Slashdot Mirror
Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses
Doc Ruby writes "The American Administrator of the Iraqi CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) government, Paul Bremer, updated Iraq's intellectual property law to 'meet current internationally-recognized standards of protection.' The updated law makes saving seeds for next year's harvest, practiced by 97% of Iraqi farmers in 2002, the standard farming practice for thousands of years across human civilizations, newly illegal. Instead, farmers will have to obtain a yearly license for genetically modified seeds from American corporations. These GM seeds have typically been modified from IP developed over thousands of generations by indigenous farmers like the Iraqis, shared freely like agricultural 'open source.' Other IP provisions for technology in the law further integrate Iraq into the American IP economy."
That's ridiculous. While I do fully support the use of transgenic crops, I find it silly to force farmers into buying something they may not want.
Giving them the choice to buy GM seed is fine; forcing them to buy GM seed and abide by North American terms and conditions is debilitating.
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
I hope the Iraqi's enjoy this new "Freedom". I wonder why the US isn't using more non-GMO seeds 3which don't have the IP restrictions?
How ironic, The root of most civilizations comes from the so-called "Cradle of Civilization" which is a region of Iraq located between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
How far do you think we would have progressed if the creators of these technologies demanded we use Their technologies and pay a license fee to use those technologies?
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
Or they could, you know, NOT USE THOSE SEEDS, and instead continue using the strains they've been using for the last few thousand years or so. But then we wouldn't have our little whole-cloth pretext for a little political bashing, would we?
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
The U.S. regime will most likely criminalize the use of the olds seeds. And even if they do not its only a matter of time before the new seeds will "find" a way into their crops and the patent holders will begin to extort the iraqi farmers. Think its a conspiracy theory? It's already happening. IN CANADA
Be it software or grain, the rules are the same - if you don't like the license, don't use the product - use a competing product with a license you can accept.
You seem to have forgotton about the war in Iraq and the chaos that followed "Mission accomplished".
There aren't many seeds.
Many of the fields have withered and died because there hasn't been enough irrigation, or money to pay the labor to support the fields. Grain houses have been destroyed. Crops have been contaminated. The agricultural economy has collapsed... hard to sell your produce when there are warplanes bombing your village.
The US solution to this problem is to provide GMO seeds, which require a license to use. The Iraqis don't have much choice in the matter... the economy has been devistated, and they need to take whatever they can get.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I don't think you got the point to the article. Most of the advancement that these GM seeds rely on was as a result of thousands of years of selective practices by generations of farmers. That they add in one feature and sell the seeds is akin to taking a large GPL program, adding in one feature and selling the binary without source. The ancestors of the plans that we eat are many times very much distant from what we grow today, GM or not, and that work has taken thousands of years to bring us this far.
when your choice is to use these seeds or starve?
Call me crazy, but I think not.
I know this is /. but the problem especially in this one is that most people here are shooting from the hip and not bothering to read the story.
.. and any changes you make are passed on to others .. who again improve them. This one is about companies getting something that was produced by someone else .. making small changes and then trying to licence it back - license something that was like GPL and not thier total IP in the first place. Iraq rightly IMO had laws against this.
The Story is about the US changing the laws regarding GM Seeds - not the Iraqis changing them. Previously in Iraq (and it still should be) it was illegal to sell a seed and say that you could not save the seeds from the plants. It is a pretty simple principle - you buy the seed, you can breed from it.
One way of looking at it is that seeds always have been kind of GPL - you get them for free
It should be that if GM seed companies don't like the Iraqi law then they should not sell thier seeds in Iraq.
Nobody in Iraq would want to be controlled by a foreign country and have thier food supplies dependent on seeds from that country.
Read the story dudes.
It is this problem that will eventually cause the downfall of the GM licensing rules as they exist right now (note: I'm not saying it will kill GM as a method or product).
;)
... this exactly what anti-GM folks have been saying for years ... once a new gene gets into the wild and it provides benefits, it will naturally propogate. It is called Evolution (except in Kansas and Georgia ... and I get to make that joke since I grew up in one and lived in the other for awhile) and we are most definitely tampering with it.
Take for instance recent studies that show that grain that was grown in the U.S. and exported to Mexico for -food- and not in the form of meant-for-planting-seeds has mixed in with the Mexican corn crops.
The Mexicans did not plant the GM seeds, they don't -want- GM seeds, but now they have them. By some interpretations of the current rules it means that the Mexican farmers (if they were in the states) would be unable to replant their existing crops nor sell the seeds elsewhere because they contain protected IP.
Ridiculous. Talk about viral licensing
The end result is that there is a law on it's way from Mexico stating that any corn imported from the U.S. has to be labelled GM (or GM free, which is rapidly becoming impossible) -and- milled before entry into Mexico. Even then Murphy states that some kernels will make it through the process whole and/or migrate naturally and the GM genes will continue to migrate.
