next year.
WRONG.
Percy Schmeiser's battle. [www.cbc.ca]
Even though Schmeiser didn't intend to grow the plant, didn't profit from it's growth, and in fact tried to eradicate it, he was still sued, and he lost. He wasn't able to eradicate it because Monsanto made the plants hard to kill by design.
Ingenious business model, really. Maybe I'll design a (non-fatal) virus that is effectively treated by a medicine that I control. I'll sue anyone that attempts to treat it any other way. Afterall, if you don't want to pay my price, just don't get sick, right?
I think you've rather betrayed your own bias.
Re:Typical bias (Score:2)
Re:Typical bias (Score:2)
As you said: WRONG.
Schmeiser lost the suit because he deliberately saved and interbred with GMO seed. But that inconvient fact doesn't get covered much.
My thinking exactly.
Before all the "use other seeds" posts.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before all the "use other seeds" posts.. (Score:2)
Do you have any evidence for this claim, or is it just something you had to make up to feel comfortable with your personal, pre-existing point of view?
The idea is, on the face of it, absurd on every level. I say this as a more-or-less Bush supporter, too.
Your second sentance is a bit more sensible, although I would expect that if this becomes even a remotely big fuss, the rules will be removed since it isn't even remotely worth a po
Re:Before all the "use other seeds" posts.. (Score:2)
Er, the second part of his post backs it up...
Think its a conspiracy theory? It's already happening. IN CANADA [www.cbc.ca]
Re:Before all the "use other seeds" posts.. (Score:2)
However, that does nothing to back up his claim that non-GM seed is going to be outright banned. That is the one I challe
Re:Before all the "use other seeds" posts.. (Score:2)
Re:Before all the "use other seeds" posts.. (Score:2)
That's a far cry from having grown your own seeds for thirty years and then suddenly being forced to buy new ones.
Re:Before all the "use other seeds" posts.. (Score:2)
The second part deals with Corn in canada which primarily is a wind born crop. Wheay and Barley which are the major crops of Iraq are self fretilizing.
Mod story = misleading (Score:5, Informative)
It is only illegal to save the GM seeds from one year to the next. Those farmers using the GM seeds are bound to the terms of a contract - just like someone using the GPL is bound to those terms.
A farmer not buying GM seeds is not compelled legally to do a damn thing different.
Re:Mod story = misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mod story = misleading (Score:2)
That they add in one feature and sell the seeds is akin to taking a large GPL program, adding in one feature and selling the binary without source.
Actually, it's akin to taking a large public domain program, adding in one feature and selling the binary without source.
Re:Mod story = Most people didn't bother reading (Score:5, Insightful)
The Story is about the US changing the laws regarding GM Seeds - not the Iraqis changing them. Previously in Iraq (and it still should be) it was illegal to sell a seed and say that you could not save the seeds from the plants. It is a pretty simple principle - you buy the seed, you can breed from it.
One way of looking at it is that seeds always have been kind of GPL - you get them for free
It should be that if GM seed companies don't like the Iraqi law then they should not sell thier seeds in Iraq.
Nobody in Iraq would want to be controlled by a foreign country and have thier food supplies dependent on seeds from that country.
Read the story dudes.
Re:Mod story = true (Score:3, Informative)
just ask this guy [www.cbc.ca]
I'm curious.. (Score:2)
I mean, they have to get a sample, so just guard your land, and shoot any moron trying to swipe a sample of your crop - its tresspassing, plain and simple.
Personally, I'd put up a nice sized electric fence, get some dogs, and nice long rifle.
I wouldnt use the GM seeds, but if someone tried to "sample" my goods to "prove" I *was* using them, they'd lose that arm.
Re:I'm curious.. (Score:2)
If the person tresspassing on your land is an American agent from Monsanto, shooting them may get you labeled as a terrorist.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One good thing will come of this (Score:2)
We're conditioned to read this badly... (Score:4, Interesting)
It seems in the end, that if they want to re-use seed crops, they need only refrain from purchasing those which require a license. While in the technology industry, customers may require that you provide products which include IP that must be licensed, When you're making food the rules are different:
You may need to license software from Microsoft to make a product that works on your customer's computer.
You do not need to license grain from ConAgra to make flour that my stomach can digest.
One word why you're wrong (ask Percy Schmeiser) (Score:3, Interesting)
Yay!! (Score:2, Funny)
Give me a break :/
I'll tell you what... (Score:4, Funny)
How can an occupation force change laws? (Score:2, Flamebait)
This looks a lot like the UK supporting independence in latin america in the XIX century to take control away from Spain.
Only applies to patented seeds (Score:4, Informative)
I believe this means that this only applies to patented seeds. Of course, the law may or may not say anything about the patentability of common, naturally occurring seeds (eg. texas-based Ricetec's attempt to patent several varieties of basmati rice).
zerg (Score:2)
Doc Ruby - Chomsky! (Score:2)
What neither of those sources, nor the writeup, bothered to mention that the Iraqis are not forced to use the GM seeds. It should be like this:
if (iraqis.useNewSeeds) {
$TEXT_OF_ARTICLE
} else {
$SAME AS BEFORE
}
More relevant information can be found here [msn.com].
Basically, a lot of Iraqis are farmers but they still had
Re:Doc Ruby - Chomsky! (Score:2)
gene patents are pure evil. resist them.
Re:Doc Ruby - Chomsky! (Score:2)
Fuck that. If that happens to someone, they should get a better lawyer because if it's not your decision to use those seeds and it happened by accident then you should not be liable for what happened.
