Birbla

Discussion summary

A legal dispute involves a farmer and a company over the rights to a white nectarine variety, with debates about patents and corporate practices.

What the discussion says

  • Some see it as a case of corporate control over plant varieties.
  • Others criticize the patent system and its impact on farmers.
  • There are opinions that the practice stifles innovation and harms farmers.
“Fruit patents are becoming more common this is unbelievably stupid.”
— john_strinlai
“They made a new varietal. Nobody is saying he can't plant any of the standard heirloom Nectarines.”
— bpodgursky

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Holy astroturf
    by carrychains
  • White nectarines are gross IMO. Not even for free.
    by Teknomadix
  • Reminds me of Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.
    by aorth
  • >locked in a legal battle with a company that claims exclusive rights over the variety of white nectarine he grows.

    >[...] Fruit patents are becoming more common

    this is unbelievably stupid. no company should have rights or patents over a variety of food.

    by john_strinlai
  • I missed the free potatoes in Berlin https://www.the-berliner.com/english-news-berlin/4000-tons-o... , and now I'm missing this? Once again https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46618898 all the action eludes me.
    by leoc
  • If he donates these to a charity, what are the rules on taking a tax deduction for this unusual situation?

    Can it have value for the purposes of a donation if you can't sell it? Would taking a tax deduction trigger a patent liability?

    by jmalicki
  • regardless of how the contract is structured, no contract should allow or force a producer to throw products away. this is similar to a law in the EU that forbids producers or distributors of clothing to destroy products they don't want to sell.

    once you plant a tree to grow fruit you should be allowed to keep harvesting that tree until its natural end. if there is an exclusive contract then the contract must not be allowed to be terminated before that end unless the grower is free to sell on the open market after termination.

    anything else would allow patent owners to hold growers hostage ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶t̶o̶r̶y̶ ̶h̶e̶r̶e̶.̶

    by em-bee
  • Patents on food crops, even genetically engineered ones, are evil. ALL our staple food crops and most non staples are genetically engineered by millennia of cultivation and selective breeding; CRISPR is just a fancy mechanism for what we’ve always done to food.

    Regulations that prevent farmers from selling food that is safe, are evil. It doesn’t matter how well intentioned the regulation is.

    Any government functionary that tries to prevent a farmer from selling safe food, is doing evil. Any lawyer that tries to prevent a farmer from selling food, is doing evil. Any court that enjoins a farmer from selling safe food, is doing evil. If the farmer is found to have violated some IP claim, then the proper remedy is monetary damages after the fact, not enjoined before the fact.

    by efitz

Explore Birbla archives