Yep
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
This is not esoterica like software licences, this is basic ingredients for living, and these [insert strong epithet of choice here, my personal best candidate starts with a w] want to control it all. Makes the RIAA and fellow idiots look politely selfless by contrast.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Well as far as Biotechs are concerned, it is a delicate subject. When someone creates a new chemical or element (e.g. the slashdotium), there is no question about the invention factor.
But when a laboratory just decypher the gene pool of something that existed, and slightly change it to make it patentable, it's a harder question. Ex. : when RiceTech patented Basmati rice. [biotech-info.net]
This patent finally got revised but the problem is still there. As a lawyer, I just can't help but wondering how you can make it illegal not to manage your crop the way you want. Just like the rest of the IP field, the more it goes and the more we're headed to a world of licensing instead of ownership...
Just my two €urocents...
So you're saying that since food is a necessity, no one should be allowed to have an incentive to develop more efficient food producing technologies? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
You seem to be a little clueless. How is the farmer supposed to tell the difference ? Montsanto recently established the principle that even if you never bought from them you are liable to pay them. They bankrupted a Canadian farmer whose seed was spoiled by blown in montsanto traces. when he used his own seed, they sued him all the way through the court sysytem - and won.
seed is not software. life grows, often out of human control.
It will be here soon, too. Pollen is airborne. Eventually you won't be able to save your own seed, and they have proven they can control the law and court system to the extent that if the pollen infects your crops, you "stole" their "patented" IP. It's why those of us who have been against this have been speaking up about it. Their plant "IP" law is viral, and you can't get away from it once it's released into the wild to grow. Google starlink corn, canola, superweed for starters.
You cannot both "support it" and think you or anyone else can have any practical alternative. Joe farmer down the street has IP protected corn, you don't, next year the seed you save from your own crop that had nothing to do with the patented stuff will have a certain percentage of "their" genetic material in it. You lose. Every crop you try to grow will become more infected. The wind and the law won't allow it. It's only a matter of time now before global food monopolies. And in iraq you can see they aren't even waiting for it to spread semi naturally, they are just mandating it, showing exactly where they have always been coming from, exactly like we have warned against and been told it was "tinfoil hat" or "luddism". Now here, you see the proof, what they intend for not only iraq, but the planet, as much as they can.
The US solution to this problem is to provide GMO seeds, which require a license to use. The Iraqis don't have much choice in the matter...
The use of food aid for strategic gain is common. The typical course of action for the US is to give food aid that includes GM plants and crops. There are countries that refuse to accept this (much to the dismay of the US), in favour of keeping good relations with the EU (which tries to control distribution/use of GM crops). There may be little choice in Iraq, not necessarilly because of the dire need, but more because of the government's relation to the occupying power.
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
any so-called "infected" crop can easily be removed.
Fine. When my neighbor's pollen infects my crops YOU pay thousands of dollars for genetic testing and YOU pay to remove the infected crop and YOU pay to REPLACE MY CROPS that you are removing.
It's only stealing if you keep it.
In what bizzaro universe does that make any sense? KEEPING my crops - keeping my genuine property - is stealing?
"Intellectual property" has become seriously malignant when you start REVOKING GENUINE PROPERTY RIGHTS in the process.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What makes plant patents so insidious is that they will interbreed with wild relatives (canola/rapeweed, cultivated cotton with the wild cotton you see by the roadside in cotton country etc) and neighbouring crops. This is a truly viral licence, as without your knowledge or consent you could easily find that your crops acquire patented genes.
IANAL, but I'd argue that plant patents could be used to litigate other seed suppliers out of existence - puff some pollen over their crop fields, and in a couple of generations there may well be enough of your IP in enough of their seeds for a patent suit to stick. In the past, if you didn't want to get sued, you didn't use someone elses IP - and they couldn't make you. These days, it may well be possible for someone else to introduce their IP into your product without your knowledge or consent, and you're liable for the infringement. If you could prove you'd been set up you might be able to make a case against the IP owners, but you can bet lawyers and corporations are a lot smarter in this post-Tobacco and post-Asbestos era and that no evidence will be left.
So therefore everyone should be able to steal the GM modifications?
I don't believe these businesses believe the infection model will stand the test of the courts. Now, I realize there is almost no way to convince you of this. But it's not the purpose of patents, and it's not the purpose of the GM plants either. The plants provide a value greater than the existing ones, and the GM manufacturers want to share in that value with their customers.
Now I don't think the GM seed manufactorers are any more moral than anyone else, so if they could get away with forcing everyone to use their seed, they would, but it won't pass the courts except for a brief period.
