75-year-old soybean farmer sees Monsanto lawsuit reach U.S. Supreme Court(rawstory.com)
rawstory.com
75-year-old soybean farmer sees Monsanto lawsuit reach U.S. Supreme Court
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/09/75-year-old-soybean-farmer-sees-monsanto-lawsuit-reach-u-s-supreme-court/
211 comments
What bothers me is that there are people that would spend a lot of time and effort on splitting legal hairs over this, rather than to simply state that such patents are ridiculous and then we can all get on with our lives. This whole patenting of natural organisms is disgusting at a fundamental level.
They aren't patenting natural organisms. In this case, they are patenting specific modifications that provides glyophosphate resistance. This is a fairly legit patent, and if you don't believe this should occur; then basically any patent modifying organisms should be banned, which will have far reaching consequences not just to agriculture, but medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials.
They are not patenting specific modifications, they are patenting certain DNA sequences. These patents as completely bogus. Monsanto also has a patent for a certain DNA sequence found in hogs/pigs that causes them to produce more meat. The DNA sequence was naturally found in a certain breed/line of hogs/pigs in Germany and Monsanto has gone after the farmers that have these pigs, which have been raised naturally for generations, and sued them to make them pay for their pigs having a certain DNA sequence. It's ludicrous!
EDIT: One could say that those pigs could be considered prior art... even so, you have a multibillion multinational company vs several small family farmers. Who's going to pay the lawyers to defend the family farmers... even to show prior "art"? What realm of delusion and craziness do we have to go to stop arguing about this?
EDIT 2: "patenting specific modifications" tries to imply patenting a process, and fails. "patenting certain DNA sequences" implies patenting the end result of a process.
EDIT 3: I don't have a problem with them having a patent on a particular process to generate the DNA sequences so long as the process reliably results in the organism having the desired DNA sequence. Otherwise the patent would be for a generic process to modify DNA sequences. These patents restrict the use of the methods but not the end results. Monsanto wants to charge and claim ownership of any organism that has the desired DNA sequences. Monsantos business model is flawed and the patent system should not be used to protect Monsantos revenue streams.
EDIT: One could say that those pigs could be considered prior art... even so, you have a multibillion multinational company vs several small family farmers. Who's going to pay the lawyers to defend the family farmers... even to show prior "art"? What realm of delusion and craziness do we have to go to stop arguing about this?
EDIT 2: "patenting specific modifications" tries to imply patenting a process, and fails. "patenting certain DNA sequences" implies patenting the end result of a process.
EDIT 3: I don't have a problem with them having a patent on a particular process to generate the DNA sequences so long as the process reliably results in the organism having the desired DNA sequence. Otherwise the patent would be for a generic process to modify DNA sequences. These patents restrict the use of the methods but not the end results. Monsanto wants to charge and claim ownership of any organism that has the desired DNA sequences. Monsantos business model is flawed and the patent system should not be used to protect Monsantos revenue streams.
This is a good example of why patenting a process is acceptable, but patenting the end result is bad.
If Monsanto patented the process itself to create these dna sequences, the German farmers would not be infringing on their patent because they use completely different processes to produce the DNA: one is generated in a lab, the other is consummated in a sty.
If Monsanto found this strain of DNA and managed to reproduce it in a lab and developed a process of mass production, there is no reason they should not be able to profit from the endeavor. There is also no reason why they should be able to sue the farmers. The farmers aren't using their process for producing the dna sequences.
The fact that they could patent the sequences and sue the farmers speaks volumes about the broken state of patents. (As most everyone in tech already knew)
If Monsanto patented the process itself to create these dna sequences, the German farmers would not be infringing on their patent because they use completely different processes to produce the DNA: one is generated in a lab, the other is consummated in a sty.
If Monsanto found this strain of DNA and managed to reproduce it in a lab and developed a process of mass production, there is no reason they should not be able to profit from the endeavor. There is also no reason why they should be able to sue the farmers. The farmers aren't using their process for producing the dna sequences.
The fact that they could patent the sequences and sue the farmers speaks volumes about the broken state of patents. (As most everyone in tech already knew)
How could a patent on a specific sequence withstand the machine transformation test?
It would seem a patent on sequence only would be the patenting of information/expression alone which would fall under copyright rather than patent.
It would seem a patent on sequence only would be the patenting of information/expression alone which would fall under copyright rather than patent.
It probably wouldn't. Copyright in this situation isnt bad per se, but we've all seen how much its been abused in practice, so clearly the moral/ethical issues would be astounding.
EDIT 4: Perhaps, they might say or claim that through their R&D they were able to identify and produce a pig (or plant) that contains the desired sequence of DNA then if they find that desired sequence of DNA in another pig (or plant) they assume that their process was used/abused to obtain the DNA sequence and immediately sue putting an undue burden on the defendants who often don't have the resources to effectively defend themselves. This is still abusing the patent/legal system.
What do you think about changing civil suits like this (that someone has stolen someone else's "property") to require a criminal conviction first? What other ideas do you have for "fixing" this problem?
What do you think about changing civil suits like this (that someone has stolen someone else's "property") to require a criminal conviction first? What other ideas do you have for "fixing" this problem?
Honestly, I think you are saying things that are just plain untrue. Can you actually point to a single actual monsanto patent that is claiming some sequence and not the invention of making a plant glypshosphate resistant? My guess is you can't, because it would almost be impossible to issue and even it was it wouldn't hold up in court.
[deleted]
That's what I meant with 'people splitting legal hairs'.
Which part of 'modifying a natural organism and patenting that modification which then can spread through the normal means of natural replication is fundamentally wrong' is it that is giving you problems?
I know the patent is legit, I understand that such patents are common and that is exactly where I see the problem.
What the far reaching consequences are is beyond my grasp, all I see is a money grab by a very large company at the expense of those that do the hard work to feed us, and that they are concentrating on staple foods because getting a substantial royalty on staple foods puts the world at their feet.
See 'basmati' and a bunch of other stunts they've tried.
Which part of 'modifying a natural organism and patenting that modification which then can spread through the normal means of natural replication is fundamentally wrong' is it that is giving you problems?
I know the patent is legit, I understand that such patents are common and that is exactly where I see the problem.
What the far reaching consequences are is beyond my grasp, all I see is a money grab by a very large company at the expense of those that do the hard work to feed us, and that they are concentrating on staple foods because getting a substantial royalty on staple foods puts the world at their feet.
See 'basmati' and a bunch of other stunts they've tried.
What? This is exactly the opposite situation. It is a money grab, all right, but by a farmer who wants to extract all of the value out of Monsanto's tech by exploiting a "loop hole" in the agreement he signed with them.
Here's the deal: farmers are under zero obligation to use genetically modified seeds. They are free to use traditional seeds. Why don't they do that, then? Because Monsanto's technology is a really, really good deal for them! It produces better yields at lower costs. It is not ridiculous to establish legal systems that protect the further development of such technologies and your small-farmer-versus-the-mega-corp Disney movie synopsis adds nothing to the conversation.
Here's the deal: farmers are under zero obligation to use genetically modified seeds. They are free to use traditional seeds. Why don't they do that, then? Because Monsanto's technology is a really, really good deal for them! It produces better yields at lower costs. It is not ridiculous to establish legal systems that protect the further development of such technologies and your small-farmer-versus-the-mega-corp Disney movie synopsis adds nothing to the conversation.
I'm not sure what you are quoting, but the problem I have with your quote is that you are saying all modern biotechnology should have no intellectual property protection.
Yes, patenting any modification to an organism should be banned.
It's fun an games when we laugh about the patent wars between Google/Samsung and Apple. But our food supply? I'll be the first to grab a torch and a pitchfork. Fark Monsanto.
It's fun an games when we laugh about the patent wars between Google/Samsung and Apple. But our food supply? I'll be the first to grab a torch and a pitchfork. Fark Monsanto.
Then let us cry tears for those poor, oppressed corporations in agriculture, medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials. It's getting hard to even clear a billion on the ledgers annually.
Truly, these institutions of capital and ~=SCIENCE=~ are more worthy of our aid than the starving, the poor, and the destitute humans across the world.
EDIT: Do you support software patents? All this seems to be doing is reprogramming a living organism, no?
Truly, these institutions of capital and ~=SCIENCE=~ are more worthy of our aid than the starving, the poor, and the destitute humans across the world.
EDIT: Do you support software patents? All this seems to be doing is reprogramming a living organism, no?
All these companies in agriculture, medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials have made the world a dramatically better place as a result of their capital investment into science. They work in fields where scientific innovation is very expensive, and keep working because there is a potential return on their investment. Their inventions benefit everyone--the patent system simply lets them capture some of that benefit to justify their investment.
Without Monsanto, the hardy seeds in this case wouldn't even exist. The patent here isn't just protecting Monsanto from poor destitute farmers (and suing farmers is a terrible PR move for Monsanto here). What it's really protecting Monsanto from the inevitable copycat company that would come along, buy a bag of Monsanto seeds, and cultivate them, undercutting Monsanto on price because they didn't have to put in any capital investment.
Without Monsanto, the hardy seeds in this case wouldn't even exist. The patent here isn't just protecting Monsanto from poor destitute farmers (and suing farmers is a terrible PR move for Monsanto here). What it's really protecting Monsanto from the inevitable copycat company that would come along, buy a bag of Monsanto seeds, and cultivate them, undercutting Monsanto on price because they didn't have to put in any capital investment.
All these companies in agriculture, medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials have made the world a dramatically better place as a result of their capital investment into science.
Be careful here--this is not an airtight statement. Many of the innovations are arguably simply correcting earlier innovations...mass insulin production is a great feat, but how much of that is used to fix diabetes caused by overconsumption of bad food? How much agriculture research is spent making poorly-processed food more palatable, or making crops resistant to synthetic pesticides?
A lot of innovation may simply be correcting problems that didn't exist before some other innovation happened.
They work in fields where scientific innovation is very expensive, and keep working because there is a potential return on their investment.
Perhaps we should find ways of driving the cost of innovation down? Like, say, loosening patent and licensing burdens to make equipment more easily attainable?
What it's really protecting Monsanto from the inevitable copycat company that would come along, buy a bag of Monsanto seeds, and cultivate them, undercutting Monsanto on price because they didn't have to put in any capital investment.
Agreed, but I do not see the necessary harm in this--again, having a strong brand and good distribution networks and quality products is how they can protect themselves against such a thing. In an optimized market, profit margins are indeed slim--and I suggest that for food production we want an optimized market.
Be careful here--this is not an airtight statement. Many of the innovations are arguably simply correcting earlier innovations...mass insulin production is a great feat, but how much of that is used to fix diabetes caused by overconsumption of bad food? How much agriculture research is spent making poorly-processed food more palatable, or making crops resistant to synthetic pesticides?
A lot of innovation may simply be correcting problems that didn't exist before some other innovation happened.
They work in fields where scientific innovation is very expensive, and keep working because there is a potential return on their investment.
Perhaps we should find ways of driving the cost of innovation down? Like, say, loosening patent and licensing burdens to make equipment more easily attainable?
What it's really protecting Monsanto from the inevitable copycat company that would come along, buy a bag of Monsanto seeds, and cultivate them, undercutting Monsanto on price because they didn't have to put in any capital investment.
Agreed, but I do not see the necessary harm in this--again, having a strong brand and good distribution networks and quality products is how they can protect themselves against such a thing. In an optimized market, profit margins are indeed slim--and I suggest that for food production we want an optimized market.
mass insulin production is a great feat, but how much of that is used to fix diabetes caused by overconsumption of bad food?
wow, this is a stretch. You realize that there is also Type I (juvenile) diabetes that is an auto-immune/genetic disorder that has nothing to do with unhealthy eating? GMO-produced human insulin (and subsequent engineered insulin analogs that are faster-acting) were major milestone for making that disease into a lifelong treatable condition. As someone with a father who is a juvenile diabetic now pushing into his 60s I'm pretty glad we're OK making capital investments in hard sciences.
wow, this is a stretch. You realize that there is also Type I (juvenile) diabetes that is an auto-immune/genetic disorder that has nothing to do with unhealthy eating? GMO-produced human insulin (and subsequent engineered insulin analogs that are faster-acting) were major milestone for making that disease into a lifelong treatable condition. As someone with a father who is a juvenile diabetic now pushing into his 60s I'm pretty glad we're OK making capital investments in hard sciences.
> Perhaps we should find ways of driving the cost of innovation down? Like, say, loosening patent and licensing burdens to make equipment more easily attainable?
A very small portion of R&D budgets go to patent licensing. At the end of the day, what's expensive is that hundreds of PhD's expect to make six figure salaries even if their work is benefitting mankind.
> Agreed, but I do not see the necessary harm in this--again, having a strong brand and good distribution networks and quality products is how they can protect themselves against such a thing
Well now you're trading one kind of IP (patents) for another (Trademark). And what if the other company that swoops in is Con Agra?
A very small portion of R&D budgets go to patent licensing. At the end of the day, what's expensive is that hundreds of PhD's expect to make six figure salaries even if their work is benefitting mankind.
> Agreed, but I do not see the necessary harm in this--again, having a strong brand and good distribution networks and quality products is how they can protect themselves against such a thing
Well now you're trading one kind of IP (patents) for another (Trademark). And what if the other company that swoops in is Con Agra?
just because patents are the regulatory regime that exist at this time, in this place does not mean that that is the only way to regulate and encourage research in any given field of endeavor.
Given the extremity of the consequences and the enormity of the benefits that the biological sciences could provide us; it is worth questioning a regulatory regime that provides such painful distortions of society and that seems to act as much to prevent the benefits from being widespread as it does to allow the researchers to evade liability for the negative externalities.
Given the extremity of the consequences and the enormity of the benefits that the biological sciences could provide us; it is worth questioning a regulatory regime that provides such painful distortions of society and that seems to act as much to prevent the benefits from being widespread as it does to allow the researchers to evade liability for the negative externalities.
