Seed royalties and how they should be collected

You want to send extra money to universities? There is only one bigger money pit then a university down here and that is the government.

I am kind of bitter about the whole thing. I see lack of government will as being part of the design. That lack of will is an intentional move to direct these kinds of programs over to large corporate interests. I see a continual move to make farmers as serfs, and away from independent operators. I think if people step back and look at the changes that have occurred over the years and the recent attempts to change key components of our business (plant breeder rights being a main one right now), then I am not too far off in my thinking. Government programs to keep a farmer just in business is another example. Any government money given to a farmer eventually ends up in big corporate interests. Even the consolidation in the input business is a good example. I buy a lot of my inputs from the same place that buys my grain, it's quite the closed loop. One thing that remains constant is the profit margin for those I am buying products from, and selling my product back to. The main variable is how much I make in this closed loop, and if things go bad on my end then the government is there with various programs so that what ever I receive eventually makes it into that loop so those profit margins are maintained.

And, while the university idea sounds good,it seems to me a lot of corporate interests have their fingers in there too. That should in no way be allowed.It's either public research or it isn't. Anytime outside funding rolls in you can bet there is something being gained.

Basically,yes, it would be nice to have public research. But the "political will" is the hard part. Nothing effects our lives more than politics and this is another example. Things will get rammed down our throats. Implementation of these proposed PBR changes would be a big step in making us serfs. If you don't even own the product you produce then how can you be independent. And of course there is the "it will never come to that" but the literature is there to say the mechanisms for this to potentially happen is already written in.

I don't have many answers but the one thing is public knowledge of what is happening is important. Everything is passed off these days under the guise of "market demands this" or "farmers are advocating for change". And this is not true. So the quickest way to shut down that avenue of attack is public knowledge and display that what is being presented as true, is in fact false. Some farmers may actually be advocating for proposedchanges,but if their views are being created by false information then that needs to countered. Public knowledge is the best avenue right now

Really, a guy pretty much needs a lawyer involved to aid farmers. To help draw up something like a universal grain contract that protects a farmer when his grain is not picked up in the agreed time. Or to draw up a counter to proposed PBR changes. These changes proposed that hurt farmers are done via legal/legislation avenues. A farmer pretty much needs a legal counter.

I am not well versed on it either because my memory is getting shorter but did a fair amount looking into it when the topic was active last winter. The simple big picture is pretty easy to see - we are to be serfs just paid a small amount to continue on. Of course some may like this model of no risk and always have a guaranteed income but for me that is not how free people exist. Yet we are being conditioned to this way of life. The scamdemic and government provided income is another step.

I very well may be off on a tangent with some of this but I see it all linking together so will make these bizarre comments like above.

If one thinks what I just wrote as "conspiracy talk" the simple question to ask is with all the experts and groups involved why hasn't anyone figured out that all is needed is what exists right now. If you have developed a new trait and want compensation then I will pay you your premium and take your seed home. You don't need to come on to my farm and audit all my bins to see how well I did. There is no business model in the world that works like this but for some reason experts think farming should. Or the talk of maltsters demanding new traits. Guess what? Then the maltsters pay for the research and direct it and get their traits and then I will choose to grow it. You don't have the buyer of the product (maltsters) demand someone else provide a solution and then demand the producer supply it while the buyer sits back with arms folded and legs crossed. Thats not how it works. That's not how "market demands" are solved. The maltsters want a solution, then pay for research and get the solutions they want and exactly as they want it. How come none of our experts in the seed industry have ever questioned where the maltsters research and breeding programs are at? How much they have invested.

The way this whole thing is happening is making it pretty clear that the story farmers and the public is being fed is not the real story.

It was pretty impressive what guys did last winter. It was pretty evident that the whole public consultation thing was a white wash attempt. The industry tried to present it as no one attended the meetings so no one opposed. But the thread got going and farmers got informed and they showed up at these meetings where it seems pretty clear that no organizers expected any farmer to show at. Once again the experts were wrong.

By public information I mean both farmers need to know how control is being taken and the public needs to know. There is lots of fear of big corporate farms and frankenfood. It would be quite easy to capitalize on it by having the public really understand how these changes would drive things even further towards corporate control of food supply. It doesn't mean government will change direction but any resistance is better than what was seen last fall when the plan was pretty clear to attempt to paint a picture a no resistance.

There is a lot at stake. How these attempts to create this change and the narrative used makes it pretty clear. I don't have all the answers but the discussions in a forum thread last fall got some pretty impressive outcomes. That is what I mean about public information - it may just be some farmers discussing it but at least it is being brought up. We then see where it goes.

But I do think having the subject in the general public sphere is where the real power is. It may take tractors parked in front of the legislature building to get the attention, but that is how it gets done. I find it interesting how often European farmers do these things yet unheard of in North America.

End point royalties is like a company asking for some plant automation software specific to their facility. So a software company provides it and then says you can only use it if we are there to see exactly how many units you produce and pay us on those units. Whether or not profitability is because of the software is irrelevant, just pay up for units produced.
And if the manufacturing company later decides this is a BS arrangement, and it will develop its own software they find out that the rules have changed and only 3rd party software can be used becuase it also documents integrity of the product. Let's say it is wrapped up in with a quality assurance scam where this software provided by an outside supplier is now mandatory because it tracks parameters all along the production chain.
I don't think the above is too far off for an analogy. If accurate, what kind of private business would want to become beholden to an outside entity to be able to produce something. There was verbage in the UPOV91 (I think that is where) to the effect that the same entities with power to get new seed varieties registered also had the power to deregister old varieties. Meaning that, as I understood it, the varieties we use now with no royalties of any form could eventually be delisted. Now, if that is true and I remember quoting it in that thread last year with my interpretation, then that is the point that is the #1 issue. My interpretation may be wrong, but these kinds of details are what really matter. Because delisting of old varieties would be under the guise of "maintaining product quality by ensuring only the new varieties circulate in the market place".