How can you order a farmer to destroy their trees? I hope he fights in a higher court. Wish I’d heard about the nectarine giveaway. I’d have gone to pick some.
How can you order a farmer to destroy their trees? I hope he fights in a higher court. Wish I’d heard about the nectarine giveaway. I’d have gone to pick some.
If the company spends considerable amounts of cash developing a genetically modified fruit that is superior in some way, they have the rights to that fruit.
Whatever my man keep eating those copyrighted fruits just remember then they own what you shit as well
Uh… pretty much the entire agriculture industry works this way… Monsanto forces farmers to sign licenses that they won’t use the seeds produced by their crops to grow more crops.
**It does and it doesn’t. **
I worked in the industry for many years. Theres more spit and handshake agreements than people are aware of. Definitely in the Central Valley. Its a whole industry full of legal loopholes. Licensing crops can be as easy as a written signature with one page to whole multi-company rights etc…etc…
Also growers/transportation/storage/etc… are sometimes all the same multi-conglomerate and with the same owner. But have a different business license/business. That way, if one gets sued only one goes down. Also one can have a huge tax related issue and have “losses”. Lots of creative work there.
So yeah its not black and white as most people think. Significant amounts of your food is both licensed with a huge agreement…and others are “unlicensed” but licensed as a spit/handshake. Mellons are a perfect example.
Dont get me started on the commodities markets…and onions.
We should remember to save it and ship it to their HQ.
Do you go to work for free? Must be nice.
People have been cultivating fruit way before copyright…
Obviously that’s true. Then this farmer should have planted that older (less desirable) fruit.
The discussion is about how we feel about the state enforcing copyright on fruits. Do we need this as a society? You make it sound like the profit incentive is necessary for farmers developing more resilient, tastier etc. fruit. Historically, the direct profit was enough. We have a choice.
This use of copyright can hinder innovation (it limits knowledge sharing) and has weird inefficiencies like the one in the article. That’s worth debating.
Considering how many consumers and farmers choose genetically modified copyrighted fruit and food, the obvious answer is yes, we do need it. No one is forcing the farmer to purchase the superior genetically modified fruit, he does that willingly.
Nah
No, what they have is a morally bereft contract condition.
If you put in effort and money to create a product, you wouldn’t give it away either. If you (or the farmer) thinks the product has no benefit, then don’t use it. Use something else.
Well, the farmer did give away, because he had no other choice after the buyer refused to buy but banned him from selling to anyone else. Sometimes giving away is the only option.
Exclusive rights to something isn’t exactly new. If you have a gym or Costco membership, you can’t just let someone else use it because you won’t be around for a month. If the farmer willingly entered into a contract with the supplier, the terms of the contract are enforceable.
Not exactly the same thing. But any contract that means they can screw you and you have no recourse, is a bad contract that shouldn’t be enforceable. You can’t sell yourself into slavery either. That’s a much closer analogy.
If that’s the case, which is debatable, then take it to court. If the conditions are so obvious, a win is a surety with court costs awarded. You can’t just unilaterally decide which parts of a contract are enforceable and which are not.
A surety in court? That really depends on how justice oriented your justice system is. I’ve heard some appalling stories about that. Where I live, it would probably work. In some other places, possibly not. I have no idea about California. A contract like that shouldn’t hold up, but that doesn’t mean it won’t.
Go to court. If the verdict is wrong in your opinion, then appeal it.
Or maybe have your lawyer read through the contract before you sign it.
Yeah no. Some things benefit the most capable providers when made public. If you are in that position, it’s only a net benefit to dictate the entire market.
Are you suggesting the government make rules on what kind of contracts parties can make in business? Would the government then oversee that? There are many, many contracts where there is an exclusive relationship described in a contract.
They already do?