.. and this is the basic assumption of patents: They should provide value for society. If they don't, then they are a bad bargain and should be taken off the table. They are not some perpetual right. They are a grant from society in return for certain things. If the benefits don't exceed the costs or damages accruing from taking away the freedoms they curtail, then we should take these grants off the table.
> If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore.
Someone else addressed that better than me.
> I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it.
... or change the law, to take this business model off the table, if the software company abuses the rights to place restrictions that we as a society finds not to be worth the benefits we get from it.
Again: They do not have a right to profit from their chosen business model when this business model is based on exploiting a grant of rights that depends on the restriction of the freedom of the public that society chose to offer with specific goals. They have a right - as long as we continue to offer that trade - to try to profit from it. But we also have a right to take that deal away if we don't benefit sufficiently from it, or if the restraints it adds prove too harsh.
> So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market?
You miss the point entirely, which was that if we're already paying for this technology, then for society there is no cost saving in leaving the R&D to Monsanto vs. paying for it from public funds. And the argument
.. and this is the basic assumption of patents: They should provide value for society. If they don't, then they are a bad bargain and should be taken off the table. They are not some perpetual right. They are a grant from society in return for certain things. If the benefits don't exceed the costs or damages accruing from taking away the freedoms they curtail, then we should take these grants off the table.
> If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore.
Someone else addressed that better than me.
> I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it.
... or change the law, to take this business model off the table, if the software company abuses the rights to place restrictions that we as a society finds not to be worth the benefits we get from it.
Again: They do not have a right to profit from their chosen business model when this business model is based on exploiting a grant of rights that depends on the restriction of the freedom of the public that society chose to offer with specific goals. They have a right - as long as we continue to offer that trade - to try to profit from it. But we also have a right to take that deal away if we don't benefit sufficiently from it, or if the restraints it adds prove too harsh.
> So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market?
You miss the point entirely, which was that if we're already paying for this technology, then for society there is no cost saving in leaving the R&D to Monsanto vs. paying for it from public funds. And the argument