[ExI] (The Independent 2013-08) Plumpy'Nut: The lifesaver that costs... well, peanuts

[Kelly Anderson]

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Dave Sill <sparge at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Tomasz Rola <rtomek at ceti.pl> wrote:
> >
> > If you were swimming in the open seas, would you want to be thrown a
> > generic safety raft or just a raft?
>
> I would accept whatever is offered, of course. The patent issue really
> only comes into play when the raft is purchased. If the rescue service
> is soliciting donations to buy rafts, donors may well care whether the
> rafts are produced by for-profit ventures or by non-profits. It could
> be that rafts produced by the for-profit makers are a better value,
> but donors may still balk at the idea of a portion of their donation
> going toward the CEO's Porsche payment.
>

This talk changed my opinion about that. I suggest you take a few minutes
and see if it doesn't change yours too.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html


> If Plumpy'nut were produced by an entity that *didn't* enforce
> intellectual property rights on others who want to produce similar
> products (locally and more cheaply) then more starving people could be
> saved at less cost. That kind of pisses me off and makes me not want
> to support them.


I don't think this is factually correct. The patent could be used to
enforce local production of the paste, which would provide local jobs, as
stated in the article. If Monsanto moved in, the local production would be
overwhelmed by cheaper goods, and the local jobs would evaporate. I don't
think it is as simple as you say here.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130923/f13ac85a/attachment.html>