It's quite obvious that the maintainers are often being economical with the truth, for example, from their article on Monsanto (actually Seminis) receiving a patent of a specific subsort of brocolli: (<a href="http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/information/news/monsanto-granted-patent-severed-broccoli" rel="nofollow">http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/en/information/news/monsa...</a>)<p>> "Today the European Patent Office (EPO) in Munich granted a patent on conventional breeding."<p>Really? The process of conventional breeding is patented? I thought it was about brocolli?<p>> "It additionally covers a “plurality of broccoli plants .. . grown in a field of broccoli.”"<p>Quote mining. The patent makes it clear that this sentence is about the brocolli subspecies that was patented, but the authors of the article rip this sentence out of context to make it appear that all of brocolli now belongs to Monsanto.<p>Also, note that in their article only 5 sentences, about half of the first paragraph, are relevant to the patent while the remainder of the article (4.5 paragraphs) are about on how terrible these patents are. They barely discuss what the patent is really about and the article only seems to be a kneejerk based on a quick scan of the patent. Why should I agree with the author and sign the petition if he needs to be intellectually dishonest?<p>I'm not sure what my position on patents on plants are. Almost all plants that we currently cultivate could never have existed without artificial selection (unintentional or otherwise). In this specific case, Seminis had to perform focused work so that these plants could exist. It's not as if these plants just fell out of the sky.
I am increasingly of the opinion that patents simply aren't worth the trouble they cause.<p>I get that you need them for the lone inventor in their shed in the garden, but they never seem to be the ones who own all the patents.
A much needed work, and I wish them all the luck in abolishing patents and any other kind of state enforced monopolies around plants, genetic material and other similar areas.<p>With some success in the EU, current food industries might feel inclined to stop trying exploiting state power for their businesses model, and just focus on creating superior products that are useful for the consumer. There will never be a lack of potential buyers for superior methods of farming, as the cost of biofuel are directly linked to the easy of farming. The army would love to throw money at more effective corn/soy/sugarcane production, if it would lower their cost in using biofuel. Animal fat is also used, so basically anything a farm produce could improve the biofuel industry.
Patents on seeds are particularly worrying as a result of The Patent Box (<a href="http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ct/forms-rates/claims/patent-box.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ct/forms-rates/claims/patent-box.htm</a>) in the UK. Basically means income from patented "inventions" is tax free, which means that Monsanto and chums will only get richer, and the market less competitive. Tweak a gene, repatent, ad infinitum.<p>Never mind that this is a complete perversion of the purpose of the patent system (innovation and the common good).