Intellectual Property Laws

[tweety]

Well i'm glad you are. Agriville is full of problem identification but very short on solutions. The upcoming rail summit is proof positive navel gazing in action!

So you need a canola variety like the good ol days. 40 cents a pound plus treating. No seed save issues whatsoever. Trouble is, no one buys it. the absolute most expensive seed is bought out first and filters down from there and then 3 farmers in western Canada may want to buy the 40 cent stuff in hindsight in the midst of a drought year.

Why don't you have some quantum II or magnum or AC excel in stock then to grow? If you have a good rotation you don't even have to treat it.

But..... is it smart economics to save some bucks on seed by buying 20 year old varieties?

I am pretty sure that isn't the answer either.

[farmaholic]

Take the lead, I'm listening.

[GOODRUM]

So what is the point of upov91?
Who proposed it?
Ahhh just go along with it, I'm sure we will all be enjoying the benefits in no time

[Braveheart]

I remember what it was like to have my property rights disrespected when the CWB was at their zenith. Not good. We just had no legal recourse. Thanks Ralph.

Re seed though, I have no idea what it costs to develop a seed line. It must be enormous. How long should it take to recoup costs and move to profitability? I doubt they do as they are reinvesting in the next generation. Bottom line is, it's their property. I chose or don't choose to buy their technology.

But when I do chose it's because that technology has consistently given us higher yields, better weed control, herbicide groups that help combat weed resistance, soil conservation benefits, etc. If I didn't see this value I wouldn't buy their technology.

Really, UPOV doesn't add much more than the previous version.

I will add, that for me, once I have paid for the use of someone's intellectual property the progeny belongs to me. I will not tolerate end point royalties.

[Braveheart]

The other point is, the companies are just giving farmers what they asked for.

[sumdumguy]

I agree Braveheart.

[tweety]

Braveheart said:

I will add, that for me, once I have paid for the use of someone's intellectual property the progeny belongs to me. I will not tolerate end point royalties.

End quote

That right there is the crux and the most difficult thing some farmers who actually buy IP is they think they own it. They don't. They license it with specific limitations that they sign, but probably never read.

All farmers must must must grasp that concept. It is not yours, you have no rights whatsoever to say what you can do with the progeny if the holder doesn't want you to.

So we have two possible solutions or rather outcomes.

1. Buy the newest greatest most expensive technology like canola has been done for years now and stop the whining. Accept you have no rights. Accept that if you want the technology you can buy it but its not yours, you're just borrowing (licensing) the technology. Realize that its not canola you're buying from monsanto, its the GT73 gene that can metabolize glyphosate you're temporarily buying (licensing) and its also in the progeny for which you have no rights to use again.

2. Don't buy it. For canola its almost unrealistic to even say it. There is nothing else to buy that comes close to the yields, disease resistance and HT of new varieties. Most farmers see it as value.

But, wheat barley oats, well different story - today. It was board room planned to be going the way of contracts before UPOV 91 came around. Lots of examples already of seed you can contract and grow maybe one or two years. It comes with acceptance of malt contracts, milling contracts, etc. And as a bonus it doesn't cost anymore then buying the run of the mill stuff from Tom4 with no benefits.

The majority of the farmers will go that way and see value. The majority of the seed industry will go that way. Lots of bitching about it, but the cheques will be quickly written for it and scooped up, accepted - just like canola.

You can't stop it. I'm pretty sure the commissions and given the history of farmer owned anything failure, owning our own seed is probably, for the most part, a pipe dream.

A solution, probably not. Maybe just a reality check.

And just a comment, seed growers have always wanted special legislation for royalties - they already have had it for years in PBR and UPOV 78. I'm convinced the only thing they achieved with UPOV 91 is awareness that if you want new stuff you gotta pay for it. If you don't, grow harvest or muchmore or....

They just don't have the balls to sue you like Mons and Bayer can and very successfully do. But even that will change, be sure about that.

[farmaholic]

The word that stuck out to me was "value".

What value(non monetary) does the owner of it see and promote? (Perceived or real?) It's all going to be better than what came before it. ;-)

What value will the user place on it? Does it serve any purpose to him?

What value(monetary) will the owner put on it?

Market value will ultimately be determined by what the market will pay currently and "forced" to pay at a later date when there are no options. Unfortunately agronomic value will have no bearing in a while, once they are in "full control"

[GOODRUM]

Who's responsibility is the volunteer that requires extra chemical to control the following year? If they own it I think they should look after it.

[tweety]

Farmaholic, they already are in control and have been for a long time. Farmers don't create new varieties of any kind, own nothing, probably never will.

Goodrum, you signed the agreement. You will. Now if you never grew RR, they will cuz you never signed.... a contract.

[farmaholic]

If they're in control, they have alot of prosecuting to do. The underground canola seed market is alive and well. There are many growers following the example I posted in a previous thread. Poor Monsanto and the advent of generic glyphosate, image if they had a patent on it into perpetuity. They could extract even more from you, seed and chemical to spray it with. Wouldn't farming practices look different today!!!!

Oneoff, no comments?

[tweety]

Well stealing is certainly one way to get around contracts and costs.

[farmaholic]

Only difference tweety is they have laws that make their stealing legal.

[GOODRUM]

Farmaholic
I agree

[farmaholic]

Someone please answer my first question in my first post in this thread.

For arguments sake, lets say Canadian canola acreage is 17.5 million acres per year with seed costs averaging $50/acre. That's 875 million per year, over 5 years its 4 BILLION 375 MILLION.

Soooo, is 50-60 dollars per acre per year a "FAIR" price to pay?