"intellectual property"
I think it's absolutely ridiculous and immoral that agricultural seeds are patented.
"intellectual property"
@LunaDragofelis @TQ that’s why projects like these are so important: https://www.startnext.com/en/roggen/
"intellectual property"
@LunaDragofelis I think it's absolutely ridiculous and immoral that anything is patented. Innovation (and science in general) is best done "atop the shoulders of giants" where you expand upon the vast body of knowledge accumulated over the years.
I prefer the grant model where you get your research funded by the public and the results belong to the public. Thankfully a lot of research IS done that way, we just need to do away with the capitalist tendency to monopolize.
"intellectual property"
@wolfcoder I agree. "Intellectual property" has to go away.
"intellectual property"
@LunaDragofelis @TQ this is one I'm legitimately torn on
On the one hand, I understand that there is a huge amount of research that goes into developing quality food crop strains, and as long as we have to function within capitalism it makes sense to make the patent trade: disclose the details to everyone and we'll grant you a limited monopoly. This is better than keeping everything a trade secret forever, because at least parents expire
On the other hand, food production technology in a world with a growing overpopulation problem really needs to be made broadly available as a Public Interest
My current thinking is that the problem isn't "it's patented", it's the Megacorps that use their patent monopoly for shitty purposes
"intellectual property"
@calcifer @LunaDragofelis Hard disagree. The patented seeds serve as a barrier to adoption by more efficient polycrop integrated ag. It's been proven over and over again that small family farms are far more effective at producing food per acre year on year, yet they don't get the tech. The way to feed people is to make sure the logistic systems going from farms to population centers is efficient as possible, not so that plantation agriculture can use all the arable land.
"intellectual property"
@Hazelcrazygoatlady @LunaDragofelis the patents don't make any of that happen. People deciding to be profit-driven pricks about licensing and distribution make that happen
Patents don't force anyone to monopolize an invention: that's on the people deciding that because they CAN they WILL
"intellectual property"
@calcifer @LunaDragofelis You can't expect people to just "do better" when it comes to social technologies like patients, when there exists entire entities who's sole purpose is to increase their market share. Corporations are organisms made out of people, a moral person may hold things back for a bit- like an alcoholic quitting, but a slight shift in perspective (or a change in management) can always result in falling off the wagon. 1/2
"intellectual property"
@calcifer @LunaDragofelis Capitalism only has two metrics- market share and monetary gain. Both of which translate into power, meaning any competitor that doesn't abuse the social technologies at their disposal will always lose because their competitors will use the ceded power to crush them. If we are talking about working within capitalism patients will always be abused and outside of capitalism they aren't necessary. 2/2
"intellectual property"
@Hazelcrazygoatlady @LunaDragofelis ok, but two things
First, lots of patent holders don't take the path of maximum extraction for gain. In fact, a lot of the open tech people praise is patented, and that's used to ensure access. So it's already probably not true that patents lead inevitably to exploitation or maximalism. Some of the richest orgs in the world freely license core patents. The benefit is not always in direct exploitation.
Second, you do understand what the alternative is, right? Like unless you completely overturn capitalism, what you'll get without patents? What we had before parents, Trade secrets. Which never expire, and by nature preclude sharing of tech. No incentive for anyone to ever share how anything works.
I'm not here arguing that they're a panacea, but I am tired of this idea that if we only didn't have patents then inventions would be freely accessible to all! We. Tried. That. It didn't work out that way.
Patents solve a real problem. They get abused. Thinking patents existing is the problem can only be a fundamental ignorance of history.
"intellectual property"
@calcifer @Hazelcrazygoatlady The best alternative is abolishing capitalism
re: "intellectual property"
@LunaDragofelis @Hazelcrazygoatlady agreed, but that's also likely to take a long time, and we have to address smaller problems within the framework we have -- we can't just ignore opportunities to improve
"intellectual property"
@calcifer @LunaDragofelis Trade secrets are easy enough to steal if the history of corporate espionage is anything to go by, and even if by some miracle they are able to sick. That's just job security for the laborers that work on it. Plus most tech *and* GMO innovation is just privatized public research, and those academic institutions aren't going to stop publishing if we remove patents.
Don't you dare take the shit potted history you got in stem and apply it to reallife
"intellectual property"
@Hazelcrazygoatlady @LunaDragofelis ah, ok we’re going with the “I know the history and you don’t” angle, with a side of "you couldn't possibly have researched this on your own, you're just parroting someone else"
Sorry, but that's no longer good faith discussion about the nuances of patent protection and where they do and don't serve the public interest. That's just dogma
@LunaDragofelis Let me just casually tag @opensourceseeds here!
re: "intellectual property"