421
Farmer ordered to destroy his orchard after giving away free fruit
(www.independent.co.uk)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
421 points (99.1% liked)
News
38993 readers
2204 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
A big part of the problem here is this licensed fruit.
It seems like the guy agreed to grow this fruit that needed to be exclusively licensed or you wouldn't be allowed to grow it.
He also agreed that the company he licensed the fruit from had exclusive rights to buy and market the fruit.
The company with exclusive rights apparently wasn't paying for all the fruit that was grown. Unclear why.
The jury ruled that the farmer broke the contract, but there's so much fucked up about the contract to begin with.
If the company didn't want the fruit, the farmer should be able to sell it or give it away. They decided NOT to exercise their exclusive rights.
And now the trees will be destroyed because they are unlicensed... What a dumb system.
How do you licence a fucking fruit ? How can you copyright food? Fuck this mf earth
Because of monopolies and corporations, farmers are being pushed out, the only way for some farmers to afford to do it is to use licensing agreements like his.
They license the rights and get a payment up front or a monthly payment to help them with huge initial costs.
For the record it's a patent, not copyright.
If the company spends considerable amounts of cash developing a genetically modified fruit that is superior in some way, they have the rights to that fruit.
Whatever my man keep eating those copyrighted fruits just remember then they own what you shit as well
Do you go to work for free? Must be nice.
Uh... pretty much the entire agriculture industry works this way... Monsanto forces farmers to sign licenses that they won't use the seeds produced by their crops to grow more crops.
**It does and it doesn't. **
I worked in the industry for many years. Theres more spit and handshake agreements than people are aware of. Definitely in the Central Valley. Its a whole industry full of legal loopholes. Licensing crops can be as easy as a written signature with one page to whole multi-company rights etc..etc...
Also growers/transportation/storage/etc... are sometimes all the same multi-conglomerate and with the same owner. But have a different business license/business. That way, if one gets sued only one goes down. Also one can have a huge tax related issue and have "losses". Lots of creative work there.
So yeah its not black and white as most people think. Significant amounts of your food is both licensed with a huge agreement...and others are "unlicensed" but licensed as a spit/handshake. Mellons are a perfect example.
Dont get me started on the commodities markets..and onions.
We should remember to save it and ship it to their HQ.
Nah
No, what they have is a morally bereft contract condition.
If you put in effort and money to create a product, you wouldn't give it away either. If you (or the farmer) thinks the product has no benefit, then don't use it. Use something else.
Well, the farmer did give away, because he had no other choice after the buyer refused to buy but banned him from selling to anyone else. Sometimes giving away is the only option.
Exclusive rights to something isn't exactly new. If you have a gym or Costco membership, you can't just let someone else use it because you won't be around for a month. If the farmer willingly entered into a contract with the supplier, the terms of the contract are enforceable.
Yeah no. Some things benefit the most capable providers when made public. If you are in that position, it's only a net benefit to dictate the entire market.
Are you suggesting the government make rules on what kind of contracts parties can make in business? Would the government then oversee that? There are many, many contracts where there is an exclusive relationship described in a contract.
He sublicensed the right to sell the fruit back in 2017 but, then signed a marketing agreement with the Fruit company said only they can market and sell it.
His agreements seem to contradict each other.
Lots of people don’t read what they sign. But it’s also shitty of the company to trick him like that.
Read everything you sign. If you don’t understand, get a lawyer to read it.