Quote:
Originally Posted by ficbot
If you want a scary take on that very question, Google 'Monsanto' . . .
|
There's a risk that if readers did that, they would happen on biased interest group web sites. Therefore I'd just like to post a mainstream media news story link describing the most publicized instance of the issue you bring up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
We are talking about a large scale farmer growing, for profit, without paying for the intellectual property, a full square mile of 20-year patented seed in one of the world's most prosperous countries. Not much work in improving seed varieties (including non-GM seed), to increase world food production, will happen if organizations are expected to do it without compensation.
In my view, the moral basis for defending intellectual property patents for people increasing the world food supply is much stronger than the case for super-long copyright of entertainment products. And in cases where food in being grown in large fields, and trained people can tell the variety just by looking at plants, the privacy issues you see with the Stop Online Piracy Act aren't as pressing. So I'm not sure your plant seed patent example really helps make your case.