You are perfectly free to keep selling what we've been eating. No one is forcing people to plant the new stuff.

If you make patents illegal, no one will breed new stuff. How does that help?

All that will do is cause people to grow the old stuff, which they still can, even if the patent exists.

Do you get what I mean? Adding a patent does not reduce anything, it only adds a new option.

> If you make patents illegal, no one will breed new stuff. How does that help?

There would still be public, industry-group and philanthropic research. But yes, probably much less.

	▲	xhkkffbf 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And there still is today. But are they producing good nectarines? Apparently not as good as these. I know that occasionally philanthropic research works out, but generally I find that people are motivated by profit.

> You are perfectly free to keep selling what we've been eating. No one is forcing people to plant the new stuff.

This common sense statement should be true, but is wholly ignorant of the lawsuits farmers deal with from seed suppliers

	▲	HDThoreaun 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Which law suits would those be? It seems to me that the reality is that GMO seeds are really useful and all the lawsuits Ive seen are farmers wanting to use them without paying royalties.