This is different from a farmer consciously deciding to use GM seeds and havin
The article misreads the law (Score:4, Informative)
I'm no fan of either the US invasion of Iraq or of the shennanigans of companies like Monsanto, but the revised IP law simply doesn't say what the article says it says. The relevant provision is on p.22, section 66, par. B. It prohibits farmers from re-using the seed of protected varieties only. It doesn't prohibit them from re-using the seed that they've always used. And contrary to what some posters have claimed, Monsanto and other such companies cannot acquire ownership of traditional varieties. The same law provides clear criteria for patents that allow patenting only of newly developed varieties. So unless patents are granted improperly (a different, though as we know, significant problem), farmers in Iraq can go right on re-using their seed just as they always have.
Indeed, I was struck by one provision of this law, which grants fewer rights to the patent holder than does US patent law. Section 8 on p.3. allows people who started using or manufacturing, or even preparing to use or manufacture, something covered by a patent before the issuance of the patent, to continue to do so! In other words, no submarine patents! In some ways, this new patent law is actually progressive.
By the way, parts of this law sound to me like they were not written by a native speaker of English. Maybe I just don't know the technical terminology of plant breeding. Is it normal in English to talk about the "education" of a plant? This sounds like a mistranslation from another language to me.
Re:The article misreads the law (Score:3, Insightful)
seed is not software. life grows, often out of human control.
Re:The article misreads the law (Score:2)
Hardly. I'm well aware of the Schmeiser [percyschmeiser.com] case, familiar enough to know what actually happened. To begin with, they didn't bankrupt him. Although the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the claim that Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's patent, they also ruled that he didn't benefit from it and that therefore he didn't owe Monsanto any damages and didn't have to pay Monsanto's legal fees. Secondly, the Schmeiser case was not so clearcut - the trial court ruled that Schmeiser KNOWINGLY used seed from a portion of his f
Slashdot as a source of knowledge (Score:2)
Ah, but you can learn a great deal from watching people socialize, and even more from observing what they choose to bellyache about and how they go about it. Given that you get to see both sides of every issue do this, you can actualy learn a great deal here.
All it takes is an open-yet-skeptical mind.
-- MarkusQ
Re:The article misreads the law (Score:2)
Sure, I assume that the law will end up in Arabic, but I would think that if the modifications are being made by the US administration, they would first be drafted in English, then translated into Arabic.
Whew! (Score:2)
Early IP (Score:3, Interesting)
Way back watermelon as we know them were nearly brought to extinction by a form of blight. Universities and such had developed breeds resistant to the disease, but either flavor, color, shape, and even the seeds were radically different from what we think of as the watermelon.
Frustrated, in about four years my great grandfather and cross-bred a breed that had black seeds, a red core, full flavor, and striped green that was nearly impervious to disease.
In his memoirs he comments on how people are amazed at how he didn't acquior a fortune on his creation. He talks about how natural life, such as watermelons, were on patentable and all anyone needed to produce them was the seed widely available from one of his melons.
Whenever stories like these crop up, I think about how rich my family could have been, and am always greatful that we aren't everytime I see a youngster enjoying a fresh cut melon. I am also grieved by the fact that patents like this even exist. And that companies, not the farmers, hold them and reap the financial benefit from them.
How long will it be before we will have to pay a licensing fee to cook with these IP laden herbs and vegetables?
Re:Food shouldn't be patented (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Monsanto "won"? Yep. Read the important part! (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue for Iraq is whether the farmer can save the seed grown once an agribiz claims they have found their genes in samples from his farm.
The answer was no, in the Canadian case.
He said he didn't buy the GM seed and that pollen spreads. Monsanto claimed it doesn't spread.
Current research says he's right.
QUOTE, a couple hits from a Google search:
GENE TRANSFER BETWEEN CANOLA (BRASSICA NAPUS) AND RELATED WEED
www.isb.vt.edu/brarg/brasym96/brown
Genes From Engineered Grass Spread for Miles, Study Finds
gene-flow study
www.onlypunjab.com/ fullstory904-insight-Genes+From+Engineered+Grass+
END QUOTE
Too late for him in this court case though.
Monsanto, because of the legal choice they used, did not get to take his bank account and his farm -- but they did stop him from saving the seeds that grew in his field to reuse.
The rest of the quote you cited is:
"Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the patent was valid and defendant/appellant Schmeiser infringed. However, because Monsanto elected to seek profits as a remedy, and the infringer Schmeiser earned no profit from the invention, plaintiff Monsanto is entitled to nothing."
That's "$Nothing" not "nothing at all" -- and that's the important part.
Schmeiser's neighbors growing the same species bought "Roundup Ready" seed. He did not. They sprayed with Roundup, killing everything but their Monsanto GM plants. He did not. All the plants flowered and set seed (Monsanto should have changed the timing of flowering, to really have some kind of control on genetic movement, eh?)
More from that study:
"Seed movement. Canola plants have small seed (approximately 200 seeds/g). During normal farm operations the seed will inevitably be lodged in farm machinery and transported around the farm and surrounding area. Seed also can be distributed by animals and birds, and seed can be lost while being transported for processing. In the Pacific Northwest region of the U.S.A., spring canola has only recently been grown commercially and already volunteer plants have been observed several kilometers from where they originated."
Remember -- once you know, or have reason to know, that your farm _may_ be producing some seed containing patented material, you're breaking the law if you save the seed growing in your own fields.
Once you know the stuff spreads, goes into weedy relatives of the crop (and back into crops elsewhere), spreads by birds, spreads in equipment tires and harvesting machinery that's taken from one field to another -- well, you know, eh?
Re:WTF? I can do with my seed swhat I want to do! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, just like the CD your commercial compiler came on.