Re: Re: RE: Re: Re: RE: Farm "subsidy" data base

[michael perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent questions, Ken.

Ken Hanly wrote:
>

>     2) Why is the sector involving intellectually protected sector
> differentiated? When the protection runs out are the commodities
> undifferentiated as the now competing types of glysophate? They are
> differentiated only because they are protected not qua product. Related to
> this matter

In addition, many types of intellectual property are differentiated
because competition is prohibited.

>     3) Many commodities not protected by intellectual property rights seem
> differentiated. For example there is feed and malting barley and different
> varieties of each not counting hybrids. In the case of grains there is
> always price differentiation in terms of grade. In
> crops such as apples they are surely not sold just as apples but as this or
> that type and quality. But perhaps you are using undifferentiated in a
> technical way I do not understand.

Undifferentiated may have been an unfortunate word choice.  The feed
barley is undifferentiated insofar as the purchasers do not
differentiate among the various growers.

>         5) Intellectual property rights backed by state power does not
> necessarily bring success. A good example is GM flax. A patent was issued to
> a U of Sask prof. who gained nothing except notoriety and a lot of
> publicity. GM wheat is more ambiguous but it seems that the wheat will not
> come on the market for some time because of consumer concerns. Even the
> Canadian WHeat BOard has opposed its release on the market right now. GM
> potatoes have been a disaster so far for developers as large purchasers and
> processing plants will not touch them, at least in Canada.

Of course, merely offering intellectual property without any use value
will not be profitable.

>--

Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929

Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx