keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (11/28/85)
.........
There was a program on PBS a few weeks ago that talked about the
preservation of variation in food-plant genes, that mentioned that
companies like Monsanto are striving to 'copy protect' their new
manufactured plant strains via gene-splicing in 'fingerprints'
so that they can recoup the large expenditure required to develop
such super-plants in the first place. I can see it now, farmers
crops being checked for 'bootleg' plant strains, and involved in
copyright infringement suits when caught.
In addition, Monsanto is witholding what it learns about new bio-engineering
techniques as proprietary.
It seems that this proprietary business may be going a little too far.
If companies strive to withold libraries of plant seeds etc., in order
to protect their investments, we all suffer. It is likely too, that
the majority of such discoveries may stay on laboratory shelves, when
they cannot be directly tied to economically attractive products, or
may compete with presently successful products already produced by
the company.
Once upon a time, the leading edge of technology tended to center around
Universities that had no 'conflict of interest' in the dispersion of
new technologies. Now however, the business community with it's larger
R&D budget is changing all that, while at the same time causing the
resultant products to cost more, and making it more difficult for
smaller companies to compete.
Keith Doyle
# {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd
# cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpahes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (12/09/85)
> ......... > companies like Monsanto are striving to 'copy protect' their new > manufactured plant strains via gene-splicing in 'fingerprints' > so that they can recoup the large expenditure required to develop > such super-plants in the first place. I can see it now, farmers > crops being checked for 'bootleg' plant strains, and involved in > copyright infringement suits when caught. Why not? The existing copyright/patent law has for some time covered plant varieties. Is there something wrong with allowing the developer (by means of either classical or modern techniques) of a new variety to have rights to that variety? Many crop varieties are hybrids - not because those hybrids yield better than do pure breeding varieties, but because the farmers have to buy seed each year. A breeder who produces a new purebreeding variety is essentially guaranteed that nobody will buy seed a second time! This is a bigger problem than the software producer faces - since few people buy a new copy/year (maybe the multiple copy problem is similar) and there is no needed documentation that goes with seed. > > In addition, Monsanto is witholding what it learns about new bio-engineering > techniques as proprietary. Is this any different than what every other company does for its research? > > It seems that this proprietary business may be going a little too far. > If companies strive to withold libraries of plant seeds etc., in order > to protect their investments, we all suffer. It seems to me that you are making a major distinction between research on plants and other types of R&D. People and companies copyright and patent all sorts of things. There are laws against copying integrated circuits, contract law supports contracts which say that the user is not allowed to dissassemble/decompile software, ... All of these are justified on the basis that society will be better off by motivating developers/inventors/producers. Why should plant breeders be treated differently? > > Keith Doyle --henry schaffer
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (12/11/85)
[]
"It seems that this proprietary business may be going a little
too far. If companies strive to withold libraries of plant
seeds etc., in order to protect their investments, we all
suffer."
More "the world owes me a living" hogwash. If a company withholds a
plant seed that it developed, you don't suffer one whit more than if
they hadn't spent the millions of dollars in R&D funds to develop it in
the first place.
If Monsanto is denied copy protection for their improved breed of
plants, they will be unable to recoup their investment, and they will
have no further economic motivation to continue creating better
hybrids. This won't help feed the world at all.
