[shash]

What I don’t understand is, _how_ it doesn’t depend on a patent right. How do you license something that doesn’t depend on a licensable right?

If it isn’t a patent right, exactly _what_ is he purchasing a license to? If it’s purely an agreement of exclusivity to Giumarra, it can’t be called a “sub license” and the consequence is just a breach of contract (which is what it sounds like). But in that case I’m sure there are mutual termination agreements in the exclusivity contract.

Also, if it’s _not_ a patent, what exactly does the company bring to the table? For what consideration does the farmer give them an exclusive access to his trees?

[s1artibartfast]

it could be seeds, rootstalk, cash, loans a future purchase guarantee. There is basically an endless list of reasons the contract could have been initially attractive for the farmer.

As you say, it mostly comes down to what the parties agreed to about exiting the contract.

[shash]

But all of those things are an agreement with consideration; a "license" is a permission to use some property. If not a patent, what is the "thing" that the farmer is licensing from the company.

It's fine to say "there was an agreement that the farmer would grant exclusive rights to the produce of the trees, in exchange for seeds, rootstalk or cash", but that's not a license. I don't understand that aspect of this at all. The articles consistently talk about a "license", not other consideration such as the aforementioned seeds or a guaranteed purchase.

The only "property" that could conceivably be licensed in such a manner is a patent - other forms of IP such as copyright or trademark wouldn't enter into it. And any other property doesn't make sense because... well... the only property here is the farm and the trees, which are the undisputed property of the farmer.

It just feels like a very loose usage of the word "license".