[topynate]

Trying to work out what's going wrong in the cases this article describes, such that the principle "you can't patent something that exists" apparently doesn't apply. Is it that an independent breeder develops a certain strain, say red salad, and then a big company makes a modification to that strain, and patents the modification, such that the independent breeder is prevented somehow from continuing to develop red salad? That still doesn't make perfect sense to me but it makes more legal sense than "company got patent on what you already made, you can't make it anymore", which is just not how patents work.

[pacetherace]

The cases that the article talks about (broccoli and red carrot), the researchers shared the seeds/plants with other researchers without applying for any patents or open disclosures. I don't think Seminis is really saying that they can't make it anymore, rather the issue is that for a common farmer it is not worth planting something and worrying about a lawsuit from Monsanto/Seminis to prove they provence of the seeds.

With open source seeds, 1. The farmer knows that they there are no legal issues with using specfic seeds 2. The onus is on Seminis to prove that their seed is not a derivative of open-source seed, which means they have to file a lawsuit against a non-profit (hopefully well funded) instead of a lone farmer