Who cares? It’s deeply immoral to patent any living organism. You’re under no moral obligation to obey patently unjust and corrupt laws. And if you’re only “pirating” organisms on a small personal scale, your legal risk is nil. If you start an industrial operation selling patented foodcrops, then you’ll get in legal hot water. But just in your backyard garden? No one is suing you over that unless you create a whole YouTube video series publicly documenting and celebrating your actions.
Fuck evil companies that dare to patent living things. The very concept is an abomination against nature and common decency. It’s not only morally allowable, but a moral obligation to violate these laws whenever it is practical to do so.
I like where your head is at. I’m trying to think of a thought experiment…
A genie is willing to give me a one-million dollar loan and guaranteed instructions on how to genetically modify a seed to better feed 8 billion people - heck, even solve world hunger. That catch is I have to pay the genie back TWO million dollars.
I try to work with the government so the public takes on the (zero) risk and is on the hook for the money, but they don’t play ball.
Is it better for me to reject the deal than patent the seed? (I can ‘sell the patent to public domain’ once I break even!!)
PS: I suppose the genie should just be an investor because that is kind of how our beautiful, perfect, and fair capitalism plays it out
I know we both just want a better system so this experiment is about the status quo
Who cares? It’s deeply immoral to patent any living organism. You’re under no moral obligation to obey patently unjust and corrupt laws. And if you’re only “pirating” organisms on a small personal scale, your legal risk is nil. If you start an industrial operation selling patented foodcrops, then you’ll get in legal hot water. But just in your backyard garden? No one is suing you over that unless you create a whole YouTube video series publicly documenting and celebrating your actions.
Fuck evil companies that dare to patent living things. The very concept is an abomination against nature and common decency. It’s not only morally allowable, but a moral obligation to violate these laws whenever it is practical to do so.
I like where your head is at. I’m trying to think of a thought experiment…
A genie is willing to give me a one-million dollar loan and guaranteed instructions on how to genetically modify a seed to better feed 8 billion people - heck, even solve world hunger. That catch is I have to pay the genie back TWO million dollars.
I try to work with the government so the public takes on the (zero) risk and is on the hook for the money, but they don’t play ball.
Is it better for me to reject the deal than patent the seed? (I can ‘sell the patent to public domain’ once I break even!!)
PS: I suppose the genie should just be an investor because that is kind of how our beautiful, perfect, and fair capitalism plays it out
I know we both just want a better system so this experiment is about the status quo