There’s plenty of universities, cooperatives, and passionate growers who have developed crops and seeds in the past and will surely continue to do so in the future.
The patent system is useful to address very specific market failures in very specialized industries where the above systems fail, not to turn the whole world into a rental unit.
There’s plenty of universities, cooperatives, and passionate growers who have developed crops and seeds in the past and will surely continue to do so in the future.
The patent system doesn't prevent those entities from developing their own crops and releasing it for free.
According to the article, such patents seem to come with a lot of restrictions and the patent apparently applies to traits of the patented plant:
When a company is granted a utility patent on a type of seed, it doesn’t just own the seed. It also owns its traits (color, texture, disease resistance, the way it was grown), future generations of that seed and all of the rights to research.
So, if a plant breeder like Morton develops his own variety of lettuce and the lettuce matches any of the traits of a patented variety – whether it be color, the curliness of the leaf or a trait that makes it conducive to a particular climate – the breeder is technically in violation of patent law and risks getting sued by the patent owner.
So according to the article, the patent system actually does place heavy restrictions on research in this area.
I searched around and found that "utility patents" are basically the default type of patent (as opposed to design patents or plant patents). Also, contrary to what the above passage might suggest, utility patents expire after 20 years, so it's not like companies will have a perpetual license over a particular trait. Finally, it's unclear how tightly scoped a "trait" has to be in the current patent regime. I would agree that exclusive rights for "heat tolerant broccoli" would be bad for innovation, because it prevents other companies from trying to developing other ways of heat resistance. However, I don't see anything wrong with granting exclusive rights to "heat tolerant broccoli broccoli by modifying this particular gene". Given how bad the Guardian article is with other parts of patent law, I'm somewhat skeptical of their implication that you can patent entire functional categories.
That would be prior art and would invalidate the patent. There would be costs for such a lawsuit, but I don't see why that's a good reason for getting rid of the patent system. It would be like saying we should get rid of property rights because companies could abuse it by claiming that other people's stuff belongs to them and the rightful owner has to go through an expensive lawsuit to get it resolved.
Comments
Why would companies spend millions developing the next plant if they knew the second it's out other companies will copy it and compete with them?
Then they just shouldn’t?
There’s plenty of universities, cooperatives, and passionate growers who have developed crops and seeds in the past and will surely continue to do so in the future.
The patent system is useful to address very specific market failures in very specialized industries where the above systems fail, not to turn the whole world into a rental unit.
The patent system doesn't prevent those entities from developing their own crops and releasing it for free.
According to the article, such patents seem to come with a lot of restrictions and the patent apparently applies to traits of the patented plant:
When a company is granted a utility patent on a type of seed, it doesn’t just own the seed. It also owns its traits (color, texture, disease resistance, the way it was grown), future generations of that seed and all of the rights to research.
So, if a plant breeder like Morton develops his own variety of lettuce and the lettuce matches any of the traits of a patented variety – whether it be color, the curliness of the leaf or a trait that makes it conducive to a particular climate – the breeder is technically in violation of patent law and risks getting sued by the patent owner.
So according to the article, the patent system actually does place heavy restrictions on research in this area.
I searched around and found that "utility patents" are basically the default type of patent (as opposed to design patents or plant patents). Also, contrary to what the above passage might suggest, utility patents expire after 20 years, so it's not like companies will have a perpetual license over a particular trait. Finally, it's unclear how tightly scoped a "trait" has to be in the current patent regime. I would agree that exclusive rights for "heat tolerant broccoli" would be bad for innovation, because it prevents other companies from trying to developing other ways of heat resistance. However, I don't see anything wrong with granting exclusive rights to "heat tolerant broccoli broccoli by modifying this particular gene". Given how bad the Guardian article is with other parts of patent law, I'm somewhat skeptical of their implication that you can patent entire functional categories.
It does, actually, because one of the big seed companies can then simply take that seed and... patent it as their own.
That would be prior art and would invalidate the patent. There would be costs for such a lawsuit, but I don't see why that's a good reason for getting rid of the patent system. It would be like saying we should get rid of property rights because companies could abuse it by claiming that other people's stuff belongs to them and the rightful owner has to go through an expensive lawsuit to get it resolved.
Why would people do anything if they get threats from lawyers?