intellectual property rights vs. America

[CrazyAhmadinejad]

I read in the bangkok post a few years ago that America had stolen the Thia fragrant rice seed from Thailand and was producing it in America.
Thailand of course protested but what can they do to the mighty America.

Something wrong with that?-- besides the hypocritical bit I mean?

Your information is bad. In 2001 a distinguished professor from the University of Arkansas was slandered by a Thai thug working for a farmers union in Issan. Because the professor had violated no laws -either international or Thai law - and because the Issan farmer don't understand copyright laws, they simply accused this anonymous Farang in some far off land, of coming to Thailand and physically stealing the rice seeds...the accused him of larceny.

Thailand then used this incident as an example of IP law which it clearly was not. There are no laws that say you can't change something - make it totally different - and then market that product. 'Sine qua non' meaning (a condition) "without which it could not be": Copyright laws are designed to protect this aspect for research and development and create diversity in products and manufacturers.

Thailand's myopic view is simply the protection farmers jobs. The development of a hardy rice variety that can be grown virtually anywhere threatens Thai jobs. Although distributing an uneducated work force from a lack of market share is no easy problem to solve the solution would probably be in classrooms but this certainly wasn't a case of intellectual property rights.

[tingtong]

Well congratulations for admitting it. Im not so shure you changed it so it was not the same , but I suppose we will have to take your word for it, wont we.

Hang on let me just get to grips with this . You stole the rice grain, a perfect Thai fragrant rice grain that is the best in the world then you change it to an inferior one?. why chose the Thai rice then? Bit suspicious America.

I guess you mean,-- do what I say not what I do. ----BULLY

[CrazyAhmadinejad]

Well congratulations for admitting it. Im not so shure you changed it so it was not the same , but I suppose we will have to take your word for it, wont we.

Hang on let me just get to grips with this . You stole the rice grain, a perfect Thai fragrant rice grain that is the best in the world then you change it to an inferior one?. why chose the Thai rice then? Bit suspicious America.

I guess you mean,-- do what I say not what I do. ----BULLY

Admit what? Nothing illegal was done

There was no theft or larceny and no IP infringement. Uneducated Thais with knee-jerk reactions making slanderous remarks against a respected university professor was the only crime.

You don't have to take my word for anything. You have to do is get off your lazy bottom and look for the information yourself and then maybe you might have a better idea what you are talking about before you post.
Don't you know how to Google?

To be more clear: This was not about rice grain but about rice seed. Your memory of the story is quite garbled

The case had nothing to do with rice grain - it was about SEEDS. Seeds that were purchased at the IRRI - documented and legal and under non-patent/non-germination agreement. Seeds that Thailand claimed were stolen and smuggled out of the country. AND then argued that, by fallacy of ambiguity, theft of intellectual property had occurred.

Thai's twisted the story for their own popular, contemporary-myth's, from tabloid newspapers, of the "evil Farang exploiting their country." The real story is about a Thai national; a middleman - wanna-be big-man - in Issan who thought he could stroll into the bank, if he could manipulate the emotions of the ultra-nationalist poor rice-farmers the got Thaksin elected.

If the university just took the rice seeds and started planting them for profit, then Thailand ought to have a complaint. It should not be allowed to do like Thailand does, just copy and distribute for profit; not making any advancements or artistic changes; it should not be allowed to advance an empty moral and not be allowed to profit from other peoples creativity and innovation. Even if there were a patent or IP protections on "Thai rice," in this case, if falls under the FAIR USE POLICY because the NEW STRAIN of rice is being developed by a university - in a non-profit capacity - under a non-patenting/non-germination agreement

Why choose Thai rice? Contrary to what you may believe, Rice cannot be Thai just like a Farang cannot be Thai. Rice cannot speak or read Thai language. Rice cannot bow down before a demi-god. Rice doesn't care how light or dark it's skin color is and rice does not care about ultra-nationalism in Thailand. Rice cares about temperature and water.

