Uh huh.

[Square bracket number citation link thingy https://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-pepsi-farmers/pepsi...]

0

He doesn’t respond so I win by default . Righteous troll:1 Capitalist corporation defender: 0

So, your objection to patents is that they are enforced when violated?

No. Objection when they are overly broad generic obvious and\or trivial

Am surprised even need to explain on this forum of coders. Many examples of bad boy software patents.

And you evidence that the patents for these potatoes was "overly broad generic obvious and/or trivial" is...?

Our illiterate ancestors have been doing it for thousands of years.

That's a whopper of a non sequitur. I was asking about the specific patent on these potatoes. Our ancestors have been this specific patented version of potatoes for thousands of years? Really?

No, they have been cross pollinating parents with desirable traits to produce an offspring with more desirable traits. The same thing Pepsi did to make FC5 potato.

Here is the patent for the FC5 potato.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6940004B2/en

Read it carefully because while the patent claims that it also would apply if transgenic modifications are added, the variety was developed through just classic breeding techniques, which are described in the patent in case you aren’t familiar.

And it's fine to patent specific (and novel) varieties of potato. The patent just applies to that specific variety, not to the general concept of improving potatoes. It's irrelevant that other specific varieties may have been bred for millenia.

So PepsiCo can utilize others prior breeding work, but prevents others from using their variety’s to breed with ?

If everyone who bred a potato patented it, we all suffer as breeders would be limited in what they can work with.

http://www.jwz.org