Thank you! Dissecting arguments and playing lawyer is fun sometimes, but not when the stakes are real. Even if legal precedent comes down for Monsanto, that just means that the legal precedent is wrong or incomplete, so who cares what the precedent can be manipulated to indicate... Monsanto is in the wrong here, regardless of how this thing turns out and regardless of how the law ends up being interpreted by the court.
I disagree. They patented a scientific process, which is what patents were originally designed for. This is a case where patents are actually not disgusting. (If I am misinterpreting the patent, please let me know)
Should chemists have not been allowed to patent the Haber Process? That is a chemical reaction. If chemical reactions are occuring all around us, isnt it disgusting to be able to patent it? No, because patenting a scientific process is a (the?) legitimate patent use case.
pull to refresh is a disgusting patent. Any of the patents mentioned recently by Samsung or Apple are disgusting. This isn't.
Should chemists have not been allowed to patent the Haber Process? That is a chemical reaction. If chemical reactions are occuring all around us, isnt it disgusting to be able to patent it? No, because patenting a scientific process is a (the?) legitimate patent use case.
pull to refresh is a disgusting patent. Any of the patents mentioned recently by Samsung or Apple are disgusting. This isn't.
You aren't seeing the distinction between a patented process for producing roundup ready seed and a patent on the lifeform and all of it's descendants in perpetuity.
The owner of the Haber Process patent has no say in what the ammonia gets used for after they have sold said ammonia. Nor should they.
The owner of the Haber Process patent has no say in what the ammonia gets used for after they have sold said ammonia. Nor should they.
This case is a bit different than the Haber process because these seeds are used to produce organisms that manufacture more of the seeds. If you are patenting the process to manufacture this type of GM soybean seed, won't it cover any process that is used to manufacture these seeds, including plants in a field? It is a tricky issue, and I don't know what the precedent is.
However, if they did patent the organism itself, or the result of the process (as e40 said in a sibling comment), then I am against this type patent.
Personally, I think IP law should be small and narrowly defined. I think that patents are valid when it is a scientific (ie non-trivial) process that has a limited duration.
EDIT: After thinking about it, I think the distinction comes down to this: are they selling it? if so they have no ownership rights on the next generation of seeds. Are they licensing it? If so, yes they do have ownership of the next generation of seeds. In that case, they are licensing to you a manufacturing process where you are allowed to sell the output, but you do not own the process itself.
However, if they did patent the organism itself, or the result of the process (as e40 said in a sibling comment), then I am against this type patent.
Personally, I think IP law should be small and narrowly defined. I think that patents are valid when it is a scientific (ie non-trivial) process that has a limited duration.
EDIT: After thinking about it, I think the distinction comes down to this: are they selling it? if so they have no ownership rights on the next generation of seeds. Are they licensing it? If so, yes they do have ownership of the next generation of seeds. In that case, they are licensing to you a manufacturing process where you are allowed to sell the output, but you do not own the process itself.
Yeah, the analogy to the Haber process, like most analogies, falls apart pretty quickly.
I like that distinction between selling and licensing. It clears things up a bit and also exposes the ridiculous/terrifying consequences of being able to license lifeforms.
We're certainly not far away from modification of humans, at least in small ways, so we better have it figured out by then. If you, through some patented process, gave your children some genes for disease resistance the legal framework in place for agriculture would have the preposterous effect of giving patent holders control over how they were allowed to reproduce. Bit of hyperbolic example surely, but still an instructive one IMO.
I like that distinction between selling and licensing. It clears things up a bit and also exposes the ridiculous/terrifying consequences of being able to license lifeforms.
We're certainly not far away from modification of humans, at least in small ways, so we better have it figured out by then. If you, through some patented process, gave your children some genes for disease resistance the legal framework in place for agriculture would have the preposterous effect of giving patent holders control over how they were allowed to reproduce. Bit of hyperbolic example surely, but still an instructive one IMO.
No, they abused their knowledge of how seeds work in order to rent-seek on a process that worked just fine for untold hundreds of thousands of years without Monsanto.
"Rent seeking" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Rent seeking means to try and extract rents from a process that would have happened without you. Rent seeking would be if the farmer had, through traditional agricultural processes, come up with a seed that had glyophosphate resistance, and Monsanto had sued him on the theory that they owned the patent to glyophosphate resistant seeds.
But that's not what happened. Without Monsanto, the glyophosphate resistant seeds in question would not exist. The farmer in question was free to use regular old soybean seeds and get regular old soybeans. Nobody forced him to use Monsanto's seeds--he did so because he got a benefit from them, a benefit that was the result of Monsanto's invention and its investment in R&D.
But that's not what happened. Without Monsanto, the glyophosphate resistant seeds in question would not exist. The farmer in question was free to use regular old soybean seeds and get regular old soybeans. Nobody forced him to use Monsanto's seeds--he did so because he got a benefit from them, a benefit that was the result of Monsanto's invention and its investment in R&D.
Nobody forced him to use Monsanto's seeds
It's not so black-and-white as this. You can typically buy excess seeds from the local grain elevator for replanting; these now contain an unseperable proportion of the descendants of Monsanto's seeds, so it's at least become lot harder not to use any of them.
In other cases (not this one), the farmer's field has been cross-contaminated from nearby fields of GMO soy, so they have been forced to use the descendants of Monsanto seed. Are these cases different? Why, in patent law? (Patent infringement does not require intent).
The environment that Monsanto are trying to create is one in which you must pay a royalty to Monsanto if your crop contains any of the descendants of their seeds, and where completely avoiding their seeds is impossible or at least very difficult (and imposes new costs).
It's not so black-and-white as this. You can typically buy excess seeds from the local grain elevator for replanting; these now contain an unseperable proportion of the descendants of Monsanto's seeds, so it's at least become lot harder not to use any of them.
In other cases (not this one), the farmer's field has been cross-contaminated from nearby fields of GMO soy, so they have been forced to use the descendants of Monsanto seed. Are these cases different? Why, in patent law? (Patent infringement does not require intent).
The environment that Monsanto are trying to create is one in which you must pay a royalty to Monsanto if your crop contains any of the descendants of their seeds, and where completely avoiding their seeds is impossible or at least very difficult (and imposes new costs).
> Rent seeking means to try and extract rents from a process that would have happened without you.
So, we agree it seems.
Seeds -> procreation -> more seeds.
You missed the bit about splitting legal hairs. I know that lawyers love to do just that but this is food we're talking about, not words on paper.
So, we agree it seems.
Seeds -> procreation -> more seeds.
You missed the bit about splitting legal hairs. I know that lawyers love to do just that but this is food we're talking about, not words on paper.
Monsanto is trying to profit from a process that goes:
[special seeds + special herbicide] -> procreation -> [special seeds + special herbicide]
Which would otherwise be:
seeds -> procreation -> more seeds.
[special seeds + special herbicide] -> procreation -> [special seeds + special herbicide]
Which would otherwise be:
seeds -> procreation -> more seeds.
But the process I assume you're referring to (farmers saving seeds) has changed, and just in the past 50-75 years. Now farms are massive monocultures and are susceptible to pests so they require pesticide resistent crops.
Whether you think that's a good thing or not is another story. Or maybe you think farmers should be able to save GMO seeds. I won't argue with you there, but the process of farming most definitely has changed, and it's not the same as it was thousands of years go.
Whether you think that's a good thing or not is another story. Or maybe you think farmers should be able to save GMO seeds. I won't argue with you there, but the process of farming most definitely has changed, and it's not the same as it was thousands of years go.
"What bothers me is that there are people that would spend a lot of time and effort on splitting legal hairs over this, rather than to simply state that such patents are ridiculous and then we can all get on with our lives."
The only way that the people this directly affects can get on with their lives is by "splitting legal hairs". You can't just say "I disbelieve" and suddenly disempower all systems you disagree with.
The only way that the people this directly affects can get on with their lives is by "splitting legal hairs". You can't just say "I disbelieve" and suddenly disempower all systems you disagree with.
I think we are talking about two different groups of people.
Me: Judges, patent lawyers, regular lawyers.
You: farmers.
Me: Judges, patent lawyers, regular lawyers.
You: farmers.
Playing group politics is non-sensical here. That farmer will happily invoke the legal system on you for trespassing on his property, why should we be so sympathetic now that Monsanto has invoked the legal system for his trespassing on theirs?
Because it isn't theirs.
Monsanto thinks its theirs, and they've got a non-trivial legal argument behind their contention. They'll take you to court to enforce their rights, just like the farmer will if you trespass on his land or try to worm your way out of a purchase contract if prices go down, or if he thinks you did those things.
If Monsanto is wrong and they have no such legal right, that's fine. They'll lose in court, or at least they ought to. But you're making it seem like we should put a thumb on the scale in favor of farmers, just because they're farmers. Everyone takes advantage of the law when it serves their purposes. Indeed, a tremendous amount of law is traceable to serving the purposes of farmers (versus say hunters/gatherers). Indeed, even things we think of as modern instruments, like derivatives contracts, have their roots in farming.
I should note: I don't disagree that Monsanto shouldn't have a claim when farmers don't know their seeds have GMO DNA, either as a result of cross-pollination or not knowing the origins of the seeds. I think it's a weakness of the patent system that "intent" doesn't count for anything.
If Monsanto is wrong and they have no such legal right, that's fine. They'll lose in court, or at least they ought to. But you're making it seem like we should put a thumb on the scale in favor of farmers, just because they're farmers. Everyone takes advantage of the law when it serves their purposes. Indeed, a tremendous amount of law is traceable to serving the purposes of farmers (versus say hunters/gatherers). Indeed, even things we think of as modern instruments, like derivatives contracts, have their roots in farming.
I should note: I don't disagree that Monsanto shouldn't have a claim when farmers don't know their seeds have GMO DNA, either as a result of cross-pollination or not knowing the origins of the seeds. I think it's a weakness of the patent system that "intent" doesn't count for anything.
Indeed, a tremendous amount of law is traceable to serving the purposes of farmers (versus say hunters/gatherers).
This might be one of my all-time favorite HN comments, because it's caused me to imagine how weird real property would look to the hunter-gatherer only used to personal property, and all the arguments they would use to make against the concept of real property.
One can see the hunter-gatherers gathered up around Hunter News long ago:
* Some farmer somewhere has decided that the crops he just left laying around are somehow his! Well, that makes no sense. If they were his, he should have kept them on his person! Everyone knows that! It's perfectly obvious that things you leave lying around belong to everyone and the next person who can pick it up gets to use it!
* They call it "real property" but it's not "property" -- you can't take it with you! Duh!
* Oh, sure, they try to say the ways it's like personal property, like the person who made it has a moral right to it, or that they wouldn't have built that house if they didn't get to keep it. Balderdash!
* Someone explain to me why you even need "real property" for society to function. It seems we didn't have it for thousands of years and everything worked okay!
* Did you know that under "real property" you can be excluded from certain land, just because someone else "says" it's theirs?
* What are they going to do, put a cop on every single piece of land to make sure no one trespasses? This will collapse under its own weight.
This might be one of my all-time favorite HN comments, because it's caused me to imagine how weird real property would look to the hunter-gatherer only used to personal property, and all the arguments they would use to make against the concept of real property.
One can see the hunter-gatherers gathered up around Hunter News long ago:
* Some farmer somewhere has decided that the crops he just left laying around are somehow his! Well, that makes no sense. If they were his, he should have kept them on his person! Everyone knows that! It's perfectly obvious that things you leave lying around belong to everyone and the next person who can pick it up gets to use it!
* They call it "real property" but it's not "property" -- you can't take it with you! Duh!
* Oh, sure, they try to say the ways it's like personal property, like the person who made it has a moral right to it, or that they wouldn't have built that house if they didn't get to keep it. Balderdash!
* Someone explain to me why you even need "real property" for society to function. It seems we didn't have it for thousands of years and everything worked okay!
* Did you know that under "real property" you can be excluded from certain land, just because someone else "says" it's theirs?
* What are they going to do, put a cop on every single piece of land to make sure no one trespasses? This will collapse under its own weight.
> * Did you know that under "real property" you can be excluded from certain land, just because someone else "says" it's theirs?
The interesting part is that most developed countries do still have structures in place to explicitly restrict the ability of landowners from preventing access to certain land. Either in the form of laws, or through public ownership.
E.g. in Norway there's a concept called "allemannsretten" ("public rights") that explicitly guarantee the right of the public to access "utmark" which is effectively any non-built-up part of land outside of urban cores. On top of that, there are special building restrictions on building near the coast line to ensure public access to beaches or the sea in general. Not only can you walk through any forest you please, no matter whether someone owns it, but you can gather berries or mushrooms there without obtaining permission. You do however generally need their permission to hunt.
In the US and elsewhere it is more commonly provided for through massive government ownership. E.g. federal land in the US makes up a massive 28% of the land mass. In the UK the Crown Estate owns more than half the coast, and massive amounts of other land, etc.
But while we've shifted substantially towards favouring private land owners, we still recognise that unfettered private property rights substantially restricts the freedom of movement of others.
The interesting part is that most developed countries do still have structures in place to explicitly restrict the ability of landowners from preventing access to certain land. Either in the form of laws, or through public ownership.
E.g. in Norway there's a concept called "allemannsretten" ("public rights") that explicitly guarantee the right of the public to access "utmark" which is effectively any non-built-up part of land outside of urban cores. On top of that, there are special building restrictions on building near the coast line to ensure public access to beaches or the sea in general. Not only can you walk through any forest you please, no matter whether someone owns it, but you can gather berries or mushrooms there without obtaining permission. You do however generally need their permission to hunt.
In the US and elsewhere it is more commonly provided for through massive government ownership. E.g. federal land in the US makes up a massive 28% of the land mass. In the UK the Crown Estate owns more than half the coast, and massive amounts of other land, etc.