I don't see Thais running to offer compensation to anyone for corn or the potato...those certainly didn't come from Thailand. You can't expect to grand-father clause a rice patent for your own national gain (you don't expect a moral to be good for you alone do you?) and not expect every other country to do the same. And what about rice and corn and tobacco and cheese and grapes ...ect. that have been in public domain for generations already? What will Thailand do when it has to pay for all the things it has copied and stolen under a moral that has to do with it's own internal domestic policy - labor - and not a moral that respects private property..

Thailand's moral of intellectual property has to do with protecting Thai jobs and has nothing whatever to do with the protection of property rights, they are willing to slander a respected researcher, as a thief who came to Thailand, committed larceny and stole the seeds from the Agricultural Ministry and then accused him of being a smuggler by taking the seeds out of Thailand. Thais then switch-changed the argument to make it look like their straw-man, turned ambiguity actually had an argument. Thais should be apologizing to this man.

He bought the seeds legitimatly from the IRRI it is documented.


AND for those too lazy to load before they fire...here are some sources
http://www.biotech-info.net/jasmine_rice.html
http://www.foodmarketexchange.com/datac ... ce_THM.htm
http://www.managingip.com/Article/13272 ... tents.html

[CrazyAhmadinejad]

well if americans stopped buying from the rest of the world it would \\ //// down the world economy, if we in the us boycotted other nations goods, they would be in a depression in weeks, most countries business exist because of consumers in usa

Asia is still clinging to the de-coupling theory.

[Sean Moran]

{quote]
Asia is still clinging to the de-coupling theory.[/quote]

Do you classify Peruvians as American citizens too?

[tingtong]

Wow lots and lots of words to say "I dont agree"

A lot of wriggling and squirming there Ahmed.

I think you owe China 52 bill ---no Trillion dollars, I just worked out that you owe them 100,000 dollars more while I typed this message,--- 150,000 dollars now . Thats at 5 %

Its actually 40,000 dollars per second, good luck. Not much chance of paying that of is there when as you say you are consumers. Which part of America goes to China first. Alaska?

Has GM gone bust yet, its only a matter of days?

[CrazyAhmadinejad]

Wow lots and lots of words to say "I dont agree"

A lot of wriggling and squirming there Ahmed.

I think you owe China 52 bill ---no Trillion dollars, I just worked out that you owe them 100,000 dollars more while I typed this message,--- 150,000 dollars now . Thats at 5 %

Its actually 40,000 dollars per second, good luck. Not much chance of paying that of is there when as you say you are consumers. Which part of America goes to China first. Alaska?

Has GM gone bust yet, its only a matter of days?

So you are finished then?
I mean about your claims that the US stole Thai rice...your finished with that nonsense right? That's all you've got to say about intellectual property rights, no sources of your own arguments - just petty-tyrant irrelevance? Have you've resigned from the notion of anything intellectual, not withstanding property rights.

[tingtong]

Yes, I cant be bothered to read your lengthy explanations.

But Im sure your right , you have to be dont you? You admitted to taking the seed, ( if those words suit you) and then you changed it to fall into the copyright laws, and just enough to fall in with your own morality.

Sure we understand. Its very clear. It was all within the law, and thats the main thing ,isnt it?

[CrazyAhmadinejad]

Sure we understand. Its very clear. It was all within the law, and thats the main thing ,isnt it?

No. The main thing is that an ill-read hick's myths didn't get any play.

[CrazyAhmadinejad]

Wow lots and lots of words to say "I dont agree"

A lot of wriggling and squirming there Ahmed.

I think you owe China 52 bill ---no Trillion dollars, I just worked out that you owe them 100,000 dollars more while I typed this message,--- 150,000 dollars now . Thats at 5 %

Its actually 40,000 dollars per second, good luck. Not much chance of paying that of is there when as you say you are consumers. Which part of America goes to China first. Alaska?

Has GM gone bust yet, its only a matter of days?

LOL....again your information is bad....

that's FIVE trillion in national debt...
The US's GDP is about 13 Trillion ...

Of that national debt...about TWENTY FIVE percent is owned by foreign central banks... (foreign owners of Japans national debt is 24 percent) yes it is high but it is not the hyperbole you claim it to be.

Japan owns more Treasury debt than China 22 percent and 19 percent respectively

So your idea that China owns America or someday will is simply your lack of knowledge and most probably your affection for euro-trash tabloid news.