think about patenting plant tissue and germ plasm. they claim it is so novel compared to the seed/tissue developed during domestication, that it must obviously be considered unique and special. at the same time, they argue it is neither unique or special enough to warrant any community oversight or regulation for environmental impacts.

and when you look at the genetic code of transgenic germplasm... 99.99999% of it was declared "freely gifted" by the peripheral/colonized peoples, but the curious little tweak added by capital formations must receive its rents and royalties forever.

look up every domesticated plant we love and rely on in the developed world, and look at the geographic origin of their domestication. it is highly instructive in why some (statistically all) germplasm is free and some is made artificially scarce to extract exorbitant rents.

[–] vovchik_ilich@hexbear.net 9 points 1 month ago

Yeah, it makes no sense to allow the patenting of literal living creatures...

Another funny one to me is tools and machines, it's literally telling people: "NO! ONLY I CAN ARRANGE ATOMS IN THIS ORDER!!!!!" Kinda wild that we allow that

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 10 points 1 month ago

The chance that whoever patents something is the best one to produce that thing is basically zero. The argument that it increases innovation is so moronic. IP is literally just a scam so big companies don't have to compete.

And mainly a feature to keep pharmaceutical prices as high as possible. Nevermind the fact that IP actively disincentivizes Pharma companies from making the most effective medicine. With patents pharma is incentivized to pump out just any compound that even remotely works while simultaniously burrying any side effects.