But while we've shifted substantially towards favouring private land owners, we still recognise that unfettered private property rights substantially restricts the freedom of movement of others.
You just moved the goalposts. In the comment Rayiner replied to, you invoked us-vs-them, but when challenged, you retreat to a substantive claim. Why not just concede his point and move on with your broader argument?
I don't think it was me that moved to the 'trespassing' analogy.
Monsanto claims those seeds are their intellectual property, when actually it is the process of modifying the seeds that they came up with. So they are claiming trespassing where in my view there is no such thing happening, they are claiming trespass on a public road.
Monsanto claims those seeds are their intellectual property, when actually it is the process of modifying the seeds that they came up with. So they are claiming trespassing where in my view there is no such thing happening, they are claiming trespass on a public road.
Again, you're engaging a substantive argument that is different than the one Rayiner refuted. You said:
Me: Judges, patent lawyers, regular lawyers.
You: farmers
Rayiner is right: that was a very flimsy argument. You should concede it instead of pretending you didn't make it.
Me: Judges, patent lawyers, regular lawyers.
You: farmers
Rayiner is right: that was a very flimsy argument. You should concede it instead of pretending you didn't make it.
How about: I don't follow you at all.
The groups of people that I indicated that were splitting legal hairs over this can be divided into those that make a living splitting legal hairs and those that make a living plowing earth. If you feel that the latter are undeserving of protection against the former then fine, I concede. Personally I think that they should be allowed to get on with their lives without the IP battle being extended to their fields (pun intended).
It serves no purpose and I don't think that anything good can/will come of it, and potentially some very bad stuff may be the end result.
Feel free to disagree with that.
The groups of people that I indicated that were splitting legal hairs over this can be divided into those that make a living splitting legal hairs and those that make a living plowing earth. If you feel that the latter are undeserving of protection against the former then fine, I concede. Personally I think that they should be allowed to get on with their lives without the IP battle being extended to their fields (pun intended).
It serves no purpose and I don't think that anything good can/will come of it, and potentially some very bad stuff may be the end result.
Feel free to disagree with that.
Now you're back to your original argument, which is that farmers are morally superior to lawyers because they plow the earth. How can that possibly make sense? There are legal protections that should be enjoyed by farmers but not lawyers?
That was Rayiner's response to you and it seems self-evidently true. We strive towards a rule of law, not a rule of farmers, or a rule of philosopher kings who pick the meritorious occupations and penalize the rest.
Vernon Bowman didn't simply plant Roundup-Ready seeds by accident. He purchased clearly-marked Roundup-Ready seeds at commodity seed prices and then sprayed his fields with glyphosphate-based herbicides to take advantage of it. That isn't Monsanto's contention; Bowman admits to having done it. Maybe he's right and there's a patent exhaustion claim that makes doing that lawful, but it's hard to argue that Monsanto shouldn't have their day in court to verify it.
That was Rayiner's response to you and it seems self-evidently true. We strive towards a rule of law, not a rule of farmers, or a rule of philosopher kings who pick the meritorious occupations and penalize the rest.
Vernon Bowman didn't simply plant Roundup-Ready seeds by accident. He purchased clearly-marked Roundup-Ready seeds at commodity seed prices and then sprayed his fields with glyphosphate-based herbicides to take advantage of it. That isn't Monsanto's contention; Bowman admits to having done it. Maybe he's right and there's a patent exhaustion claim that makes doing that lawful, but it's hard to argue that Monsanto shouldn't have their day in court to verify it.
> but it's hard to argue that Monsanto shouldn't have their day in court to verify it.
No, it's in fact very easy to argue that. And in case you failed to notice that was exactly my point. Farmers work their ground, they've been doing so for many thousands of years.
Intellectual property and farming should be mutually exclusive fields, anybody should be able to grow anything to the best of their ability without the fear of being sued. I know that you disagree with this, that you believe that it is A-ok for big company 'x' to sue farmer 'y' for violation of their intellectual property (assuming for the moment that such a thing exists) but I'd much prefer for things not to be like that. It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't disallow me to have that opinion or 'force me to concede a point' in which I do not believe.
The rule of law should not extend to your ability to grow food from seeds, to royalties paid on such seeds or to any derivative thereof.
No, it's in fact very easy to argue that. And in case you failed to notice that was exactly my point. Farmers work their ground, they've been doing so for many thousands of years.
Intellectual property and farming should be mutually exclusive fields, anybody should be able to grow anything to the best of their ability without the fear of being sued. I know that you disagree with this, that you believe that it is A-ok for big company 'x' to sue farmer 'y' for violation of their intellectual property (assuming for the moment that such a thing exists) but I'd much prefer for things not to be like that. It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't disallow me to have that opinion or 'force me to concede a point' in which I do not believe.
The rule of law should not extend to your ability to grow food from seeds, to royalties paid on such seeds or to any derivative thereof.
> Now you're back to your original argument, which is that farmers are morally superior to lawyers because they plow the earth.
I don't see that claim anywhere in the message you replied to. I see a claim that he believes that someone should be able to buy seeds and use whatever herbicides one wants with them without a risk of being sued for IP infringements.
That is not an argument about the moral standing of either farmers or lawyers, but an argument about where he believes one of the restrictions on patents should be drawn.
I don't see that claim anywhere in the message you replied to. I see a claim that he believes that someone should be able to buy seeds and use whatever herbicides one wants with them without a risk of being sued for IP infringements.
That is not an argument about the moral standing of either farmers or lawyers, but an argument about where he believes one of the restrictions on patents should be drawn.
I don't believe the other category is allowed to selectively ignore all precedent they disagree with either.
Are you saying the ends justify the means?
Wrangling with the legal issues enforces consistency in our approach to the laws that govern our society. This approach is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that the base patent laws that are intended to promote innovation are extended logically in their interpretation.
Monsanto has spent incredible amounts of money and effort in pushing genetic engineering forward in order to create more food for the planet. Shutting them out from being able to profit from that effort would seem to be the only notion that is "ridiculous".
The exercise of coming up with a consistent legal approach in dealing with their claims is perfectly legitimate and noble.
Wrangling with the legal issues enforces consistency in our approach to the laws that govern our society. This approach is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that the base patent laws that are intended to promote innovation are extended logically in their interpretation.
Monsanto has spent incredible amounts of money and effort in pushing genetic engineering forward in order to create more food for the planet. Shutting them out from being able to profit from that effort would seem to be the only notion that is "ridiculous".
The exercise of coming up with a consistent legal approach in dealing with their claims is perfectly legitimate and noble.
> Monsanto has spent incredible amounts of money and effort in pushing genetic engineering forward in order to create more food for the planet.
I think you are misinterpreting Monsanto's mission to a frightening degree. Google posilac for instance.
Monsanto is good at PR, I knew that but that they're able to position themselves as the saviors of the planet is beyond what my cynical imagination could come up with.
I think you are misinterpreting Monsanto's mission to a frightening degree. Google posilac for instance.
Monsanto is good at PR, I knew that but that they're able to position themselves as the saviors of the planet is beyond what my cynical imagination could come up with.
And they've made it so that it is annoying to get, in bulk, seed which they cannot claim copyright or patents over.
You get to support that farmers are violating Monsanto's rights by replanting 2G seeds, or you get to claim that Monsanto has moved the world forward by making better plants for everyone--these claims are mutually exclusive if you are optimizing for "The most seeds and plants for everyone."
You get to support that farmers are violating Monsanto's rights by replanting 2G seeds, or you get to claim that Monsanto has moved the world forward by making better plants for everyone--these claims are mutually exclusive if you are optimizing for "The most seeds and plants for everyone."
I for one would support a Constitutional amendment to replace the Supreme Court with a process wherein we simply e-mail jacquesm for his opinion on how we should handle any given situation.
If we take your jest with some seriousness, a judiciary directly accountable to the people is a pretty bad idea. What you generally get is judges who like jacquesm wrap their political beliefs up in just enough pseudo legalese to seem acceptable to the lay public, but are quite wrong on the details (and often say things like the details are unimportant, "splitting legal hairs" etc when confronted with actual legal theory). This is extremely dangerous.
That isn't to say the current system precludes those people either (Earl Warren for example) because it is still a political process but it is more resistant.
That being said, I think that SCOTUS would be better served in cases of patents and sci/tech in general by using the process they currently use to handle important cases like the water disputes between Kansas and Nebraska being argued presently. SCOTUS appoints a special "master" to work on behalf of them to figure out the core issues and educate them. I could see someone like a Richard Posner being an excellent master for patent and SciTech internet related cases.
That isn't to say the current system precludes those people either (Earl Warren for example) because it is still a political process but it is more resistant.
That being said, I think that SCOTUS would be better served in cases of patents and sci/tech in general by using the process they currently use to handle important cases like the water disputes between Kansas and Nebraska being argued presently. SCOTUS appoints a special "master" to work on behalf of them to figure out the core issues and educate them. I could see someone like a Richard Posner being an excellent master for patent and SciTech internet related cases.
Splitting hairs is how you actionably say "such patents are ridiculous." You see if you split enough of these hairs, the judiciary says, "Wait, there is no way this can ever be resolved, it is fundamentally broken." and they toss it out. If folks can only find one or two exceptions, well maybe it is a reasonable principle after all.
The issues around Monsanto that get people fired up are more around their enforcement of their seed patents and the wide reach they've got on the seed industry as a result.
Monsanto has systematically worked to destroy access to seeding machines (which take mature crop and harvest the seeds from them) to prevent anyone from using standard farming techniques to build mature seeds. This in effect forces the average soybean farmer to buy ALL his seeds from Monsanto, because they control the supply to seeds.
Additionally, there's a presumption that anyone using non-Monsanto seeds is using a 2G seed that infringes their patent. Farmers are basically bullied away from approaching another source for their seeds.
Lastly, Monsanto is only able to effectively enforce these patents in the US. Soybean farmers throughout the rest of the world regularly use confirmed 2G seeds and their governments don't side with Monsanto. As a result, US farmers are forced to pay the cost of higher seed prices due to the "IP theft" going on in the rest of the world.
Monsanto has systematically worked to destroy access to seeding machines (which take mature crop and harvest the seeds from them) to prevent anyone from using standard farming techniques to build mature seeds. This in effect forces the average soybean farmer to buy ALL his seeds from Monsanto, because they control the supply to seeds.
Additionally, there's a presumption that anyone using non-Monsanto seeds is using a 2G seed that infringes their patent. Farmers are basically bullied away from approaching another source for their seeds.
Lastly, Monsanto is only able to effectively enforce these patents in the US. Soybean farmers throughout the rest of the world regularly use confirmed 2G seeds and their governments don't side with Monsanto. As a result, US farmers are forced to pay the cost of higher seed prices due to the "IP theft" going on in the rest of the world.
>As a result, US farmers are forced to pay the cost of higher seed prices due to the "IP theft" going on in the rest of the world.
"IP theft"? The only IP theft is allowing Monsanto, a private company, to patent seeds.
"IP theft"? The only IP theft is allowing Monsanto, a private company, to patent seeds.
> Monsanto has systematically worked to destroy access to seeding machines (which take mature crop and harvest the seeds from them)
Wait, you mean the combine? They are not hard to come by at all. You will find one on most grain farms.
> Farmers are basically bullied away from approaching another source for their seeds.
Monsanto already licenses the technology to anyone you might buy seeds from.
> Lastly, Monsanto is only able to effectively enforce these patents in the US.
I believe Canada was the first location for the successful test of the validity of the patent.
Wait, you mean the combine? They are not hard to come by at all. You will find one on most grain farms.
> Farmers are basically bullied away from approaching another source for their seeds.
Monsanto already licenses the technology to anyone you might buy seeds from.
> Lastly, Monsanto is only able to effectively enforce these patents in the US.
I believe Canada was the first location for the successful test of the validity of the patent.
> Wait, you mean the combine?
hkarthik probably meant "seed cleaning equipment" which is quite different from a combine.
> Monsanto already licenses the technology to anyone you might buy seeds from.
No, that would be false. In fact, they go a step farther and claim that if your neighbor has Monsanto seeds and it drifts into your plots, you need to pay them. Instead of a time honored "you contaminated my land - pay me" we get the reverse complete with bully lawyers.
> I believe Canada was the first location for the successful test of the validity of the patent.
Yep, and it was a horrifically stupid ruling[1].
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
hkarthik probably meant "seed cleaning equipment" which is quite different from a combine.
> Monsanto already licenses the technology to anyone you might buy seeds from.
No, that would be false. In fact, they go a step farther and claim that if your neighbor has Monsanto seeds and it drifts into your plots, you need to pay them. Instead of a time honored "you contaminated my land - pay me" we get the reverse complete with bully lawyers.
> I believe Canada was the first location for the successful test of the validity of the patent.
Yep, and it was a horrifically stupid ruling[1].
1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
> hkarthik probably meant "seed cleaning equipment" which is quite different from a combine.
That had crossed my mind, but he was quite explicit about the machine that does the harvesting of the seeds. It is not very common for farmers to clean their own seeds anyway, even predating these patent issues. Monsanto has been so successful with this because it has no real impact on most farms.
> No, that would be false.
I mean you are not going to be buying GMO seed from your neighbour, but any business in the business of producing seeds will have the technology available. Monsanto is not the only vendor of RR products.
That had crossed my mind, but he was quite explicit about the machine that does the harvesting of the seeds. It is not very common for farmers to clean their own seeds anyway, even predating these patent issues. Monsanto has been so successful with this because it has no real impact on most farms.
> No, that would be false.
I mean you are not going to be buying GMO seed from your neighbour, but any business in the business of producing seeds will have the technology available. Monsanto is not the only vendor of RR products.
