There is no discussing these topics with people who have quasi-religious beliefs. Red Delicious apples have been patented 42 times along the road, doesn't make them any less edible.
Why is it a quasi-religious belief, to be against the patenting of organisms? Organisms do the things themselves, without the hand of man, that seems a reasonable argument against granting patents by itself. You may not agree with the argument, but it isn't quasi-religious.
Someone spends in R&D for making a better aspirin, they can profit by patenting it. Someone spends in R&D for making a better tomato, you oppose them patenting it? Why do you want patents to protect the ability to profit from R&D investments in one industry, but not in another?
Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
Most these genes or modifications are genes from other organisms. It's not like they choose A-T and G-C one by one creating a set of genes whole cloth. They copy something else that already exist. I don't call that an invention. So I don't understand why you can patent genes you find in other organisms. It's not your invention. I don't think it really has anything to do with it being alive. Copying something that exists is not an invention.
Charging money for some arbitrary work isn't some natural right, granting the ability to patent something isn't some natural right. Maths isn't patentable, for a long time it wasn't obvious that computer programs were either. Patents are a construct to encourage R & D, therefore disagreeing about the patentability of something isn't quasi religious.
Second plants breed, by themselves. Does someone deserve to patent a plant they just found growing in their garden?
What happens if someone does patent a better tomato, and then a tomato naturally does the same thing itself? Do you sue the tomato plant? What about the non obviousness test? If it's so easy a tomato can do it...
So yes plant breeding is different to other industries. Patents control how people reproduce your things, plants reproduce by themselves, and the reproductive parts are why we buy 90% of plants for.
> Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
This raises the question whether advances in medicine should be able to be patented. With jacked up insulin prices causing people to risk their lives rationing doses, I'm not sure it's a good thing. I know patents create an investment incentive, but I have to wonder if there's not a better way. And government subsidized research adds another layer of complexity, although I'm not sure if that can or can't be patented in various jurisdictions.
Also, many people here are opposed to software patents (imo rightfully so), so it should be unsurprising that they'd be against patenting crops.
