PepsiCo sues Indian farmers for growing trademarked potatoes(thehill.com)
thehill.com
PepsiCo sues Indian farmers for growing trademarked potatoes
https://thehill.com/policy/international/440773-pepsico-sues-indian-farmers-for-growing-trademarked-potatoes
8 comments
What does "trademarked potatoes" mean ? (GMO ?)
I'm emotionally on the side of the Indian farmers.
I'm emotionally on the side of the Indian farmers.
Registered new variety of potato.
PepsiCo invoke section 64 of this act https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1909/1/200153.p... while farmers counter with section 39.
Thanks for the reference! I was wondering how this is possible. So looks like it is actually possible to get a trademark on a plant. How any country would want to agree to this is beyond me. Article 64:
64. Infringement.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, a right established under this Act is infringed by aperson— (a) who, not being the breeder of a variety registeredunder this Act or a registeredagent orregisteredlicensee of that variety, sells, exports, imports or produces such variety without thepermission of its breeder or within thescope of a registeredlicence or registeredagencywithout permission of the registeredlicensee or registeredagent, as the case may be; (b) who uses, sells, exports, imports or produces any other variety giving such variety, thedenomination identical with or deceptively similar to the denomination of a variety registeredunder this Act in such manner as to cause confusion in themind or general people inidentifying such variety so registered.
There do seem to be protections in article 39. With that limitation the whole thing does sound a lot more benign. Like they could just use a new name for the variety:
(iv) a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sowresow, exchange, share or sell his farmproduce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he wasentitled before the coming into force of this Act:Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected underthis Act.
Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (iv),“branded seed”means any seed put in a package orany other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a varietyprotected under this Act.
64. Infringement.—Subject to the provisions of this Act, a right established under this Act is infringed by aperson— (a) who, not being the breeder of a variety registeredunder this Act or a registeredagent orregisteredlicensee of that variety, sells, exports, imports or produces such variety without thepermission of its breeder or within thescope of a registeredlicence or registeredagencywithout permission of the registeredlicensee or registeredagent, as the case may be; (b) who uses, sells, exports, imports or produces any other variety giving such variety, thedenomination identical with or deceptively similar to the denomination of a variety registeredunder this Act in such manner as to cause confusion in themind or general people inidentifying such variety so registered.
There do seem to be protections in article 39. With that limitation the whole thing does sound a lot more benign. Like they could just use a new name for the variety:
(iv) a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sowresow, exchange, share or sell his farmproduce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he wasentitled before the coming into force of this Act:Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected underthis Act.
Explanation.—For the purpose of clause (iv),“branded seed”means any seed put in a package orany other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a varietyprotected under this Act.
They aren't necessarily GMO: Simply a hybrid or a variety that they (or someone else) developed and PespiCo owns the patent on. Many seeds have similar patents and many cannot be grown from the seeds they produce.
Yes I think it’s a particular seed which they have created for their potatoes. Sort of like the monsanto issues in the US.
> Indian farmers accused of growing the spuds, which are exclusively used by the company for its Lays potato chips.
So maybe some special sort of potatoes you may only grow for PepsiCo?
But yeah, the whole concept of trademarks or ownership over what basically fed mankind since forever feels quite misguided.
Also aren't there any other kind of potatoes you can freely grow? Would solve this whole issue...
So maybe some special sort of potatoes you may only grow for PepsiCo?
But yeah, the whole concept of trademarks or ownership over what basically fed mankind since forever feels quite misguided.
Also aren't there any other kind of potatoes you can freely grow? Would solve this whole issue...
Well, yes there are many varieties of potatoes that you can grow as a farmer. Heck, you and your friends can get together and trademark your own and do a lot of selective breeding to make it unique. I can see some desire to grow what you have on hand however.
This sounds weird. From the title I assumed it was something like putting transparent logo stickers on apples and later remove then after the apple skin color had been affected.
This however seems to be Pepsi assuming they "own" a variety of potatoes, something that is against all biological sense.
I'll say ok to people owning a potato brand, around here we have Ringerikspotet which is a) a variety and b) has to be grown at Ringerike to be sold under that name.
Same goes for Champagne.
But nobody sues anybody if they farm Champagne type grapes as long as they don't say Champagne. Same goes for the potato mentioned above, you are free to put it in the ground next spring.
I'd maybe stretch as far as saying if you come up with a new potato you shouldn't be forced to sell live ones and if you maintain tight control and only sold them as chips you could keep that potato to yourself.
But if someone finds a potato and grows it, no way I agree anybody should have any right to sue.
Because if this was true monastries, farmers and gardeners would be the wealthiest "companies" in the world.
(I know Monsanto is into this as well and I dislike them as well.)
This however seems to be Pepsi assuming they "own" a variety of potatoes, something that is against all biological sense.
I'll say ok to people owning a potato brand, around here we have Ringerikspotet which is a) a variety and b) has to be grown at Ringerike to be sold under that name.
Same goes for Champagne.
But nobody sues anybody if they farm Champagne type grapes as long as they don't say Champagne. Same goes for the potato mentioned above, you are free to put it in the ground next spring.
I'd maybe stretch as far as saying if you come up with a new potato you shouldn't be forced to sell live ones and if you maintain tight control and only sold them as chips you could keep that potato to yourself.
But if someone finds a potato and grows it, no way I agree anybody should have any right to sue.
Because if this was true monastries, farmers and gardeners would be the wealthiest "companies" in the world.
(I know Monsanto is into this as well and I dislike them as well.)