The question I have after reading the article is - when all purchasable soybean seeds on the market end up being composed of seeds that originated from Monsanto's genetically modified stock (apparently they already mostly are in grain silos), how is anyone going to be able to purchase and grow soybeans without infringing on Monsanto's patent portfolio?
when all purchasable soybean seeds on the market
end up being composed of seeds that originated
from Monsanto's genetically modified stock
Patents also have a finite lifespan. Keep a sead for 20 years before planting an existing patents are useless.
Buy organic! To support farmers who don't use Monsanto seeds.
Do an product need to be intact to count? If this is the core of Monsanto argument, then it sounds to me as completely rubbish and something a court should have no problems throwing out.
Lets say I bought a new mousetrap. After purchase, I go around and add/remove aspect of it. I change the color scheme. I change the cheese to a more smelly version. Has it now suddenly become a new mousetrap and is thus no longer the same physical object as first sold?
If the seed still embodies the details described in the patent, how is it not still the same object? I could understand Monsanto counterargument if no aspect of 1G seed existed in the 2G seed but thats of course not true. More likely, all patented aspect of 1G seed is all still in 2G seed. If that was not true, than even if Monsanto won, they would loose as they then would have no claim on 2G. Thus the only changes of 1G -> 2G must be trivial and not covered by the patent.
Lets say I bought a new mousetrap. After purchase, I go around and add/remove aspect of it. I change the color scheme. I change the cheese to a more smelly version. Has it now suddenly become a new mousetrap and is thus no longer the same physical object as first sold?
If the seed still embodies the details described in the patent, how is it not still the same object? I could understand Monsanto counterargument if no aspect of 1G seed existed in the 2G seed but thats of course not true. More likely, all patented aspect of 1G seed is all still in 2G seed. If that was not true, than even if Monsanto won, they would loose as they then would have no claim on 2G. Thus the only changes of 1G -> 2G must be trivial and not covered by the patent.
This reminds me a of a line by Trigg in the classic UK comedy Only Fools and Horses (Trigg is a road sweeper for context).
In this classic scene, Trigger claims that he's had his road sweeper's broom for 20 years. But then he adds that the broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles.
"How can it be the same bloody broom then?" asks Sid the café owner. Trigger produces a picture of him and his broom and asks: "what more proof do you need?"
From 'Heroes and Villains' (1996)
http://uktv.co.uk/gold/stepbystep/aid/579394
In this classic scene, Trigger claims that he's had his road sweeper's broom for 20 years. But then he adds that the broom has had 17 new heads and 14 new handles.
"How can it be the same bloody broom then?" asks Sid the café owner. Trigger produces a picture of him and his broom and asks: "what more proof do you need?"
From 'Heroes and Villains' (1996)
http://uktv.co.uk/gold/stepbystep/aid/579394
Also know as The Ship of Theseus. This problem has been around for thousands of years a d no one's sure what the answer is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus
The problem comes from trying to force a dichotomy between "new" and "not new". This is an interesting article about these types of seeming paradoxes: http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid...
A few non obvious issues, G1 seeds are really G20-G50 in that they are several generations after the initial modification. So Monsanto sells GX seeds which produce GX+1 seeds which is the useful part and are supposed to be sold to make soy products, except they want to prevent a single specific use that of creating full plants that produce GX+2 seeds.
Note: GX+1 seeds need to be able to make millions of copy's of there initial DNA sequence to be come seeds so it's a really arbitrary cutoff in that they can multiply millions but not billions of times. Which would happen if the GX plants where left alone.
Note: GX+1 seeds need to be able to make millions of copy's of there initial DNA sequence to be come seeds so it's a really arbitrary cutoff in that they can multiply millions but not billions of times. Which would happen if the GX plants where left alone.
Hopefully this case eventually involves the Ship of Thessus. Given that the DNA in the G1 seeds undergoes repair, it's quite likely that the original G1 seeds no longer actually contain the original molecules. Also when the seed cells split their DNA some of the original DNA stays with the first cell and some with the second. Given these fundamental questions of identity it's hard to say what is the G1 seed and what is the G2 seed.
Don't get me started on the evil company that is Monsanto. For those of you who aren't aware of the history of this company I strongly suggest you do some reading if you have the time. We're talking about a company more aggressive and protective of its patents than Apple or any tech company anyone has ever seen before.
History has proven that the courts aren't exactly all too good at delivering fair, unbiased and swift justice when it comes to a Monsanto vs (insert rural farmer here) cases. I hope Bowman wins this case, it'll hopefully set a precedent and example that Monsanto can't walk over family farmers trying to make an honest living. Most of the prior cases Monsanto has brought against farmers usually end up being settled because the defendant runs out of money to keep fighting and ends up losing everything they own.
It's companies like Monsanto that are ruining family farming. If this continues farming as we know it will cease to exist in the traditional sense as we all know it and eventually the only farms that will exist will be corporately owned ones.
History has proven that the courts aren't exactly all too good at delivering fair, unbiased and swift justice when it comes to a Monsanto vs (insert rural farmer here) cases. I hope Bowman wins this case, it'll hopefully set a precedent and example that Monsanto can't walk over family farmers trying to make an honest living. Most of the prior cases Monsanto has brought against farmers usually end up being settled because the defendant runs out of money to keep fighting and ends up losing everything they own.
It's companies like Monsanto that are ruining family farming. If this continues farming as we know it will cease to exist in the traditional sense as we all know it and eventually the only farms that will exist will be corporately owned ones.
We're talking about a company more aggressive and protective of its patents than Apple or any tech company anyone has ever seen before.
Not that I condone Monsantos actions, but they kinda have to be: their inventions replicate quite freely, lowering the bar on infringement to entirely new levels (basically to infringe you have to do what your standard-issue caveman was already capable of...) - it raises the question of how to finance crop research when you can only take money for the first generation of seeds you sell.
IANAL. What worries me about this is that by changing a line of DNA in a 1G seed, 2G seeds (and beyond) fall under their patent. ie, they own the entire seed, and more importantly they own all the offspring of the 1G seed.
Isn't this the same concept as saying you replace a part in your vehicle/phone/pc/whatever with something that is patented, and now the patent covers the entire vehicle/phone/pc/whatever?
Alternatively you patent a commodity (seed/raw material/synthetic material/etc), now everything that is made from that commodity is covered by the original patent? what happens when you use the commodity to make a tool, with which you build other end products? where does this end?
Maybe I am misunderstanding, or have the wrong end of the stick?
Isn't this the same concept as saying you replace a part in your vehicle/phone/pc/whatever with something that is patented, and now the patent covers the entire vehicle/phone/pc/whatever?
Alternatively you patent a commodity (seed/raw material/synthetic material/etc), now everything that is made from that commodity is covered by the original patent? what happens when you use the commodity to make a tool, with which you build other end products? where does this end?
Maybe I am misunderstanding, or have the wrong end of the stick?
There is at least some merit to the idea that the pollinated field is manufacturing the patented invention without a license.
(Which just points back to discussing the merits of granting such patents)
(Which just points back to discussing the merits of granting such patents)
There is some merit there. However, it is no different than getting a patent on some protocol that sends bytes in an IP packet, and suing people who own routers for patent infringement, because those routers are copying the packet on reading it from the wire, and sending out a copy of the originally transmitted signal. This is arguably manufacturing a patented product too. So is any IDS that copies the packet to a buffer to do analysis on the stream.
"That's ridiculous!" a bunch of you are saying right now. You're right, because that's how the IP protocol works. Things get copied around, it's built into the basic underlying technology process you are utilizing. Yet, how is a plant producing pollen and sharing it's genes around with nearby neighbors not part of the underlying biological process the engineered genes are using?
"That's ridiculous!" a bunch of you are saying right now. You're right, because that's how the IP protocol works. Things get copied around, it's built into the basic underlying technology process you are utilizing. Yet, how is a plant producing pollen and sharing it's genes around with nearby neighbors not part of the underlying biological process the engineered genes are using?
The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patents. I doubt anyone without a decent lab could produce any of Monsanto's patents.
I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds, the only reason people buy that stuff is to improve yield.
I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds, the only reason people buy that stuff is to improve yield.
"I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds"
Traditionally farmers would save a portion of their crop to plant for the next year. There is even a special machine that prepares seed for planting called a "seed cleaner". Enter patented GMO seed which gets planted in a field next to regular seed and is cross pollinated by nature. Now the farmer who didn't plant GMO seed has a crop that contains the GMO patented gene. So if he cleans that seed he is at risk of being sued the next year for patent infringement by monsanto. In fact they have been systematically been suing seed cleaners to to get their client lists and then sue the farmers. Since it is nearly impossible to ensure your crop hasn't been cross pollinated with a GMO crop Monsanto has essentially shut down the traditional way farmers have worked. additionally they are reportedly very aggressive in pursuing farmers and frequently trespass on their fields to take seed samples. That is why they say that they have "ruined" family farming.
Food Inc. is one good documentary where this is discussed in detail among other food related issues.
http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/blog/policy/monsanto-des...
Traditionally farmers would save a portion of their crop to plant for the next year. There is even a special machine that prepares seed for planting called a "seed cleaner". Enter patented GMO seed which gets planted in a field next to regular seed and is cross pollinated by nature. Now the farmer who didn't plant GMO seed has a crop that contains the GMO patented gene. So if he cleans that seed he is at risk of being sued the next year for patent infringement by monsanto. In fact they have been systematically been suing seed cleaners to to get their client lists and then sue the farmers. Since it is nearly impossible to ensure your crop hasn't been cross pollinated with a GMO crop Monsanto has essentially shut down the traditional way farmers have worked. additionally they are reportedly very aggressive in pursuing farmers and frequently trespass on their fields to take seed samples. That is why they say that they have "ruined" family farming.
Food Inc. is one good documentary where this is discussed in detail among other food related issues.
http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/blog/policy/monsanto-des...
Shouldn't it be possible to sue Monsato or neighbors for polluting your field with their genetically manipulated pollen? After all, they are, without you asking for it, polluting your field with something that reduces your abilities (the ability to use your own seeds).
Something similar was attempted:
http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/class-acti...
Yes. As glad as I am to see this farmer apparently have some chance of prevailing in this case, I would greatly prefer to see a Supreme Court test of the idea that a farmer whose crop was involuntarily contaminated by wind could then be sued for patent infringement. That's just nuts.
Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial
well... the fact is that a seed is not trivial also, and was not trivially changed in thousands of years by a lot of farmers and other people. Then you change one or a few parts in this seed and you can claim that all the "seed software" is yours. Even if you changed a single line.
Maybe we need a GPL for living creatures?
well... the fact is that a seed is not trivial also, and was not trivially changed in thousands of years by a lot of farmers and other people. Then you change one or a few parts in this seed and you can claim that all the "seed software" is yours. Even if you changed a single line.
Maybe we need a GPL for living creatures?
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the "seed software" as it existed before you is still free for all to use. The software license analogy would be BSD (any non-copyleft license).
I wonder... if you simply don't use Roundup, the entire process shouldn't be claimed as fair use?.
You are not gaining a profit on the Monsanto work, Those seeds are not provided by Monsanto and as you can not avoid to use genetically contaminated, and identical to other seeds otherwise, you should not face a trial for this.
You are not gaining a profit on the Monsanto work, Those seeds are not provided by Monsanto and as you can not avoid to use genetically contaminated, and identical to other seeds otherwise, you should not face a trial for this.
My understanding is that is exactly how it works in practice. Farmers aren't getting sued for accidentally having a few roundup ready plants in their field; they're getting sued for selecting for roundup ready seeds and then using roundup on their fields.
That's what happened in this case:
("glyphosate" is the active ingredient in roundup, "glyphosate resistance" is the trait developed and patented by Monsanto.)
That's what happened in this case:
That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide
to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds
to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would
exhibit glyphosate resistance. He confirmed that many of
the plants were, indeed, resistant. In each subsequent
year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second-
crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. Unlike his first-
crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop
for replanting additional secondcrops in later years.
He also supplemented his secondcrop planting supply with
periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the
grain elevator. Bowman did not attempt to hide his
activities, and he candidly explained his practices with
respect to his second-crop soybeans in various
correspondence with Monsanto’s representatives.
("glyphosate" is the active ingredient in roundup, "glyphosate resistance" is the trait developed and patented by Monsanto.)
True, but also, Apple is not active in a critical industry.
If they control or even mess up the computer industry, it's not the same as agriculture.
If they control or even mess up the computer industry, it's not the same as agriculture.
So companies producing IP in a critical industry like agriculture have no access to IP protection? If anyone is allowed to sell 2G seeds, then Monsanto will make no money, and no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research if they know they cannot make money from it.
GMO seeds enable greater crop yields which would actually be better for humankind, so making money on GMO seeds is important. The great potato famine in Ireland wiped out a million people. We use more advanced fungicides now, but the chemicals used have a greater chance of causing liver damage than GMO plants. Obviously it would have to be a fair and balanced decision, but we can't throw out common sense because it affects a "critical industry".
Monsanto is an easy company to hate, but we can't make the wrong decision here or else it will affect future generations of companies who want to improve crop yields via GMO products.
GMO seeds enable greater crop yields which would actually be better for humankind, so making money on GMO seeds is important. The great potato famine in Ireland wiped out a million people. We use more advanced fungicides now, but the chemicals used have a greater chance of causing liver damage than GMO plants. Obviously it would have to be a fair and balanced decision, but we can't throw out common sense because it affects a "critical industry".
Monsanto is an easy company to hate, but we can't make the wrong decision here or else it will affect future generations of companies who want to improve crop yields via GMO products.
If we want to take a look at the big picture, lets do that then.
Whats the cost-benefit of having patents on GMO seeds? Whats the increased cost to society vs disclosure of information? Patents are an barging, where the state gives a state protected monopoly in return for disclosure of information. Lets make a cost-benefit analyze and see where it points (hint, not even with imaginary numbers would patents on GMO seeds ever come up on top).
