Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (98885)	5/23/2003 5:50:43 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

. GM seed producers would deny them this. You want to ignore the core moral argument and go issue by issue. They don't have to buy GM seed, TS. They can keep using what they have. Farmers are the most conservative Businessmen on earth. They like progress, but hate change. They buy the GM seed and agree to the contract on it because they find it more profitable to do so. The Agricultural company owns the seed, and sell it to people who abide by their terms. You don't like that. Tough Toenails. It is the moral and legal way to do it. You could come out with a new seed for rice, etc, and sell it. Good luck on trying to get people to pay you a royalty because you found the genome for it. If you're incapable of understanding the ethical problems here...But since you show occasional signs of intelligence...This would match your cretinous support... Are you always so bitterly unhappy? Do you want to join Win in playing the "insult" game? You are a no better at it than he is. If you want to exchange posts with me, please be civil.

To: thames_sider who wrote (98885)	5/23/2003 6:24:55 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Commercial growers have been using F1 hybrids for about 130 years now, since Beal's first corn cultivars. Non-viable seed has always been a given trade-off for increased yields and resistance. With F1 hybrids, the real non-viability of seed is a natural circumstance. With GM crops, the "perceived non-viability" is a patent issue. At the end of the day, there is no difference. Thus, if you have an issue with GM producers over this factor, it should logically be carried over to F1 hybrid producers of the last 130 years. After that, one might fault God or Mother Nature for imposing that "ethical issue" of seed viability upon F1 hybrids. Growers who have used F1 hybrids over the past 130 years don't have a problem with it. Those who do have a problem, don't use F1 hybrids. Simple. No problem exists. GM seed, in that respect, is the same thing. "The first, for example... farmers - especially 3rd world - commonly keep back part of the seed from a harvest - which they have grown, from seed which ultimately they have bought - to plant the following year's crop. GM seed producers would deny them this."

To: thames_sider who wrote (98885)	5/23/2003 6:55:33 AM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Overly-broad patents can be contested in Court. The competitive forces of the market naturally take care of this. The Basmati rice example illustrates this, as the USPTO cancelled 15 of its (Ricetec, a Texas, not Swiss company) patent claims. The five surviving claims are limited to the specific line which RiceTec has developed, principly "Bas867, No. 5663484" With seed viability and broad patents being non-issues, what's the next problem? "Can you genuinely not see anything wrong in a company 'patenting' Basmati rice? It's been grown for generations across the world, but some company (don't recall if it's US, may be Swiss) has deciphered the genoome and therefore claims a patent on the crop..."