11-22-2013, 09:53 AM
Intellectual property is just fine and dandy when applied to things that do not reproduce on their own. Any "illegal copying" is self-evident, as it requires a constructive effort.
Plants, however, are designed to self-reproduce, during which they will naturally reinforce any traits which provide a reproductive advantage: evolution.
Seems like containment of the "intellectual property" should be Monsanto's responsibility: if they don't want people "stealing" their patented genetics, maybe they shouldn't release them into the wild?
Addressing the point above: if (when) it's proven that GMO contamination caused the extinction of an heirloom varietal, the GMO companies will have a massive liability problem. This is precisely why they lobby for IP regulations: it's necessary to establish the precedent that you stole it rather than deal with the unpleasant reality that Monsanto can't change the laws of Nature.
Footnote on IP: check out the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which enshrines IP protection in a "Treaty" that supercedes the sovereignty of national governments.
Plants, however, are designed to self-reproduce, during which they will naturally reinforce any traits which provide a reproductive advantage: evolution.
Seems like containment of the "intellectual property" should be Monsanto's responsibility: if they don't want people "stealing" their patented genetics, maybe they shouldn't release them into the wild?
Addressing the point above: if (when) it's proven that GMO contamination caused the extinction of an heirloom varietal, the GMO companies will have a massive liability problem. This is precisely why they lobby for IP regulations: it's necessary to establish the precedent that you stole it rather than deal with the unpleasant reality that Monsanto can't change the laws of Nature.
Footnote on IP: check out the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which enshrines IP protection in a "Treaty" that supercedes the sovereignty of national governments.