> no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research
What a lie. Sorry, but I am going to call it what it is. A lie or a serious form of disillusioning. If you can create a better method to farm: vegetable oils, soy, rapeseed, jatropha, mahua, mustard, flax, sunflower, palm oil, hemp, field pennycress, Pongamia pinnata, or algae, you are going to earn serious money. The military would very much like to be able to producer cheaper biofuel, as would a never ending list of companies. Corn is an other, where a better seed would easy earn you billions if sold to the highest bidder.
Sure, you can't go around suing farmers who never heard of your company, but that is a good thing.
Whats the cost-benefit of having patents on GMO seeds? Whats the increased cost to society vs disclosure of information? Patents are an barging, where the state gives a state protected monopoly in return for disclosure of information. Lets make a cost-benefit analyze and see where it points (hint, not even with imaginary numbers would patents on GMO seeds ever come up on top).
> no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research
What a lie. Sorry, but I am going to call it what it is. A lie or a serious form of disillusioning. If you can create a better method to farm: vegetable oils, soy, rapeseed, jatropha, mahua, mustard, flax, sunflower, palm oil, hemp, field pennycress, Pongamia pinnata, or algae, you are going to earn serious money. The military would very much like to be able to producer cheaper biofuel, as would a never ending list of companies. Corn is an other, where a better seed would easy earn you billions if sold to the highest bidder.
Sure, you can't go around suing farmers who never heard of your company, but that is a good thing.
You know that Ireland was a net exporter of food during the great famine, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#Food...
Famines these days tend to be more economic than agricultural.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#Food...
Famines these days tend to be more economic than agricultural.
The US Defense Department has the right to confiscate your patent under eminent domain, and use it without providing you any compensation: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/09/68894
Why? Because its critical for national security. Is food security any different?
Why? Because its critical for national security. Is food security any different?
I disagree. Monsanto's original business model was: "We have a patent on a herbicide called Round Up, if we can find a way to create seeds that result in plants resistant to our own chemical herbicide then we can sell the seeds too! If we convince farmers using our seeds and chemicals results in better yields and profits we can increase our market share of both." That was the original reason to create the modified seeds.
Do you think they are researching and investing in finding seeds/plants that don't have a tie-in to their chemicals?
EDIT: Their problem is that the patent on Round Up expired so we have other companies that can make and sell the herbicide generically now. Their original business model made sense and was reason enough for them to innovate and create GMO seeds.
Question: Can we now say that modifying genes to make organisms resistant to certain chemicals is no longer non-intuitive?
Do you think they are researching and investing in finding seeds/plants that don't have a tie-in to their chemicals?
EDIT: Their problem is that the patent on Round Up expired so we have other companies that can make and sell the herbicide generically now. Their original business model made sense and was reason enough for them to innovate and create GMO seeds.
Question: Can we now say that modifying genes to make organisms resistant to certain chemicals is no longer non-intuitive?
Having a non-diverse gene pool increases the likelihood of a species getting wiped out.
How does have a large majority of our food coming from the same gene pool help secure our future?
If anything it puts us all at greater risk. While in the short term GMO seeds might help, in the long term it appears we are increasing unnecessary risks. Typical current day view: shortsightedness and sacrificing the future for gaining today.
How does have a large majority of our food coming from the same gene pool help secure our future?
If anything it puts us all at greater risk. While in the short term GMO seeds might help, in the long term it appears we are increasing unnecessary risks. Typical current day view: shortsightedness and sacrificing the future for gaining today.
> The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patents. I doubt anyone without a decent lab could produce any of Monsanto's patents.
Way to judge inventions based on your personal scales. So the requisite for patents is having big labs?
Just because something looks simple it doesn't mean it doesn't has value, or didn't had talent and R&D behind it. Do you realize there can be research even behind something as simple as the shape of a device, because there's someone thinking how millions of people will interact with it everyday?
That's the perverse thing about patents. Who has the right to judge if an invention is trivial or not.
Way to judge inventions based on your personal scales. So the requisite for patents is having big labs?
Just because something looks simple it doesn't mean it doesn't has value, or didn't had talent and R&D behind it. Do you realize there can be research even behind something as simple as the shape of a device, because there's someone thinking how millions of people will interact with it everyday?
That's the perverse thing about patents. Who has the right to judge if an invention is trivial or not.
Do some more study before living stupid comments - all Monstanto DNA patents are code fragments from living organisms. This corporation is insanely evil, get a clue and stop defending it.
Why is family farming worth protecting? What extra value do family farms provide to me, the person actually buying food? People lose their jobs because superior companies out-compete them all the time. Why should farmers be protected from this?
The issue here is that farmers have been planting crops and saving some of the seed generated for the next season probably from Day 1 in agriculture. Monsanto seeks to insert themselves into this highly efficient process, blocking the replanting of seed and instead extracting for themselves a significant amount of money.
Farmers are free to enter into this relationship since the seeds do conver some advantages in reduced use of pesticides etc. but there is a significant problem with cross-contamination from neighboring crops and through the supply chain so Monsanto ends up suing farmers who never had any intention to use their products in order to get everyone to bow to their will and maintain the agri-business model.
Farmers are free to enter into this relationship since the seeds do conver some advantages in reduced use of pesticides etc. but there is a significant problem with cross-contamination from neighboring crops and through the supply chain so Monsanto ends up suing farmers who never had any intention to use their products in order to get everyone to bow to their will and maintain the agri-business model.
The Monsanto seeds are only beneficial if used with Roundup Ready pesticide (or a generic equivalent). So let me ask you a hypothetical question: If Monsanto's policy was to only sue farmers whose fields had been cross-contaminated AND who used Roundup Ready pesticide, would that be a fair outcome? It would mean farmers could still use their traditional methods without worrying about cross-contamination as long as they didn't use the Monsanto pesticide.
As far as I know Roundup is a general use herbicide. If it was only licensed for use with Monsanto's GM products then I think Monsanto would have a case - assuming there were equivalent non-Monsanto herbicides freely available. I doubt Monsanto would be pretty happy about that however.
UPDATE: There was supposed to be some form of "terminator" gene included in the GM products to explicitly prevent generation two seeds from being replanted. I guess since we are talking about law-suits that did not really work as expected.
UPDATE: There was supposed to be some form of "terminator" gene included in the GM products to explicitly prevent generation two seeds from being replanted. I guess since we are talking about law-suits that did not really work as expected.
Actually, after a serious public kerfuffle, Monsanto pledged not to use this technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...
I'm curious to know what you mean by 'equivalent non-Monsanto herbicides'. Roundup is specifically designed kill everything except Monsanto's GM crops. Are you saying that farmers with contaminated fields should be able to use a non-Monsanto herbicide which is specifically designed to avoid killing Monsanto's GM crops?
Glyphosphate (Roundup) is a now off-patent general herbicide that will pretty much kill everything (even your crop) unless it is genetically modified a la Monsanto's RoundUp ready crops. This is often how Monsanto finds people to sue; people that buy Roundup without buying the seeds.
I thought that was in fact Monsanto's strategy. It's certainly the fact pattern in this particular case.
This isn't a case of a farmer having cross-contamination outside of his control of his saved seedstock, he actively worked to create his own group of seedstock that had their patented gene AND told people he was doing this.
Because Monsanto is not competing - it is trying to use patent law to enforce its monopoly supply of the seeds
Also the area in which Monsanto operates is one where most people IMO would want the old ideals of scientific discovery and invention returned to the common to grow the whole wealth of mankind - not artificially inject a trap such that one company extracts profits at the expense of wider growth
Also the area in which Monsanto operates is one where most people IMO would want the old ideals of scientific discovery and invention returned to the common to grow the whole wealth of mankind - not artificially inject a trap such that one company extracts profits at the expense of wider growth
Food is essential for society and it strikes me as a very bad idea to leave it all in the hands of a selfish mega corporation with an exceptionally poor track record.
Medicine is essential for society as well. Would you like to take it out of the hands of the mega corporations as well? Who exactly would be making the new drugs? And don't say the gov't. They gov't's track record of producing new drugs is negligible. Gov't funding contributing to new drugs? Yes, of course. But gov't funding playing a major role in putting a new drug in a patient? Minimal.
Notice how you yourself provide the solution to the fake dilemma you set up: Let them create the drugs, for public funds, but without patent protection for the resulting product, or with reduced protections.
The problem is not that there are mega corporations making GMO seeds or mega corporations creating new drugs. The problem is the extensive patent rights on the result.
The problem is not that there are mega corporations making GMO seeds or mega corporations creating new drugs. The problem is the extensive patent rights on the result.
One very good reason family farming should be protected, is that large scale monoculture is detrimental to our environment.
http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.ht...
http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.ht...
Because your home garden is next on the hit list after all the family farms are gone. Most of the family farms do fine and produce well. Monsanto isn't competing, it is basically bullying everyone with "seed contamination" even if you don't want to buy their products.
Isn't it at least in everyone's best interest that OTHER seeds than Monsato's seeds are planted and grown as well? Otherwise it may end up like bananas (all bananas the same DNA and therefore very sensitive to diseases).
While Monsanto does sell seed under the Dekalb brand, they also license to the technology to other seed companies, so it is not simply a matter of buying Monsanto seeds.
Additionally, I don't have my contract with me at the moment, but I seem to recall the requirement of planting a percentage of non-GM crops as part of the agreement of using said seed. Planting RR crops year after year on the same ground doesn't work very well.
Additionally, I don't have my contract with me at the moment, but I seem to recall the requirement of planting a percentage of non-GM crops as part of the agreement of using said seed. Planting RR crops year after year on the same ground doesn't work very well.
It would seem to me that Monsanto's best play might be to forget about the patent lawsuits and just increase the price of their Roundup herbicide to compensate. Get complete market dominance with the seeds, letting them be freely copied, knowing that the herbicide will be difficult to manufacture. Razor and blade model.
The patent on Roundup (glyphosphate) expired in 2000 [1], so that's probably not a viable strategy.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
It's my understanding that in large agriculture, Monsanto produces a new Roundup "recipe" every year and matching "Roundup Ready" seeds. Of course, I can't find a source on this right now, so I may be way off.
Monsanto reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s, but worse.
IANAL: Why isn't patent exhaustion a solid defense to Monsanto's suits?
The anti-GMO documentaries I've seen have covered the "their seed blew into my field" and "I bought seed and signed a contract to only sew it one season then breached it" type lawsuits, but not this --
He's buying seed, from a third party, without signing any agreement with Monsanto. That seed isn't even necessarily Monsanto's product, but from plants that descended from those seeds. It may contain the patented genes, but those genes only got there from the original authorized sale of seed to whoever owned the elevator.
The exhaustion doctrine says that a patent holder's rights end at the point of an authorized sale. Once Apple sells you an iPad, you can do whatever you want with that iPad, including selling it to someone else, and aren't infringing the underlying patents the product implements.
So, why can Monsanto claim damages here?
The anti-GMO documentaries I've seen have covered the "their seed blew into my field" and "I bought seed and signed a contract to only sew it one season then breached it" type lawsuits, but not this --
He's buying seed, from a third party, without signing any agreement with Monsanto. That seed isn't even necessarily Monsanto's product, but from plants that descended from those seeds. It may contain the patented genes, but those genes only got there from the original authorized sale of seed to whoever owned the elevator.
The exhaustion doctrine says that a patent holder's rights end at the point of an authorized sale. Once Apple sells you an iPad, you can do whatever you want with that iPad, including selling it to someone else, and aren't infringing the underlying patents the product implements.
So, why can Monsanto claim damages here?
The argument is (partially) that you can't plant your iPad and have it grow into 1 million new iPads that you then sell to undercut Apple. Monsanto is arguing that the law needs to be considered specifically (differently?) for the case of self-replicating technologies since if the patent exhausts after 1 generation then the next year a customer could come on the market with millions of copies of their product. Software / book publishing business models dealt with this same issue via copyright that kept customers from reselling millions of copies of their product after buying it. Copyright doesn't apply to genetic code though.
Copyright doesn't apply to genetic code though.
Is this the fundamental question they will be arguing at the supreme court?
Is this the fundamental question they will be arguing at the supreme court?
[deleted]
The third party (reseller) who bought the seed from Monsanto in the first place most probably breached the contract by producing and selling new seeds! This third party is probably the one who is to be sued, but patent law allows the farmer to be sued as well..
The can also only be sued once, where the farmer and everyone after that point could continue to resell dwecendents of that line.
IANAL either, but perhaps the seeds being descendants of authorized seeds, rather than authorized seeds, is the problem? It would be sort of like duplicating your authorized iPad with a 3D printer.
[deleted]
Even if you had an amazing 3D printer that could produce iPads, that doesn't mean you can sell it. You bought Microsoft Office, can you just duplicate it and sell it to your coworkers? I'm sure your software "duplicator" can produce exact copies. IANAL either, but I'm pretty sure your argument wouldn't stand up in court if you tried to sell your exact copies of your authorized copy of Microsoft Office.
You're confusing copyright law with patent law.
I'm wondering whether a good defense would be that with natural gene mutation, these seeds aren't the ones under patent.
He's buying seed, from a third party, without signing any agreement with Monsanto. That seed isn't even necessarily Monsanto's product, but from plants that descended from those seeds. It may contain the patented genes, but those genes only got there from the original authorized sale of seed to whoever owned the elevator.
Devil's advocate: even if you buy your DVD at Amazon you still cannot show it for $2 each to 50 people at your home or make copies for profit.
Maybe the sack containing the seed had some sort of disclaimer "by opening and using this you agree to..."
Devil's advocate: even if you buy your DVD at Amazon you still cannot show it for $2 each to 50 people at your home or make copies for profit.
Maybe the sack containing the seed had some sort of disclaimer "by opening and using this you agree to..."
