More Examples Of Patents Harming Research

from the can't-research-these-bioengineered-seeds dept

JJ points us to the latest in a long list of examples of how patents are being used not to “promote the progress” but to actively hinder it. In this case, bioengineering companies are using intellectual property claims to stop academic researchers from doing any research on genetically modified seeds and crops. Even though the seeds can be bought, the companies are using IP rights to put in place ridiculous licensing agreements that forbid any research on those seeds or the crops that come out of them. A group of scientists are now complaining about this to the EPA, but perhaps they should be complaining to the USPTO and Congress, as well, as it’s time that this sort of abuse of intellectual property was stopped entirely.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “More Examples Of Patents Harming Research”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Michial (user link) says:

What gives you the right

What gives you the right to reverse engineer this companies work just so you can rip them off?

They spent the money doing the research, they spent the money on all the trial and error failures and they spend the money on the time they invested into all this. They have a right to protect that interest…

They have every right to restrict how their product is used.

for those of you crying about not being able ripoff their research just to save you time and money, screw off!

Michial (user link) says:

Re: Re: What gives you the right

What was the old saying “Those who can… Do and those who can’t… teach”

So now it’s those who can do and those that can’t cry that they cannot share in the benefits…

I’m sorry I own no other human a damn thing, and if they want to benefit from my hard labor and work then they can pay for it, or die while I benefit…

I have a responsibility to make MY little part of the world better, that means to me a bigger house, a nicer car, better food etc… I have no responsibility to any one else.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

And no one else has any responsibility for you, either. Maybe the cops will stop patrolling near your house, and when you have an accident, you can call a private ambulance and EMTs to scrape you off the pavement.

With any luck, you’ll die without wasting any of our taxpayer money. You’re the puke of humanity.

Eric M says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

I Feel sorry for you Michial…I hope you enjoy your little part of the world…my only concern is why you are invading our shared part of the world by posting here? Go live in your big house and don’t communicate with the outside world since according to you, you are all that matters. Please realize that life isn’t just about those objects you mentioned (although food is very important!), but making the whole world better is our duty, not just our little part…

DanC says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

I’m sorry I own no other human a damn thing, and if they want to benefit from my hard labor and work then they can pay for it, or die while I benefit…

But that’s not what the article is talking about Michial. As per usual, you’ve embarked on your anti-Techdirt crusade without bothering to understand the issue.

If you are paid for your hard labor and work, it’s perfectly acceptable for the person who paid you to inspect, evaluate, and test your results.

So why is it not ok for researchers to effectively do the same thing?

that means to me a bigger house, a nicer car, better food etc

So you’re interested in better food, but unwilling to allow independent researchers to test the next wave of genetically modified seeds and crops because of overly restrictive intellectual property claims.

Could you please provide an argument that actually makes sense?

Matt says:

Re: What gives you the right

so who says that academic researchers are ripping anyone off? Did you ever think they might be doing some research, and as scholarly individuals, they need to be able to do more than just look at the seed with their naked eyes?

that whole “shut up and take it” business model doesn’t tend to work, in general.

Oh, and the best part: you really can’t stop someone from reverse engineering anything. It just might not be legal. That doesn’t mean there aren’t ways around it, by reverse engineering in secret and coming up with something non-infringing. It is for this reason people were jailbreaking phones prior to it being allowed.

Meanwhile, who said reverse engineering has anything to do with the context of this case?

eleete (user link) says:

Re: What gives you the right

Ya know…..
Those of us who are against IP laws are not as awful as you attempt to portray. If you would stop to think about it for one moment you might realize something fair. None of us here want it for our own little selfish reasons. IF IP were more lax, ALL people would feel free to do with the research what they wished. What that REALLY means is that we would ALL be free to use that research. AND THAT COMPANY, would be free to use all other research as well. Instead of seeing the world through your little peephole, try looking at the bigger picture.

Michial (user link) says:

Re: Re: What gives you the right


Those of you against IP laws use the “its better for all of us arguement” all the time. It would also be better for “all of us” if the government steped into your life and took all you assets and spread it around the neighborhood too. But I am sure you would be first in line to protect your assets right?

The ONLY ones to benefit from the lack of IP laws are those without the talent, money and resources to do the research/work on their own.