-=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP]
(tekecs!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]keithd@cadovax.UUCP (Keith Doyle) (12/11/85)
>> >> In addition, Monsanto is witholding what it learns about new bio-engineering >> techniques as proprietary. > > Is this any different than what every other company does for its research? No, but there seems to be a trend in that more private institutions are doing the research and less public institutions (Universities etc.). We can all benifit from University research in that findings are published and reach the entire segment of an industry. This makes it easier for new companies to compete in the marketplace who may not have the immense budget of the few big guys. What I'm worried about is that Monsanto may become the IBM of the bio-engineering market such that no one can afford the R&D budget to compete with them, leaving Monsanto as GOD of the industry, and everyone else just follows behind fighting over the table scraps. Of course this implies that the problem is not with the way Monsanto does business, but perhaps the way the U.S. government is deciding to deal with the funding of University research etc. Or perhaps the way the U.S. government is apparently ignoring gross anti-trust infringements. > It seems to me that you are making a major distinction between research >on plants and other types of R&D. People and companies copyright and patent >all sorts of things. There are laws against copying integrated circuits, Yes this is true, the only reason I am making such a distinction, is that it has recently come to my attention that the stifling market techniques that (in my opinion) have gotten way out of hand in the computer industry (IBM) are also occuring in other industries. I guess I shouldn't have been terribly surprised. I just hate to see other big companies win their anti-trust suits, giving them an apparent green-light to go ahead and impose a monopolizing sort of effect on an entire industry. >contract law supports contracts which say that the user is not allowed to >dissassemble/decompile software, ... All of these are justified on the basis >that society will be better off by motivating developers/inventors/producers. >Why should plant breeders be treated differently? >> >> Keith Doyle > >--henry schaffer I'd just hate to see ALL plant breeders have to pay royalties to Monsanto (or someone) because Monsanto had the $$$ to develop a major new breakthrough first, especially if the new breakthrough is sufficiently 'tied-up' in patents and integrated so well into the market that no-one can compete that dosen't somehow utilize the new breakthrough in such a way that they have to pay royalties or risk patent-infringement. In the computer industry at least, IBM clone manufacturers DON'T have to pay royalties to IBM (at least not yet) but I could imagine that it could happen to some industry someday. This brings up another point. We all know about the AT&T breakup, but how 'out-of-line' does a company have to get these days to get into anti-trust trouble do you suppose? What kinds of actions are considered 'out-of-line'? Are there arguments for throwing out anti-trust legislation altogether, and/or arguments for stiffening it up more? Keith Doyle # {ucbvax,ihnp4,decvax}!trwrb!cadovax!keithd # cadovax!keithd@ucla-locus.arpa P.S. I can't help it, I'm suspicious of big companies. Remember those rumors about gas companies buying up efficient alternative energy car designes so they could sit on them?
hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (12/13/85)
> >> > >>In addition, Monsanto is witholding what it learns about new bio-engineering > >> techniques as proprietary. > > > > Is this any different than what every other company does for its research? > > No, but there seems to be a trend in that more private institutions are > doing the research and less public institutions (Universities etc.). Maybe more disturbing is that more public institutions (Universities, etc.) are starting to do contract work with restrictions on publication and dissemination of the research results. I know of at least one such situation (this company may be more reasonable than average) in which the company requires the university researcher to give them all manuscripts before submission for publication. The company legal staff screens them for possible patentable material - and can hold them up for quite some time if necessary to submit a patent application. However they can not keep the results from being published. > We can all benifit from University research in that findings are published > and reach the entire segment of an industry. This makes it easier for > new companies to compete in the marketplace who may not have the immense > budget of the few big guys. What I'm worried about is that Monsanto may > become the IBM of the bio-engineering market such that no one can afford > the R&D budget to compete with them, leaving Monsanto as GOD of the industry, > and everyone else just follows behind fighting over the table scraps. > There are other companies, such as Agrigenetics, which will provide competition. I'm not sure that you would feel any better about having competition between several large coporations, than you would about having only one dominant corporation. > Of course this implies that the problem is not with the way Monsanto does > business, but perhaps the way the U.S. government is deciding to deal with >the funding of University research etc. Or perhaps the way the U.S. government > is apparently ignoring gross anti-trust infringements. > > > It seems to me that you are making a major distinction between research > >on plants and other types of R&D. People and companies copyright and patent > >all sorts of things. There are laws against copying integrated circuits, > > Yes this is true, the only reason I am making such a distinction, is that > it has recently come to my attention that the stifling market > techniques that (in my opinion) have gotten way out of hand in the computer > industry (IBM) are also occuring in other industries. I guess I shouldn't > have been terribly surprised. I just hate to see other big companies win > their anti-trust suits, giving them an apparent green-light to go ahead and > impose a monopolizing sort of effect on an entire industry. > I am also concerned about the economic future of this country - after seeing how corporate maneuvering seem to be rewarded more than productivity. However I feel that this is a very widespread problem, and I'm not sure that doing away with patents and copyrights (and their equivalents in bio- technology) would provide any net improvement in the situation. > >> Keith Doyle > > > >--henry schaffer > > I'd just hate to see ALL plant breeders have to pay royalties to Monsanto > (or someone) because Monsanto had the $$$ to develop a major new breakthrough > first, especially if the new breakthrough is sufficiently 'tied-up' in > patents and integrated so well into the market that no-one can compete that > dosen't somehow utilize the new breakthrough in such a way that they have > to pay royalties or risk patent-infringement. In the computer industry at > least, IBM clone manufacturers DON'T have to pay royalties to IBM (at least > not yet) but I could imagine that it could happen to some industry someday. > ... > Keith Doyle > P.S. I can't help it, I'm suspicious of big companies. Remember those rumors > about gas companies buying up efficient alternative energy car designes so > they could sit on them? I'm also suspicious - but I believe that most of those rumors (they do get started periodically) are hoaxes. --henry schaffer