Devil's advocate: even if you buy your DVD at Amazon you still cannot show it for $2 each to 50 people at your home or make copies for profit.
Is that actually the case? Last time I sawy anything about this the publishers were trying to have it both ways, saying that on the one hand what you owned wasn't the disk it was a license to the content so you couldn't just do whatever you wanted with it, but if you tried to use that to say "well then I can rip the DVD and copy it somewhere else" you'd get an argument about only owning that specific format.
Is that actually the case? Last time I sawy anything about this the publishers were trying to have it both ways, saying that on the one hand what you owned wasn't the disk it was a license to the content so you couldn't just do whatever you wanted with it, but if you tried to use that to say "well then I can rip the DVD and copy it somewhere else" you'd get an argument about only owning that specific format.
Yes it is. You need a license for public performances of copyrighted works; in America this is governed by Title 17 of the United States Code.
Re Devil's Advocate: that's a copyright rather than patent.
> Monsanto says that if it allowed Bowman to keep replanting his seeds it would undermine its business model, endangering the expensive research that it uses to produce advanced agricultural products.
I didn't realize that having a bad business model gave you a valid case.
I didn't realize that having a bad business model gave you a valid case.
Devil's advocate: How do you suggest companies with large R&D budgets doing work that can potentially benefit humanity recoupe its costs. The question applies to GMOs where the product can often reproduce as well as medical companies where generics are involved.
How do you suggest we finance lighthouses without arresting people and putting them in prison for the crime of walking down a road that happens to be in line of sight of a lighthouse while not wearing a company-approved blindfold?
As a libertarian I think we should seek a smaller role for government in people's lives. But I also think if something is in fact a function of government, we would be better off to admit it and formally finance it as such, than bring it in the back door by dishonest means.
As a libertarian I think we should seek a smaller role for government in people's lives. But I also think if something is in fact a function of government, we would be better off to admit it and formally finance it as such, than bring it in the back door by dishonest means.
[deleted]
Fuck them. If we gave out government grants for the research it would be cheaper for the public and more effective. Monsanto and big pharma are a net loss for society, so I find it hard to shed a tear over generic medication.
If you think the government is efficient at contracting out for advanced technology products, I invite you to investigate the military procurement system.
The creation of better soybean strains could be financed by prizes and contests rather than by military procurement. For example, see the Longitude Prize, the Anxari X Prize, or the crypto primitive contests that NIST regularly runs.
The fact that giant corporations are involved with progress in our society is not proof that progress would cease without the involvement of giant corporations.
The fact that giant corporations are involved with progress in our society is not proof that progress would cease without the involvement of giant corporations.
You can't do serious science, capital-intensive Big Science, with prizes and contests.
Why not?
Because the prizes are usually not even enough to recoup the cost of the R&D, much less recoup the cost of R&D once you account for the probability of not winning. The Ansari X Prize was only $10 million, which is nothing in aerospace.
Actually, it somewhat ironic to use the X Prize as an example here. Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites won the X Prize, with Spaceship One. Spaceship One was a joint venture between Rutan and Microsoft's Paul Allen. The investment vehicle was Mojave Aerospace Ventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Aerospace_Ventures) which is basically an IP holding company that controls commercialization of the patented Spaceship One technology through licensing agreements.
Scaled Composites itself is actually a great example of the kind of separation of concerns that patents enable. They don't make end-user products really. They're a small engineering outfit that does mostly R&D. They make money by consulting, contracting to build specialized components, and licensing their substantial patent portfolio. The company doesn't have a ton of big factories, etc. The value of the company that Rutan spent 30 years building is engineers that could walk away at any moment and a pile of IP.
Actually, it somewhat ironic to use the X Prize as an example here. Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites won the X Prize, with Spaceship One. Spaceship One was a joint venture between Rutan and Microsoft's Paul Allen. The investment vehicle was Mojave Aerospace Ventures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Aerospace_Ventures) which is basically an IP holding company that controls commercialization of the patented Spaceship One technology through licensing agreements.
Scaled Composites itself is actually a great example of the kind of separation of concerns that patents enable. They don't make end-user products really. They're a small engineering outfit that does mostly R&D. They make money by consulting, contracting to build specialized components, and licensing their substantial patent portfolio. The company doesn't have a ton of big factories, etc. The value of the company that Rutan spent 30 years building is engineers that could walk away at any moment and a pile of IP.
That prizes are "usually not" enough to recoup the cost of the R&D does not means that prizes can't be raised to where they do recoup the cost.
Furthermore, the probability of not winning exists in all R&D: A lot of it fails, or they're beaten to the punch by competitors. Whether the potential payoff comes from revenue from patent encumbered products, or from a government prize fund is irrelevant.
Investors can further correct for the risks of the failure of any one company involved in a prize attempt like that by spreading their investments over multiple participants. It's not like these kind of investment scenarios are unfamiliar to the financial markets.
Furthermore, the probability of not winning exists in all R&D: A lot of it fails, or they're beaten to the punch by competitors. Whether the potential payoff comes from revenue from patent encumbered products, or from a government prize fund is irrelevant.
Investors can further correct for the risks of the failure of any one company involved in a prize attempt like that by spreading their investments over multiple participants. It's not like these kind of investment scenarios are unfamiliar to the financial markets.
> That prizes are "usually not" enough to recoup the cost of the R&D does not means that prizes can't be raised to where they do recoup the cost.
> Furthermore, the probability of not winning exists in all R&D: A lot of it fails, or they're beaten to the punch by competitors. Whether the potential payoff comes from revenue from patent encumbered products, or from a government prize fund is irrelevant.
You have to read your two points in conjunction. Sure, the prizes could be raised until they were big enough to recoup the R&D costs weighted for the probability of failure. This is basically what happens anyway--a company will engage in half a dozen R&D projects with the assumption that only one or two will be successful and the revenues from that will recoup the R&D investment on the other ones.
But to actually get anything done in fields like aerospace, medicine, etc, you'd be talking about billion-dollar range prizes. You'd also be talking about a very different allocation of the R&D burden. Right now, the people that use say a drug for diabetes are the ones that pay for the R&D, by virtue of their paying high prices for the patented drugs. But with government-funded projects, everyone would bear the costs of these innovations equally. Also, it puts government in the position of deciding what innovations are valuable by its choice of what to offer prizes for.
People are rightfully skeptical of the idea of the government handing out billions in taxpayer dollars for "innovation" that some bureaucrat thinks is necessary. I don't think it's a clear win over the patent regime.
> Furthermore, the probability of not winning exists in all R&D: A lot of it fails, or they're beaten to the punch by competitors. Whether the potential payoff comes from revenue from patent encumbered products, or from a government prize fund is irrelevant.
You have to read your two points in conjunction. Sure, the prizes could be raised until they were big enough to recoup the R&D costs weighted for the probability of failure. This is basically what happens anyway--a company will engage in half a dozen R&D projects with the assumption that only one or two will be successful and the revenues from that will recoup the R&D investment on the other ones.
But to actually get anything done in fields like aerospace, medicine, etc, you'd be talking about billion-dollar range prizes. You'd also be talking about a very different allocation of the R&D burden. Right now, the people that use say a drug for diabetes are the ones that pay for the R&D, by virtue of their paying high prices for the patented drugs. But with government-funded projects, everyone would bear the costs of these innovations equally. Also, it puts government in the position of deciding what innovations are valuable by its choice of what to offer prizes for.
People are rightfully skeptical of the idea of the government handing out billions in taxpayer dollars for "innovation" that some bureaucrat thinks is necessary. I don't think it's a clear win over the patent regime.
We're talking about different things here. A more productive, disease-resistant strain of soybean (or maize, rice, sweet potato, etc.) is of obvious benefit to the whole of humanity, and could be the goal of any charitable organization, philanthropist, government, or corporation. (I imagine that the increased sales of Roundup herbicide would be at best a minor criterion in the reckoning of most such institutions.) Better diabetes treatment would allow fat old Westerners to keep stuffing their gobs in relative comfort for a few more decades. I agree that no other sort of funding mechanism would be likely to bring about that latter, more dubious benefit.
I have no quarrel with those who bring new airplanes, soybeans, or medicines to market. I do quarrel with those who want to undermine the rule of law in society to make those efforts more profitable. For millennia farmers have replanted seeds; the activity is the basis of agriculture. Monsanto didn't own the beans this farmer planted, nor did they own the plants that bore those beans nor the elevators that stored them. They might have sold him Roundup, but if they felt they should be better rewarded for that then they should have charged him more. The court system does not exist to salve the butthurt that Monsanto executives get when their schemes of control and coercion go awry. There's entirely too much control and coercion in modern agriculture in the USA already.
If as a result of these proceedings Monsanto were to find that it couldn't charge a premium for its bean varieties, it might very well decide to charge a premium for its Roundup herbicide. That would change incentives in modern agriculture for the better. Instead of committing every year to excessive sunk costs for the purchase of patented seeds, which later in the season induce additional purchase of Roundup to protect that investment, farmers would be more willing to "wait and see" and try different combinations of weed control methods. Roundup use wouldn't cease, but it would be seen more accurately as a more expensive option and so its use would probably decrease a bit. Monsanto would be welcome to bump prices even more if they thought that would help.
I don't support the government even having access to billions of dollars, let alone handing them out to anyone, and I struggle to see how my initial comment could have left such an impression. I do see the extant patent regime as a pillar of modern state capitalism, which tends to reinforce the power of state bureaucrats rather than undermining it.
I have no quarrel with those who bring new airplanes, soybeans, or medicines to market. I do quarrel with those who want to undermine the rule of law in society to make those efforts more profitable. For millennia farmers have replanted seeds; the activity is the basis of agriculture. Monsanto didn't own the beans this farmer planted, nor did they own the plants that bore those beans nor the elevators that stored them. They might have sold him Roundup, but if they felt they should be better rewarded for that then they should have charged him more. The court system does not exist to salve the butthurt that Monsanto executives get when their schemes of control and coercion go awry. There's entirely too much control and coercion in modern agriculture in the USA already.
If as a result of these proceedings Monsanto were to find that it couldn't charge a premium for its bean varieties, it might very well decide to charge a premium for its Roundup herbicide. That would change incentives in modern agriculture for the better. Instead of committing every year to excessive sunk costs for the purchase of patented seeds, which later in the season induce additional purchase of Roundup to protect that investment, farmers would be more willing to "wait and see" and try different combinations of weed control methods. Roundup use wouldn't cease, but it would be seen more accurately as a more expensive option and so its use would probably decrease a bit. Monsanto would be welcome to bump prices even more if they thought that would help.
I don't support the government even having access to billions of dollars, let alone handing them out to anyone, and I struggle to see how my initial comment could have left such an impression. I do see the extant patent regime as a pillar of modern state capitalism, which tends to reinforce the power of state bureaucrats rather than undermining it.
that is heavily influenced by politicians looking to bring jobs to their districts/states.
Interesting hypothetical question. Are you suggesting Monsanto is benefiting humanity?
No I'm not. All I know about them is what gets press coverage, which is pretty bleak. No doubt in a meta sense there's been some benefits in the concentrated pooling of resources even with strong IP litigation.
Still, what I suggest isn't unfathomable. The company doesn't even have to be altruistic...even if their sole goal is profit, I think there should be some affordances to protect them.
Still, what I suggest isn't unfathomable. The company doesn't even have to be altruistic...even if their sole goal is profit, I think there should be some affordances to protect them.
Given their crimes, I'd actually want to revoke their charter.
We allow people to get limited liability for joint enterprises. This is a privilege. Either we put real people in jail, or we start revoking charters.
Protecting unaccountable institutions because their greed might result in good things is a complete abdication of governance and simple common sense.
We allow people to get limited liability for joint enterprises. This is a privilege. Either we put real people in jail, or we start revoking charters.
Protecting unaccountable institutions because their greed might result in good things is a complete abdication of governance and simple common sense.
But our politicians have decided otherwise and allows for patents even on DNA sequences that weren't even constructed but merely discovered.
Those patents are on identifying, isolating, and extracting those sequences. Making a new copy of them in your body (or in the case of soybeans, growing the plant, which obviously involves DNA replication) isn't infringing, but doing anything else useful with them is.
In the courtroom of public opinion, it's a valid case.
I've been thinking about this a lot since I first read about it yesterday. Here's what I think is _fair_ (throwing out doctrine, etc.). IA(definitely)NAL.
Monsanto has every right to get a patent on the 1G seeds. They have every right to sell those seeds -- they put money and effort into designing a (theoretically) improved product and should be rewarded for their investment.
Once they sell the 1G seeds, however, that's it. If the resulting plants produce equal-quality 2G seeds, then so be it. Once the farmer has purchased the 1G seeds (presumably from Monsanto), that's the end of the road for Monsanto. They've produced a product, sold it, and made their money.
What's happening here is that Monsanto is using the courts to compensate for a bad business model and a flaw in their design. If they want to continue to get farmers to purchase seeds from them year after year, then what they should have done is engineered the seeds to "expire" after a generation: The results plants should produce 2G seeds that are in some way inferior to the 1G seeds.
That way, farmers have a natural incentive to keep purchasing 1G seeds year after year. No lawsuits or restrictive license agreements needed. If farmers want the best, they buy from Monsanto. If they are ok with the inferior 2G seeds, then they can harvest their own and keep planting.
If it's not possible for Monsanto to engineer the seeds as such, well, too bad. The buck stops there. They need to charge more for the 1G seeds then. But farmers won't pay if the cost is too high? Well, again, too bad. Their job is to convince farmers that buying 1G seeds at 2-3x the price is worth it because of the improved product. If not, well, back to the drawing board.
This comes down to Monsanto trying to use a license agreement and the courts to compensate for a flaw in their product design, and that isn't right.