If you are sincere in your desires, then spread share your 401k, the equity in your house, and any other liquid assets you might have with all your neighbors. Until all of you are willing to do that I will stick with keeping the IP laws in place.

eleete (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

Ahhh the ole strawman is looking for a brain…. You see intellectual property as scarce whereas the truth is, it is infinite. Taking my couch leaves me without one. Taking my research while I take yours means we both, have both. it is a completely illogical argument. However, I will say that I want IP laws abolished. You want them to be more strict. I realize that a compromise is necessary where you won’t compromise. If IP weren’t for such a long time things would fall into the PUBLIC DOMAIN gracefully. The way it was intended to be. Let Thomas Jefferson teach you something about invention and IP

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.

Eric the Green says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

What gives you the right to be such a misguided, selfish narcissist? There’s this thing called “the greater good” and another thing called “humanity.” Both of those are far more important than you or your insignificant little part of the planet.

I’d spend more time on this, but your head is so far up your ass that it really isn’t worth the time. You’re just a self-centered, conceited, misinformed, narcissistic, close-minded, brainless jackass. eleete has explained it for you nicely.

Pjerky (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

Now hold on just one minute Bubba. While I understand the talent aspect of your complaint I think your talk about those with the available money and resources is complete horse sh*t. First of all that is a VERY elitist attitude. Plenty of people with amazing ideas and inventions don’t have the money and resources to market their ideas so instead of letting them go to waste they freely spread their knowledge to others in hope that it improves things for all of humanity.

What you are talking about is hording knowledge because you have the money and resources to. Not only is that just wrong, but it is irresponsible. I have a question for you, who are you paying for the invention of spoken words? What about the discovery of fire or the wheel? Electricity? Your idea suggests that everyone that comes up with a good idea or invention should protect it and hide it from everyone else until they can milk as much money as possible out of them.

ALL of humanity is built of the discoveries, knowledge, and inventions of humans that have come before us. And just because you discovered or created it first doesn’t mean that someone else would not have if you didn’t exist. It would have just happened at a different time. For you to stifle the spread of knowledge and discovery just to line your pockets is despicable and disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Now I am not saying don’t make money from what you do. Far from it. Being the first to discover/create something gives you a head start and a chance to use it better and quicker than others and offer services and products based off of your early knowledge and your mounting experience from it. If you instead don’t want to produce anything directly from it then hold seminars and teaching sessions to explain what and how you found/created it. You can charge for your time and effort to teach them. That is fine.

But for you to simply block the propagation of knowledge to make sure you get a slice of money is just greedy.


eleete (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 What gives you the right

In addition to all those great points, sometimes the Government (ya know, We The People) provide Grants and loans for research. I guess ALLLLL those people should just walk away from that cash, ‘screw off’ and pay whatever the likes of michial would have them to for as long as he possibly can.

I have yet to see the comment that tells the horrors of having things falling into the Public Domain. I now issue the challenge. Please, oh Please tell me the horror stories of things being in the Public Domain as opposed to a single entity (human or corporation) having a complete Monopoly on an item, song, movie, book…..

eleete (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

The ONLY ones to benefit from the lack of IP laws are those without the talent, money and resources to do the research/work on their own.

I have already posed one challenge to you, but here is another. Since your ‘invention/research’ is so unique, so unheard of, created in complete isolation, with ZERO previous works being used. Please give one example of a modern (modern being still under protection) work (anything IP) that was completely independent from all preexisting works.

Since you think your talents are so extreme, why not let us know of a single work that is not derivative to some degree.

It would help you to learn the concept of standing on the shoulders of giants. Right now we stand on the shoulders of ants.

DanC says:

Re: Re: Re: What gives you the right

The ONLY ones to benefit from the lack of IP laws are those without the talent, money and resources to do the research/work on their own.

And you have plenty of research to back up this extraordinary claim?

If you are sincere in your desires, then spread share your 401k, the equity in your house, and any other liquid assets you might have with all your neighbors.

Apparently Michial still refuses to understand the natural differences between scarce and non-scarce resources, which is why he sees no problem with his absurd request.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: What gives you the right

Because heaven forbid someone comes in behind this company and discovers that they’re genetically engineered plant would wipe out a local ecosystem. Or is easily mutated into producing a natural toxin. Or any other things that can go wrong.

It’s not always about stealing. Sometimes it really is about making sure the blood sucking corperations aren’t shoving poison down your throat while smiling and taking your money.

Michial Basher says:

Re: What gives you the right

I will try to use small words so your tiny little brain will understand.

The schools in question are researching the EFFECTS of the bio-engineered crops. They are conducting third party, unbiased evaluations on the long term use of bio-engineered seeds and crops.

The companies are preventing this from doing this by playing the IP card. Which begs the question… what are they afraid the schools will find out?

This has nothing to do with reverse engineering. This has everything to do with someone (besides the company making the products) to give a REAL evaluation of the long term effects of these crops on humans, animals and the environment.