Are you opposed to all kinds of intellectual property protections or just this one domain? In particular, why should anyone put R&D into developing better varieties of crops if their innovations aren’t protected? Or perhaps improving crops (to be more drought resistant or to produce higher yields) doesn’t strike you as important—if so, how do you suppose we produce the additional food to sustain our growing population, especially in light of climate change (reduced land, increased droughts and other causes of crop failure). I don’t know about this particular case, but I wouldn’t rush to advocating for zero IP protection for crop varieties.
I'm against all kinds of IP. The government does not have a right to tell you what you can do with your own property.
> In particular, why should anyone put R&D into developing better varieties of crops if their innovations aren’t protected?
Why should people write free software?
> if so, how do you suppose we produce the additional food to sustain our growing population
Population is nearing or below replacement in developed nations. We don't need to produce more food, we need to stop exploiting developing countries so their standards of living increase.
> In particular, why should anyone put R&D into developing better varieties of crops if their innovations aren’t protected?
Why should people write free software?
> if so, how do you suppose we produce the additional food to sustain our growing population
Population is nearing or below replacement in developed nations. We don't need to produce more food, we need to stop exploiting developing countries so their standards of living increase.
>> I'll say ok to people owning a potato brand, ...
> Are you opposed to all kinds of intellectual property protections or just this one domain?
I tried to make this clear above: I can see some public value from some sorts of IP.
> In particular, why should anyone put R&D into developing better varieties of crops if their innovations aren’t protected?
Same reason farmers and monks have always worked to improve their crops?
Same reason why KDE, Gnome and Linux exist? Making it better for me doesn't necessarily mean I have to make it useless for you?
> Are you opposed to all kinds of intellectual property protections or just this one domain?
I tried to make this clear above: I can see some public value from some sorts of IP.
> In particular, why should anyone put R&D into developing better varieties of crops if their innovations aren’t protected?
Same reason farmers and monks have always worked to improve their crops?
Same reason why KDE, Gnome and Linux exist? Making it better for me doesn't necessarily mean I have to make it useless for you?
Regarding this Ringerikspotet or the Champagne name I know better, these are labels of guarantee regarding geographic origin and respect of particular production processes.
So no Champagne outside the geographic Champagne but there are similar wines, like crémant[1]: mostly made like champagne but only called differently. (Also less pricey ;))
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Cr%C3%A9mant
So no Champagne outside the geographic Champagne but there are similar wines, like crémant[1]: mostly made like champagne but only called differently. (Also less pricey ;))
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sparkling_wine#Cr%C3%A9mant
Yep, we agree.
Not only do I support the continued "stealing," I hope there's a farmer's campaign against Pepsi in India that leads to the company being banned as a whole. They have no idea of the depths of anger emerging out of the ongoing agrarian crisis.
Let’s be clear, farmers could grow any potato they want and these potatoes are specifically designed for lays chip (loser moisture content for taste). This isn’t a case where the seeds are providing special protection from pests and disease that threaten a farmer’s livelihood. Pepsi wants to protect their R&D investment and product. Because this invention is a special ingredient in their food and they don’t want it in competing products. If you don’t think IP isn’t important in innovation, VCs pass on investments all the time simply because there’s no defensibility. That means great and important products are never developed because there is no financial incentive.
I never realized they(Pepeico) were using sacred potatoes they didn’t want others to use. This is the first I have heard if it. I will support them also and no longer buy any of their chips. Enjoy all your potatoes.
You might need to look at your food shelf and get rid of most of it. It is not unusual for food producers to have specialized ingredients grown. Coors had its own version of six row barley. Never mind some of the exclusive poultry contracts.
Pepsi
Mountain Dew
Lay's potato chips
Gatorade
Diet Pepsi
Tropicana beverages
7 Up (outside U.S.)
Doritos tortilla chips
Lipton teas (PepsiCo/Unilever partnership)
Quaker foods and snacks
Cheetos
Mirinda
Ruffles potato chips
Aquafina bottled water
Pepsi Max
Tostitos tortilla chips
Mist Twst
Fritos corn chips
Walkers potato crisps
This Wikipedia list of Pepsi companies. I do try be aware and do shop based on my feeling. I no longer buy Post cereals after they went all cheap and changed the ingredients. But Post cereals makes more then just cereals. I may not be able to avoid the company entirely but I will do my best to avoid supporting companies I don’t agree with. I am not even sure the farmers are right here because if PepsiCo did engineer the potatoe sure they should be paid. But this looks like the farmers obtained the seeds legally within the laws of their country and now are getting in crap for it. I don’t know who is right IANAL. But I do not think I want a world where plants are controlled. Not sure how this is solved.
Mountain Dew
Lay's potato chips
Gatorade
Diet Pepsi
Tropicana beverages
7 Up (outside U.S.)
Doritos tortilla chips
Lipton teas (PepsiCo/Unilever partnership)
Quaker foods and snacks
Cheetos
Mirinda
Ruffles potato chips
Aquafina bottled water
Pepsi Max
Tostitos tortilla chips
Mist Twst
Fritos corn chips
Walkers potato crisps
This Wikipedia list of Pepsi companies. I do try be aware and do shop based on my feeling. I no longer buy Post cereals after they went all cheap and changed the ingredients. But Post cereals makes more then just cereals. I may not be able to avoid the company entirely but I will do my best to avoid supporting companies I don’t agree with. I am not even sure the farmers are right here because if PepsiCo did engineer the potatoe sure they should be paid. But this looks like the farmers obtained the seeds legally within the laws of their country and now are getting in crap for it. I don’t know who is right IANAL. But I do not think I want a world where plants are controlled. Not sure how this is solved.
I'm saying that this is not limited to Pepsi. In fact, you are going to find that a lot of companies do this because it is very helpful to their consistency of product.
Trademarked potatoes, but not trademarked...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19750014