Monsanto has every right to get a patent on the 1G seeds. They have every right to sell those seeds -- they put money and effort into designing a (theoretically) improved product and should be rewarded for their investment.
Once they sell the 1G seeds, however, that's it. If the resulting plants produce equal-quality 2G seeds, then so be it. Once the farmer has purchased the 1G seeds (presumably from Monsanto), that's the end of the road for Monsanto. They've produced a product, sold it, and made their money.
What's happening here is that Monsanto is using the courts to compensate for a bad business model and a flaw in their design. If they want to continue to get farmers to purchase seeds from them year after year, then what they should have done is engineered the seeds to "expire" after a generation: The results plants should produce 2G seeds that are in some way inferior to the 1G seeds.
That way, farmers have a natural incentive to keep purchasing 1G seeds year after year. No lawsuits or restrictive license agreements needed. If farmers want the best, they buy from Monsanto. If they are ok with the inferior 2G seeds, then they can harvest their own and keep planting.
If it's not possible for Monsanto to engineer the seeds as such, well, too bad. The buck stops there. They need to charge more for the 1G seeds then. But farmers won't pay if the cost is too high? Well, again, too bad. Their job is to convince farmers that buying 1G seeds at 2-3x the price is worth it because of the improved product. If not, well, back to the drawing board.
This comes down to Monsanto trying to use a license agreement and the courts to compensate for a flaw in their product design, and that isn't right.
They do own technology to achieve this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techn...
It basically prevents G2 seeds altogether, but they've pledged not to use it because of public outcry, instead relying on these contracts.
If you seriously think through the consequences of usage of this kind of tech, it's pretty dire. Due to natural cross-pollination, we could be setting ourselves up for a world where everyone must buy all of their seeds from Monsanto and their ilk, who would have a monopoly on the world's food supply. That's bad news indeed.
It basically prevents G2 seeds altogether, but they've pledged not to use it because of public outcry, instead relying on these contracts.
If you seriously think through the consequences of usage of this kind of tech, it's pretty dire. Due to natural cross-pollination, we could be setting ourselves up for a world where everyone must buy all of their seeds from Monsanto and their ilk, who would have a monopoly on the world's food supply. That's bad news indeed.
Why? Patents expire. If G2 seeds did not exist then there would be a greater market for alternatives.
Monsanto wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to benefit from G1 seeds through GX seeds while contaminating the supply of available non-Monsanto seeds.
In cases of cross-pollination, that's Monsanto's fault. They should be required to clean up their own mess. I don't see how they'd have grounds to control seeds that were cross-pollinated through their negligence.
Monsanto is worried about more than just some outcry if they put in termination genes. They could be opening themselves up to a great deal of pain.
Monsanto wants to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to benefit from G1 seeds through GX seeds while contaminating the supply of available non-Monsanto seeds.
In cases of cross-pollination, that's Monsanto's fault. They should be required to clean up their own mess. I don't see how they'd have grounds to control seeds that were cross-pollinated through their negligence.
Monsanto is worried about more than just some outcry if they put in termination genes. They could be opening themselves up to a great deal of pain.
Patents expire.
Unfortunately, so do monocultures.
Unfortunately, so do monocultures.
I agree.
Further, if Monsanto wants to reap the benefit of their product's self-reproduction; they should be required to pay cleanup costs (by the EPA? Department of Agriculture?) to remove "contaminated" soybeans from the rest of the environment.
It's not this farmer's fault that Monsanto's product has polluted the stock of available leftover soybeans. Monsanto should be the entity on the hook here, not the farmer.
Further, if Monsanto wants to reap the benefit of their product's self-reproduction; they should be required to pay cleanup costs (by the EPA? Department of Agriculture?) to remove "contaminated" soybeans from the rest of the environment.
It's not this farmer's fault that Monsanto's product has polluted the stock of available leftover soybeans. Monsanto should be the entity on the hook here, not the farmer.
Wow, that's literally insane. Yes, let's see if we can undermine this elegant and stable natural process that has evolved over billions of years so that we can avoid the uncomfortable experience of reexamining the assumptions of our economic system.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/killer-seeds-the-devastating-im...
Killer Seeds
The irony is GM seeds have not been effective in India and the consequences are not as rosy as what Monsanto had promised to deliver. Scathing reports of mass suicides of Indian farmers broke out as recently as three years ago when scores of farmers took their own lives in order to escape the burden of high prices and failure of Monsanto’s GM seeds.
Monsanto offered its GM seeds to the farmers of India with hopes of reaping plentiful crops. Plain and mostly uneducated farmers thought Monsanto had come to provide a “magic” formula that would transform their lives. They had no idea what was coming.
Monsanto’s seeds in India did not produce what the company had promised and farmers hoped. The expensive seeds piled up debts and destroyed farming fields. In many instances, the crops simply failed to materialize. The farmers were not aware that the GM seeds required more water than the traditional seeds. And lack of rain in many parts of India exacerbated the crop failure.
Killer Seeds
The irony is GM seeds have not been effective in India and the consequences are not as rosy as what Monsanto had promised to deliver. Scathing reports of mass suicides of Indian farmers broke out as recently as three years ago when scores of farmers took their own lives in order to escape the burden of high prices and failure of Monsanto’s GM seeds.
Monsanto offered its GM seeds to the farmers of India with hopes of reaping plentiful crops. Plain and mostly uneducated farmers thought Monsanto had come to provide a “magic” formula that would transform their lives. They had no idea what was coming.
Monsanto’s seeds in India did not produce what the company had promised and farmers hoped. The expensive seeds piled up debts and destroyed farming fields. In many instances, the crops simply failed to materialize. The farmers were not aware that the GM seeds required more water than the traditional seeds. And lack of rain in many parts of India exacerbated the crop failure.
If Monsanto patent a method of genetically modifying my child's genes (so that he is more resistant to cancer, for example), does that mean my child cannot have children without paying a license fee to Monsanto, otherwise he/she is liable for patent infringement?
If Monsato patents a virus, and it spreads out of control, can those affected, whose bodies produce more of the virus, be sued for patent infringement?
Yes, but they didn't. Your straw-man argument is pretty inaccurate here. The lawsuit isn't about the accidental cross pollination of genes. It's probably closer to duplicating copyright works by someone who bought one copy.
bingo, you've just described every genegenering company's wet dream, patent licenses fees in perpetuity, that also exponentially increase with each generation
It depends if they made your child pesticide-resistant or not
You don't patent things, you patent methods. Monsanto has patented a method of inserting and manipulating certain gene sequences in soybeans. Growing offspring of existing modified beans is not the same as performing the modification.
If they wanted their seeds to have an expiration date they should have engineered that in there too. Soybean replicants.
If they wanted their seeds to have an expiration date they should have engineered that in there too. Soybean replicants.
> You don't patent things, you patent methods.
That may be true now. There was a time, not so long ago, that a patent was denied to any idea that had not been reduced to practice, in a working physical embodiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice
Quote: "In United States patent law, the reduction to practice is a concept meaning the embodiment of the concept of an invention. The date of this embodiment is critical to the determination of priority between inventors in an interference proceeding."
(I hasten to add that the above rule about priority no longer applies. Because of recent changes, the U.S. is changing to a first-to-file system.)
Quote: "A 'working model' is usually a strong evidence to demonstrate actual reduction to practice. Unlike patent models of the 18th and 19th century, a working model is no longer a requirement of the U.S. patent law."
All this has been swept away by changes in the law, and we have the present patent system in which the patent office rubber-stamps virtually anything, and claimants work things out in court.
That may be true now. There was a time, not so long ago, that a patent was denied to any idea that had not been reduced to practice, in a working physical embodiment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduction_to_practice
Quote: "In United States patent law, the reduction to practice is a concept meaning the embodiment of the concept of an invention. The date of this embodiment is critical to the determination of priority between inventors in an interference proceeding."
(I hasten to add that the above rule about priority no longer applies. Because of recent changes, the U.S. is changing to a first-to-file system.)
Quote: "A 'working model' is usually a strong evidence to demonstrate actual reduction to practice. Unlike patent models of the 18th and 19th century, a working model is no longer a requirement of the U.S. patent law."
All this has been swept away by changes in the law, and we have the present patent system in which the patent office rubber-stamps virtually anything, and claimants work things out in court.
You can patent things other than methods. For example, If you invent a novel chemical you can patent it - that's the basis of the pharma industry business model.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_matter
Q: What does it take to make a multi-million company and its over-qualified employees forget that the purpose of life is to SPREAD?
A: GREED.
A: GREED.
What happens when a bag falls of the transport, and grows a patch ? Next the seeds drop and make a bigger patch. Who needs to pay the patent fees mother nature ?
Another scenario: cross-breeding with other crops due to bees. Your strain could get copied to the field next door: NEW problem.
And for all the evil corporations out there: make as many seeds as you can. Next put them in an airplain and spread them EVERYWHERE you can. Wait 3 yeas for the strain to spread and sew EVERYONE.
In essence you a selling a self-replicating machine not under your control ... And they don't see an issue here ?
A better way to "reward" these companies (if we want genetic mutated strains) let them prove the worth they create and pay it off by the government, since they serve the entire community. (And hope there is no corruption or abuse on the system.)
Another scenario: cross-breeding with other crops due to bees. Your strain could get copied to the field next door: NEW problem.
And for all the evil corporations out there: make as many seeds as you can. Next put them in an airplain and spread them EVERYWHERE you can. Wait 3 yeas for the strain to spread and sew EVERYONE.
In essence you a selling a self-replicating machine not under your control ... And they don't see an issue here ?
A better way to "reward" these companies (if we want genetic mutated strains) let them prove the worth they create and pay it off by the government, since they serve the entire community. (And hope there is no corruption or abuse on the system.)
To me, the following is the worst part of this entire story:
"... it is ironically Bowman’s own lack of cash that has seen the case end up at the supreme court."
Why does it take someone being bankrupt and having "nothing to loose" to get a case like this brought forward? It seems like a perversion of the concept of the court systems.
"... it is ironically Bowman’s own lack of cash that has seen the case end up at the supreme court."
Why does it take someone being bankrupt and having "nothing to loose" to get a case like this brought forward? It seems like a perversion of the concept of the court systems.
Seems like the best part to me. Usually unless you're well-off or wealthy, justice is hard to come by. In this case its the argument that matters, not the weight of wealth behind it.
To me this raises interesting questions of wider infrastructure regulation. The supply of gas to homes is heavily regulated in every country - but regulations over who owns a seed? No one ever thought such a thing possible.
The same goes for Internet search - if Google goes broke or looses its backups or charges 1 pound a month subscription what happens?
Do we need a law of innovation-to-infrastructure? Once a company achieves some innovation that is sooooo part of the world that it seems like infrastructure, do we prevent it from monetizing the same in some counter productive manner? Do we produce a oversight committee
I squirm inwardly at half those words - but then again my gas supply works, at a affordable rate.
The same goes for Internet search - if Google goes broke or looses its backups or charges 1 pound a month subscription what happens?
Do we need a law of innovation-to-infrastructure? Once a company achieves some innovation that is sooooo part of the world that it seems like infrastructure, do we prevent it from monetizing the same in some counter productive manner? Do we produce a oversight committee
I squirm inwardly at half those words - but then again my gas supply works, at a affordable rate.
Does the gas company do a great deal of R&D? Sure there's R&D involved in extraction and refining, but you seem to be talking about distribution. I think you may be talking about the (incorrect) idea that large infrastructure assets must be protected by state-enforced monopoly. Large infrastructure assets do not need this protection, and I blame Ma Bell for popularizing the idea (at least in the USA) that they do.
There's actually a huge natural gas rollout taking place in my community right now: http://www.summitnaturalgas.com/view/92 This is a large investment, which involves laying hundreds of miles of pipe and boring under the Lake of the Ozarks in three different places (in one location parallel to a privately-funded highway bridge). I understand that investors expect to be paid back over decades. Yet, no one appointed Summit to do this work, any more than anyone appointed Google or Monsanto to do what they do. Anyone in the world with an internet connection and a server farm is free to compete with Google. On day one when they turn the tap on their pipeline, Summit will be competing with numerous propane suppliers, the local incumbent electric companies, and even the long-term possibility (however remote) of another group building another natural gas pipeline. If Summit and Google don't need state protection, why would Monsanto?
There's actually a huge natural gas rollout taking place in my community right now: http://www.summitnaturalgas.com/view/92 This is a large investment, which involves laying hundreds of miles of pipe and boring under the Lake of the Ozarks in three different places (in one location parallel to a privately-funded highway bridge). I understand that investors expect to be paid back over decades. Yet, no one appointed Summit to do this work, any more than anyone appointed Google or Monsanto to do what they do. Anyone in the world with an internet connection and a server farm is free to compete with Google. On day one when they turn the tap on their pipeline, Summit will be competing with numerous propane suppliers, the local incumbent electric companies, and even the long-term possibility (however remote) of another group building another natural gas pipeline. If Summit and Google don't need state protection, why would Monsanto?
I am not saying state protection - more like state-encouraged-socially-beneficial-behaviour
Tomorrow will change so fast that relying on 75 year old farmers to take on esoteric legal points to enforce social benefit is a little unreliable
Tomorrow will change so fast that relying on 75 year old farmers to take on esoteric legal points to enforce social benefit is a little unreliable
Sure I agree that gas companies shouldn't be allowed to endanger the public in foreseeable and avoidable ways, but I sort of feel that way about everybody. If the gas company blows up your house then the courts should see that you are compensated. It seems a major step from that to "oversight committees". Maybe a committee will notice problems that most individuals won't, but there are many more individuals than there could ever be committees. We're much more likely to hear about the dastardly deeds of multinational corporations from the people they've screwed than from a government committee.
I hate Monsanto as much as everyone else but I agree with them in this case.
If farmers are permitted to replant seeds then how are companies making the seeds supposed to make money ?
