[united893]

Let's say someone decides to just take their grapes (Cotton Candy Grapes) and grow them in their farm and sell it as "Popsicle Candy".

At that point the company that originally bred the grape would sue and claim patent infringement but also for EULA contract violation, giving them additional ammunition.

If you can get additional protection by printing some text on a package, why would you not do it? They spent twelve years breeding this strain, it would suck for someone to steal it.

[fiblye]

> They spent twelve years breeding this strain, it would suck for someone to steal it.

First we need to decide whether a naturally occurring biological and agricultural process that forms the basis of human civilization is "stealing."

Was the introduction of potatoes to Europe an act of grand larceny on a historical scale?

[Hnrobert42]

It sounds like the 12 year selective breeding is not a natural process. It’s not like someone walked into a field, found this grape, and patented it. How is this different from a chemist developing a chemical compound and patenting it?

[fiblye]

All farmed food today was selectively bred. Corn and wheat weren't always as palatable as they are today. Fruits are all bigger and juicier.

At what point do we decide some life capable of naturally and spontaneously reproducing is patentable, and some life isn't? Should it extend to breeds of animals as well?

If someone dumps a pack of grapes by the side of the road, someone else comes along and picks the fruit that later grows, are they pirating fruit? If they decide they like it and plant their own garden, is that a patent violation? They never agreed to an EULA or even knew of its existence. They found it naturally.

I'm sure this all sounds ridiculous. That's precisely because it is.

The difference between patenting a chemical compound is a patentable compound is probably not producing itself naturally without constant human intervention. Someone, for example, won't be patenting oxygen. They can maybe patent a specific process for producing oxygen, but oxygen is naturally occurring. If a plant is growable from a seed or some other self-sustaining method, it'll continue to produce itself naturally without human intervention as well.

[gruez]

>The difference between patenting a chemical compound is a patentable compound is probably not producing itself naturally without constant human intervention.

So your argument is that if something can self-replicate, it shouldn't be able to be patented? Let's say we invent self-replicating nanobots in the future, should that be not patentable?

[fiblye]

I think it's reasonable to patent the method of producing the nanobots from scratch. But if those things get loose and manage to reproduce on their own, how is the patent enforced? Is it reasonable to patent something that's self-sustaining?

[Hnrobert42]

Plant patents specifically exclude plants that can reproduce asexually, like tubers. Further, it is my understanding that these grapes cannot grow from seed. You have to culture a tissue sample. Granting a 17-year monopoly to the inventor seems like a reasonable trade off if the alternative is that no one would invest the time/money to create this fruit at all.

[undersuit]

If we grant the patent they they get to decide how low our nanobots last... maybe a monthly subscription we can sign up for.