TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Linux for Lettuce

114 pointsby mr_tyzicalmost 11 years ago

8 comments

netcanalmost 11 years ago
Every time we get one of these issues about IP I kind of feel like we are doing something very stupid.<p>The whole legal process surrounding IP, the laws, the patent offices, layers of locals laws, international agreements, weird precedences. The enormous legal costs involved in anything IP (especially patents). Having to relate everything to printing copies in a press or inventing something mechanical. It&#x27;s all broken.<p>I don&#x27;t think we can tweak our way into a better system. Copyright isn&#x27;t the same thing in a world where &quot;copy&quot; is no longer a real thing. The public interest when it comes to patents is not the same in a world where inventions are organisms and software as it is in a world where inventions are mechanical machines. The rate of patentable innovation is completely different. The line between invention and discovery (crucial to the concept of patentable invention) is much blurrier than it was. The moral implications are not the same. The economic implications are not the same.<p>The legal system governing patents has several big features which suggest it is completely broken. Patent trolls using the ungodly cost of litigation together with single use limited liability entities (another concept that is now broken) to use the legal system without being bound by it. Patent wars between huge companies and the subsequent ceasefires. There is no way any sane person would have purposely have designed a system this way.<p>It&#x27;s like having a police force that just shoots everyone when they arrive at a scene. Then some criminals find out that they can walk into a bank wearing armor and threaten to call the police. Obviously something&#x27;s not working right.<p>Even in the domain where patents are have the strongest case: drugs &amp; medical procedures, the patent system is very warped. The problem is that it is expensive to test a new drug in a ways that proves it is safe to the authorities. So, a guaranteed monopoly is necessary to justify the expense. But, that research is not invention and it isn&#x27;t the thing which is patentable. If we want to reward companies for demonstrating the effectiveness and safety of a drug and getting it approved for use, lets do that directly.<p>I really think we need to blank slate intellectual property laws. It&#x27;s one of those things that seem both impossible and inevitable.
评论 #7802355 未加载
jqmalmost 11 years ago
There are already lots of &quot;open source&quot; seeds. Most of the cheap seeds on the seed rack at the dollar store are &quot;open source&quot; for instance.<p>Seeds like Black Seed Simpson Lettuce. Kentucky Wonder Pole Beans.<p>These seeds are not F1 hybrids as most seeds used by commercial operations are. Instead, they are open pollinated meaning you can harvest the seed and have the same plant next year. Anyone could buy a pack of these seeds and start selecting away. So, the concept is not new, not novel....there is a large bank of seeds &quot;in the public domain&quot; already.<p>The problem in my opinion is the ability to patent things like &quot;a red carrot&quot;. But this problem is hardly limited to seeds.<p>No offense to the original poster but this article kind of rambled and the actual point was vaguely made and hard to pick out. I think it involved a guy in a hemp shirt with a Carl Marx poster at some point. I&#x27;m sure he is a cool guy but probably unlikely to be taken seriously by most farmers and seed breeders. The real answer in my opinion (at least for commercial growers)? A farmers collective. Stop being the seed companies victim and start owning your own genetics. As a group they could do this and I believe they should.
评论 #7800216 未加载
rurounijonesalmost 11 years ago
How can the company patent the broccoli when they received their seeds from the professor, an uninvolved 3rd party (To the point that their lawyers are asking him for more samples when they made their patent claims).<p>Isn&#x27;t this de-facto prior art?
评论 #7799167 未加载
评论 #7799136 未加载
wigginusalmost 11 years ago
Isn&#x27;t a monopoly in seeds also quite dangerous, as the whole population might be eradicated by one single disease?<p>Edit: Also the fact that you cannot actually fight the system without participating in said system is totally perverse. So in order to open source a seed you have to first patent it and then waive the patent you just created? Sounds like a huge overhead just to justify the legal system.
adwfalmost 11 years ago
Couldn&#x27;t they just publish their data online?<p>Set up a definitive record of breeding history (maybe something like they do with horse genealogy), then describe the traits of each seed, DNA profile, etc. This could at least serve as evidence of prior art. It might take a few years to build such a database, but every little bit of evidence will help defend against overly broad patents.<p>NB. I am not a lawyer...
martiukalmost 11 years ago
GNU&#x2F;Lettuce.<p>This has always interested me, how can someone claim to invent a specific seed based on a characteristics that could very well become realised naturally.<p>Hopefully the OSSI becomes a leading force to help get higher yield seeds into farmer&#x27;s hands. As we already know, the world&#x27;s population is growing and the it&#x27;s arable land isn&#x27;t getting any larger.
decodealmost 11 years ago
An interesting hack is described near the end:<p><pre><code> Jim Myers began breeding a plant he now calls “The O.P.,” which stands for “open-pollinated.” Until then, his broccoli were either hybrids or inbreds, created by a process of narrowing the genetics until one select mother is bred with one select father to create a single, most desirable combination of genes. The O.P., by contrast, is the result of a horticultural orgy. Myers began with twenty-three different broccoli hybrids and inbreds, including some of the lines behind the exserted-head trait. He let insects cross-pollinate them en masse, and the resulting plants were crossed at random again—and again, and again, four generations in a row. He then sent germplasm to farmers around the country, had them grow it in their fields, and send back the seed they collected. Over the winter, Myers bred it in another greenhouse orgy, then sent it back to farmers. For six years, he repeated this process. The broccoli evolved in two ways simultaneously. The back-and-forth of the breeding scrambled the plants’ genetics, making the germplasm wildly diverse. It also let the environment whittle away at individual genes. For instance, plants without pest resistance produced less seed or simply died, reducing their presence in the gene pool. When it was hot, plants that could tolerate heat produced more seed, increasing their presence. Survival of the fittest. In the seventh year, Myers sent most of the seed back to the farmers—just gave it to them, without licenses, royalties or restrictions. The idea was that each farmer would adapt that dynamic gene pool to his or her farm’s particular climate and conditions, selecting the best plants every year to refine the population. In other words, they could breed it themselves. In time, each would end up with his or her own perfect broccoli. The beauty of the O.P. is that rather than challenge the intellectual-property system, it inherently rejects the concept of ownership. It contains many of the desirable genetics of Myers’s commercial broccoli lines, but in a package that is designed to be shared, not owned. Because it is open-pollinated, not a hybrid, its seeds can be saved by any farmer. And because it is genetically diverse, it would be difficult to pin down with a patent. Even if someone did claim to own it, because each new seedling is a little different, that claim would be all but impossible to enforce. In this case, the plant’s natural instinct to mate, multiply, change—to evolve—isn’t an impediment at all. Rather, it is a central reason why people would want to grow it in the first place. </code></pre> I like that it is the exact opposite of their other strategy. Instead of going down a road where &quot;the tools of the master are repurposed in a way that... actively subverts the master&#x27;s hegemony&quot;, the plants are bred in a way that makes the tools of the master obsolete and useless.<p>Is there an equivalent anti-patent strategy for software?
评论 #7801012 未加载
BostXalmost 11 years ago
TL;DR :-(
评论 #7800488 未加载
评论 #7799503 未加载
评论 #7799265 未加载