Now let's put the shoe on the other foot. The manufactorers are in a difficult position. It's easy for a farmer who has never paid their share of the cost to steal the value for free, destroying the entire business model of GM plants. If you don't feel this is a serious concern, just look at how willing people are to steal software, music, videos, whatever. The GM manufactorers are well aware of this and trying to stop it, and obviously they will try to push the line in their favor. The line is hard to draw, and it will take the courts some time to figure it out, and yes some people in the meantime will become casualties, but let's not use this anecdotal information to draw sweeping conclusions about a technology with such enormous as yet unrealized benefits. Those who place a high value on social benefit over individual benefit should be willing to accept this.
I also believe this is a short lived phenomenon. Eventually seeds will be made sterile or something, so this problem goes away, or perhaps the courts will invent a good way of dealing with the problem.
Now, what bothers me about your position is that it is basically, "Well, since there isn't a perfectly fair model right now, you have to give it away free. Or only charge those willing to pay." So many people like you self righteously argue for giving away other people's hard work because it is easy to copy it, yet the true value is not in the copying, but in the original work itself.
I don't think you would argue the farmers should give their food away for free, because it is tangible, but that you should give away the less tangible intellectual property. Honestly, it sounds backwards. The hard things that are progressive are the things that should be rewarded.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
The Iraqi government is free to change this law at any time. Afterall, sovereinty was handed back to the Iraqi people. That is the theory at least.....
But if genetic material can be considered Intellectual Property, what's the difference between a genetic sequence resulting from meticulous breeding and a genetic sequence resulting from genetic modification?
You can patent new varieties of plants you derive through breeding. Check out roses, for instance, so the core argument is wrong.
But even if new strains weren't protectable, I would argue you would want to be able to patent things so the people with a lot of money invest in making more of it, by making something so superior it makes sense for people to use it.
What obligates the government to protect your business model?
The purpose of the government is to protect property, obviously.
Although, I suspect the alternatives don't involve the same profit margin, which is why we've ended up in this situation (and a lot of others) to begin with--corporate greed.
Get used to the idea that people do things out of self interest. The wonderful ideas of socialism just don't work: even the Israeli Kibbutz, in which people have a huge binding force, failed. Also, you argue yourself into a hole. The other ways aren't as efficient (i.e., not as profitable), and in so doing you point out the very reason capitalism works: greed (or the desire to make things and be rewarded for them is another way of looking at it without using the hyperloaded term "greed." Kids stealing music are greedy too, you know).
Moreover, forgive me if I'm wrong here,
Just shows you why analogy is such a dangerous tool. Look, I take carbon, chromium, nickel, and iron, and I get steel. Certainly something ought to be patentable. But I just took some existing stuff and put it together in a different way.
Anyway, if the thrust of your thinking is "Gee, why can't we just all get along and share," well I agree with the sentiment, but it just aint the way people work, and I for one am glad we have a government that can prevent people from stealing my stuff and allow people to fight it out in the virtual capitalist world instead.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Good post, but unfortunately, your baseball analogy, while good, doesn't reflect just how fucked up this situation is. Because a baseball is real property; therefore, if I throw it through your window, it has changed hands, and by giving you the baseball I have deprived myself of it. While calling this transfer "stealing" is still ludicrous, at least I can claim lost property.
But Intellectual Property, which is not actually property, is worse, because in transfering the seeds to you I have not been deprived of the genes in question. So a better analogy would be me hacking into your computer system, causing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage to your files in the process, and installing a copy of MS office licensed to me -- and then reporting the infraction to MS, who sues the pants off of you for having an unlicensed copy. But but wait, it gets worse! I install said copy in such a way that the only way you can remove that copy is by deleting most of the rest of your files in the process.
Obviously, analogies that accurately underscore the injustice of this are hard to come by, because there really hasn't been anything so completely fucked up in a long time.
Otherwise, great post.
it's like if someone chucked a baseball through your window, you had to pay for the window, and they guy who threw it calls you a thief for stealing his baseball and not giving it back
Your analogy is close, but not quite there. It is more like someone throwing a baseball through your window, breaking it and impacting several surfaces inside your house. Then demanding that you remove and destroy all portions of your house that were illegally branded with the Major League Baseball logo.
I am pro technology and pro advancement, and all tech has a potentional dark side to it that I believe that we can all ultimately deal with. GMO's scare me though. What happens to our environment when things like "Terminator" from Monsanto get out and the gene's transfer to other species.
When I am trying to explain my view to others on this issue, I liken this genetic modification to software engineering. No matter how careful and methodical you are in a software project - there will be bugs, they are discovered and quashed later. Now think of the potential consequences of a 'bug' when dealing with GMO's - we could have serious agricultural decimation.
Furthermore I don't trust these companies, they repeatedly try to rush products to market, fudge their testing and say "we didn't know" later on when the problems arise, or simply pay the settlement (it's cheaper than good science).
I don't believe that these companies necessarily have the foresight, integrity or regard to be playing with these products. It's still a new frontier of science and what will happen when someone forgets that extra set of braces in the code....
I hope that I feel different in the future, I don't believe that any technology is inherently bad, there are some though we might not be ready to deploy as of yet.