Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ecsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!ecsvax!hes
From: hes@ecsvax.UUCP (Henry Schaffer)
Newsgroups: net.bio
Subject: Re: Copy protected Genes
Message-ID: <878@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 09:51:58 EST
Article-I.D.: ecsvax.878
Posted: Mon Dec  9 09:51:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 04:12:50 EST
References: <970@cadovax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: NC State Univ.
Lines: 40

> .........
> companies like Monsanto are striving to 'copy protect' their new
> manufactured plant strains via gene-splicing in 'fingerprints'
> so that they can recoup the large expenditure required to develop
> such super-plants in the first place.  I can see it now, farmers
> crops being checked for 'bootleg' plant strains, and involved in
> copyright infringement suits when caught.

   Why not?  The existing copyright/patent law has for some time covered
plant varieties.  Is there something wrong with allowing the developer
(by means of either classical or modern techniques) of a new variety 
to have rights to that variety?  Many crop varieties are hybrids - not
because those hybrids yield better than do pure breeding varieties, but
because the farmers have to buy seed each year.  A breeder who produces
a new purebreeding variety is essentially guaranteed that nobody will
buy seed a second time!  
   This is a bigger problem than the software producer faces - since
few people buy a new copy/year (maybe the multiple copy problem is similar)
and there is no needed documentation that goes with seed.
> 
> In addition, Monsanto is witholding what it learns about new bio-engineering
> techniques as proprietary.

   Is this any different than what every other company does for its research?
> 
> It seems that this proprietary business may be going a little too far.
> If companies strive to withold libraries of plant seeds etc., in order
> to protect their investments, we all suffer.

   It seems to me that you are making a major distinction between research
on plants and other types of R&D.  People and companies copyright and patent
all sorts of things.  There are laws against copying integrated circuits,
contract law supports contracts which say that the user is not allowed to
dissassemble/decompile software, ...  All of these are justified on the basis
that society will be better off by motivating developers/inventors/producers.
Why should plant breeders be treated differently?
> 
> Keith Doyle

--henry schaffer