The problem with patented seeds (and everything else) is the owner can decide who gets to use them. No one should hold that power.

If patents worked as a royalty system where you're guaranteed to get a license if you pay there would be no problem. But right now Bayer can use their control over Roundup Ready plants to make farmers buy more products they don't need, or punish them for dealing with competitors, because they have a monopoly.

And it also lets them set the price to anything they want because competing with them is illegal. Exclusive rights are always like that.

▲

stephbook 2 days ago | parent [-]

Can't you just .. plant something else, lol? I don't think that's a monopoly, then.

▲

ivandenysov 2 days ago | parent [-]

Prisoner’s dilemma: margins are razor thin. If your fellow farmers use better seeds then you are forced to use them as well. Otherwise you won’t be able to match their prices without selling at a loss.

▲

tptacek a day ago | parent | next [-]

That's true of any productivity enhancement. If your neighbors use more efficient tractors you're at the same disadvantage, but nobody argues that farmers should be able to steal tractors.

▲

tavavex a day ago | parent [-]

The parent has to do with permission, not stealing. Imagine if your neighbors could have an exclusive license to buy the new obviously superior tractor which you will never be able to obtain no matter what you do, simply because you're not them. This is legal today, the argument is that it shouldn't be because it punishes competition and lets the rights-holder wield too much power over the market.

	▲	tptacek a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		No, anybody can buy into the Roundup Ready system; it's not exclusively licensed.
	▲	a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

thechao a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Only if the cost of monsanto seed + roundup is less than the cost of regular seed per expected harvested bushel? Otherwise, no one would use the monsanto seed + roundup?