So take your tiny brain and shove it up your enormously large arse.

Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) says:

Re: What gives you the right

When public universities are using my tax dollars to perform research for these private firms then yes, I think I do have the right. I used to work doing ag research at a university and we would perform variety trials on different seed types. In most cases, the company would donate the seed. At the end of the trial all my work, data, and reports were given to the company for their use to promote their product.

Wolfy says:

And on a related note, Genetically Modified plant genes (I believe they were GMed corn) have been discovered to have “escaped” into the non-GMed plant population BEFORE it’s various side-effects could be properly studied BECAUSE of the Corp. IP policies restricting said studies. Now the “horses are out of the barn” and we bloody well better hope that they are benign.

Anonymous Coward says:

Since these seem to be primarily land grand research institutions, it seems ashame I have not read any articles suggesting their “cousel” are even aware of two important legal doctrines:

State “severeign immunity”.

“Patent misuse” as it pertains to limitations outside the scope of the rights granted under US patent law.

The first and second are quite pertinent to research institutions that are an arm of state government, whereas the second is quite pertinent to all other research endeavors.

Their time would be well spent reading case law and then mulling over how it may be used beneficially in these types of situations.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

State “sovereign immunity” means that a state (or an arm of the state) cannot be sued for patent infringement unless the state expressly agrees to waive its immunity. Obviously, if a state is asserting that a third party is infringing a patent held by the state and brings suit, the state is deemed to have waived its immunity. However, when the shoe is on the other foot and a private party tries to assert its patent against a state, that state can generally hide behind its immunity shield and thumb its nose at the patent holder. Bear in mind this is a general description, and not a detailed discourse on the law of sovereign immunity.

“Patent misuse” is a legal doctrine that in certain circumstances can be employed to prevent a patent holder from enforcing his/her/its patent. In fact, it presents an opportunity for the patent to be “dissolved”. The precipitating factor is typically a patentee using the patent in such a manner that it is operating outside of the specific rights associated with a patent (i.e., make, use, sell, offer to sell, and import). While this is a very difficult case to make by an alleged infringer, if circumstances are present that the rights conferred by patents are being extended into other areas not covered by such rights, then it at least bears investigation and research by counsel.

I did not mention it above, but there is, of course, also the possibility that a persuasive argument can be made that the “first sale” doctrine may apply. See, for example, the recent case of LG v. Quanta decided by the Supreme Court.

anymouse says:

Genetically modified addictive crops, with nobody able to 'research' them.....

It hasn’t happened yet (that I know of), but what’s to prevent a company from creating a genetically modified version of corn or beans that has highly addictive properties? If nobody else is allowed to even research their genetically modified crops, how do we really know what they are modifying them for?

Companies talk about making better, healthier crops that can produce more food with less resources, but what company wouldn’t want a desirable crop (Corn, Beans, Potatoes, etc) with addictive properties as well? Look at tobacco, our founding fathers smoked tobacco because it had mood enhancing chemicals (psychoactive?) that made them feel “really good” (why do you think they dressed up in wigs and pranced around in petticoats?). It also had one little drawback, the nicotine was highly addictive, so they enjoyed getting high while at the same time they became addicted. Corporations took over and eliminated the psychoactive properties but left the highly addictive nicotine in, and look what happened….

People today smoke not for a ‘high’ but more out of habit, once they are addicted to the nicotine, it’s very difficult to quit, your body wants more of the drug, and people continue to smoke even when they know that it’s killing them (is it still 11 minutes off your life per cigarette?).

What’s going to happen when a company makes a genetically modified crop that contains addictive properties (either intentionally or by accident)? Hopefully they won’t package it in a method that kills their customers, but I wouldn’t hold my breath (look at how long the tobacco companies tried to deny what they were doing… making billions by killing their customers with an addictive product that no longer contains any of the psychoactive properties that caused our ‘founding fathers’ to smoke the ‘wacky tabacky’ in the first place.

Yes, I think my tinfoil hat fell off and those darn HULU aliens used a mellon baller on brain this morning….

eleete (user link) says:

Re: f***ing techdirt punks

That subject line is mighty interesting, is that a fantasy of yours ? If so I’d like to volunteer michial.

Otherwise, your comment is quite insightful, you hate all the people of techdirt and are concerned about Mikes business. Yet you continuously visit us all. HI AC !!!! Hows your business doin? ‘Well Bryan, looks like your not doing any business’. But we see you want to be doing techdirt readers. Enjoy those fantasy’s.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...