I believe GM are a chance to humanity, with the potential to feed more and more people.
But why develop it and spend millions on R&D if everybody can copy your product for free ?
And as far as I know, these seeds allow farmers to use massive doses of roundup, if this guy used some roundup on his crops it's fair to say he perfectly knows these were gm seeds and that he wasn't allowed to use it for free.
If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it and do like farmers always did, with standard seeds.
I believe GM are a chance to humanity, with the potential to feed more and more people.
But why develop it and spend millions on R&D if everybody can copy your product for free ?
And as far as I know, these seeds allow farmers to use massive doses of roundup, if this guy used some roundup on his crops it's fair to say he perfectly knows these were gm seeds and that he wasn't allowed to use it for free.
If you don't want to pay for it, don't use it and do like farmers always did, with standard seeds.
> If farmers are permitted to replant seeds then how are companies making the seeds supposed to make money ?
Since when does people have a right to make a profit, even if their business plan is stupid?
> But why develop it and spend millions on R&D if everybody can copy your product for free ?
Because if you're not a totally evil bastard, you can still make a massive amount of money by creating a brand that ensures people trust you to always give them the best product?
How many people do you know that buy brand name Ibuprofen, for example, despite the fact that Boots, who found the compound and commercialized it, has not held a patent on it for decades? In fact they sold off their own premium brand (Anadin) a while back and now competes with their former brand with cheap generics that often costs a tenth or less of what Anadin charges for the same chemical compound, and still makes money off it despite competition from dozens of manufacturers.
It's possible some types of research would not pay without artificially jacked up prices like this, sure. Boots certainly would have made less from Ibuprofen without a patent initially.
But if these Monsanto seeds are so effective, then this patent acts as a de-facto tax on a whole range of foods, as unlike Ibuprofen, if they are effective enough to affect competition, "everyone" will need them. If they're not, it doesn't really matter if the R&D hadn't happened.
If it already acts like a tax, we might as well bring it under democratic control, and lose the competition distorting downsides of an artificial monopoly, by using already well established avenues for public funding of research to handle any shortfall in R&D funding from curtailing patent rights.
The agriculture industry is one of the largest recipients of government subsidies in the world as it is - shifting even a small percentage of those subsidies into funding R&D to make advances in seeds available to farmers cheaper would probably pay off.
Since when does people have a right to make a profit, even if their business plan is stupid?
> But why develop it and spend millions on R&D if everybody can copy your product for free ?
Because if you're not a totally evil bastard, you can still make a massive amount of money by creating a brand that ensures people trust you to always give them the best product?
How many people do you know that buy brand name Ibuprofen, for example, despite the fact that Boots, who found the compound and commercialized it, has not held a patent on it for decades? In fact they sold off their own premium brand (Anadin) a while back and now competes with their former brand with cheap generics that often costs a tenth or less of what Anadin charges for the same chemical compound, and still makes money off it despite competition from dozens of manufacturers.
It's possible some types of research would not pay without artificially jacked up prices like this, sure. Boots certainly would have made less from Ibuprofen without a patent initially.
But if these Monsanto seeds are so effective, then this patent acts as a de-facto tax on a whole range of foods, as unlike Ibuprofen, if they are effective enough to affect competition, "everyone" will need them. If they're not, it doesn't really matter if the R&D hadn't happened.
If it already acts like a tax, we might as well bring it under democratic control, and lose the competition distorting downsides of an artificial monopoly, by using already well established avenues for public funding of research to handle any shortfall in R&D funding from curtailing patent rights.
The agriculture industry is one of the largest recipients of government subsidies in the world as it is - shifting even a small percentage of those subsidies into funding R&D to make advances in seeds available to farmers cheaper would probably pay off.
> Since when does people have a right to make a profit, even if their business plan is stupid?
As long as it provides value for the society. If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. Do you think it's better for the society? Well Monsanto isn't probably the best example because it's the worst company I can think of, but you get my point. That's the same with vaccines, it costs a lot of money to develop, if you allow everyone to copy it then there's no market and no vaccines. I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it.
> But if these Monsanto seeds are so effective, then this patent acts as a de-facto tax on a whole range of foods, as unlike Ibuprofen, if they are effective enough to affect competition, "everyone" will need them
So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market?
I agree with you these technologies should be public and subsidized by the taxpayers because it benefits everyone. But people don't want to pay for it, and that's their right, so we use private companies that sell it to people willing to pay.
As long as it provides value for the society. If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore. Do you think it's better for the society? Well Monsanto isn't probably the best example because it's the worst company I can think of, but you get my point. That's the same with vaccines, it costs a lot of money to develop, if you allow everyone to copy it then there's no market and no vaccines. I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it.
> But if these Monsanto seeds are so effective, then this patent acts as a de-facto tax on a whole range of foods, as unlike Ibuprofen, if they are effective enough to affect competition, "everyone" will need them
So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market?
I agree with you these technologies should be public and subsidized by the taxpayers because it benefits everyone. But people don't want to pay for it, and that's their right, so we use private companies that sell it to people willing to pay.
> If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore.
Like I mentioned in another post, their seed division is over 100 years old. I don't think they are going to disappear overnight because a patent they recently acquired, relatively speaking, went away.
Their biggest sell is that they are able improve the yields on the crops year over year. Replanting the seed you grew last year will leave you falling behind the competition, and probably out of business after a few years. Just one bushel per acre difference means tens of thousands of dollars for the average farm. With razor thin margins, you cannot afford to miss that.
Also, Monsanto is a huge business. The thing they seem to be most excited about right now is their precision agriculture division. (i.e. applying electronics and software to grow better crops) Given the nature of this site, I'm sure you can see the potential there alone.
Like I mentioned in another post, their seed division is over 100 years old. I don't think they are going to disappear overnight because a patent they recently acquired, relatively speaking, went away.
Their biggest sell is that they are able improve the yields on the crops year over year. Replanting the seed you grew last year will leave you falling behind the competition, and probably out of business after a few years. Just one bushel per acre difference means tens of thousands of dollars for the average farm. With razor thin margins, you cannot afford to miss that.
Also, Monsanto is a huge business. The thing they seem to be most excited about right now is their precision agriculture division. (i.e. applying electronics and software to grow better crops) Given the nature of this site, I'm sure you can see the potential there alone.
> As long as it provides value for the society.
.. and this is the basic assumption of patents: They should provide value for society. If they don't, then they are a bad bargain and should be taken off the table. They are not some perpetual right. They are a grant from society in return for certain things. If the benefits don't exceed the costs or damages accruing from taking away the freedoms they curtail, then we should take these grants off the table.
> If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore.
Someone else addressed that better than me.
> I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it.
... or change the law, to take this business model off the table, if the software company abuses the rights to place restrictions that we as a society finds not to be worth the benefits we get from it.
Again: They do not have a right to profit from their chosen business model when this business model is based on exploiting a grant of rights that depends on the restriction of the freedom of the public that society chose to offer with specific goals. They have a right - as long as we continue to offer that trade - to try to profit from it. But we also have a right to take that deal away if we don't benefit sufficiently from it, or if the restraints it adds prove too harsh.
> So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market?
You miss the point entirely, which was that if we're already paying for this technology, then for society there is no cost saving in leaving the R&D to Monsanto vs. paying for it from public funds. And the argument
.. and this is the basic assumption of patents: They should provide value for society. If they don't, then they are a bad bargain and should be taken off the table. They are not some perpetual right. They are a grant from society in return for certain things. If the benefits don't exceed the costs or damages accruing from taking away the freedoms they curtail, then we should take these grants off the table.
> If you allow farmers to replant seeds then Monsanto doesn't exist anymore.
Someone else addressed that better than me.
> I see gm crops like a software license limited in time, it's not because we agree that you can use my software for a year that you have the right to use it for as long as you want. Don't like this business model ? Then don't use it.
... or change the law, to take this business model off the table, if the software company abuses the rights to place restrictions that we as a society finds not to be worth the benefits we get from it.
Again: They do not have a right to profit from their chosen business model when this business model is based on exploiting a grant of rights that depends on the restriction of the freedom of the public that society chose to offer with specific goals. They have a right - as long as we continue to offer that trade - to try to profit from it. But we also have a right to take that deal away if we don't benefit sufficiently from it, or if the restraints it adds prove too harsh.
> So what? If a company build a harvester that improves harvest by 20%, am I entitled to steal it because it distorts the market?
You miss the point entirely, which was that if we're already paying for this technology, then for society there is no cost saving in leaving the R&D to Monsanto vs. paying for it from public funds. And the argument
> As long as it provides value to the society.
Such a simple phrase, so difficult to implement. In fact, the only true and proven method of valuing something, in History, has been the capitalist market. I think you accidentally supported the parent comment author's point.
Such a simple phrase, so difficult to implement. In fact, the only true and proven method of valuing something, in History, has been the capitalist market. I think you accidentally supported the parent comment author's point.
Well I don't know your method of valuing something but if farmers want to pay for it (or "steal" it) I would probably say it brings some value to them.
Which point of the parent comment am I supporting exactly? We both agreed these technologies shouldn't be developed for profit, I'd love to see some international organization doing the research and giving the results for free. Actually I think it already exists, I can't remember exactly which organization but there are some non-profit groups researching better crops.
Which point of the parent comment am I supporting exactly? We both agreed these technologies shouldn't be developed for profit, I'd love to see some international organization doing the research and giving the results for free. Actually I think it already exists, I can't remember exactly which organization but there are some non-profit groups researching better crops.
> But why develop it and spend millions on R&D if everybody can copy your product for free ?
A very bad business model indeed.
A very bad business model indeed.
Wouldn't that apply to software & video media as well? AMC sells me a movie, then I copy it and send it to all my friends with no loss in quality for free. Companies then spend tons of money inventing DRM and copy protection techniques. Should Monsanto produce a modified seed that produces seedless fruit? Of course this wouldn't work for products where the seed is the consumable end result (soybean, corn).
It seems like Monsanto's business model is no better than our's (software) when one can copy the product easily and distribute it. The only difference is that there are very few seed manufacturers so Monsanto stands alone at trial. Suppose in the future when seed genetic programmers are as common as indie software shops, should these genetic programmers have similar IP protections that software people take for granted?
It seems like Monsanto's business model is no better than our's (software) when one can copy the product easily and distribute it. The only difference is that there are very few seed manufacturers so Monsanto stands alone at trial. Suppose in the future when seed genetic programmers are as common as indie software shops, should these genetic programmers have similar IP protections that software people take for granted?
I don't know. My personal feeling is all this patent stuff sounds horribly wrong, be it software or living organisms.
Copy infringement of movies is your choice. You could just watch it and not redistribute it.
Copy infringement of seeds is by design. You cannot plant, grow, sell or process your crop without the basic operation of replicating the original.
Copy infringement of seeds is by design. You cannot plant, grow, sell or process your crop without the basic operation of replicating the original.
Monsanto makes money selling chemical pesticide (roundup, etc) that kills everything except their modified seed. So they can still make plenty of money selling the chemicals. Though this perpetuation of ever more toxic pesticides/herbicides in a war against evolution is eventually going to end badly.
> If farmers are permitted to replant seeds then how are companies making the seeds supposed to make money ?
There are a number of reasons why a farmer would want to buy from a seed company over producing their own. Monsanto's Dekalb seed division is more than 100 years old, which long predates these patent issues.
There are a number of reasons why a farmer would want to buy from a seed company over producing their own. Monsanto's Dekalb seed division is more than 100 years old, which long predates these patent issues.
> If farmers are permitted to replant seeds then how are companies making the seeds supposed to make money ?
I'm not a biologist, but I assume it is possible to make 1G grains edible but infertile -- incapable of sprouting a new plant and/or growing 2G grains. That would render 1G grains useless for sewing, and still usable for anything else. Much like cross of horse and donkey is a viable, but infertile mule.
The way I imagine it, Monsanto have to grow two strains of grain, each giving viable grains when pollinated within the strain, but giving only infertile 1G seeds when cross-pollinated.
Of course that would generate extra costs for Monsanto: additional research, maintaining two separate strains and cross-pollinating them.
I'm not a biologist, but I assume it is possible to make 1G grains edible but infertile -- incapable of sprouting a new plant and/or growing 2G grains. That would render 1G grains useless for sewing, and still usable for anything else. Much like cross of horse and donkey is a viable, but infertile mule.
The way I imagine it, Monsanto have to grow two strains of grain, each giving viable grains when pollinated within the strain, but giving only infertile 1G seeds when cross-pollinated.
Of course that would generate extra costs for Monsanto: additional research, maintaining two separate strains and cross-pollinating them.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Technology
Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999.[2] Customers who buy patented transgenic seeds from Monsanto must sign a contract not to save or sell the seeds from their harvest,[3] which preempts the need for a "terminator gene".
Because some stakeholders expressed concerns that this technology might lead to dependence for small farmers, Monsanto Company, an agricultural products company and the world's biggest seed supplier, pledged not to commercialize the technology in 1999.[2] Customers who buy patented transgenic seeds from Monsanto must sign a contract not to save or sell the seeds from their harvest,[3] which preempts the need for a "terminator gene".
The concern was that the "terminator" gene would force poor farmers to buy seeds every year, and they alleviated that concern by instead forcing poor farmers to buy seeds every year by contract?
Let me guess, the "stakeholders" we have in mind here are trial lawyers? Sometimes the technological solution really is better than the "social" solution. It leads me to wonder just how effective this terminator thing really is.
Let me guess, the "stakeholders" we have in mind here are trial lawyers? Sometimes the technological solution really is better than the "social" solution. It leads me to wonder just how effective this terminator thing really is.
Well, it's like the ultimate genetic defect. So basically relying on the technological solution alone isn't going to last, because of all the billions of seeds... the ones which can reproduce will be the ones which do.
Hahaha, that's a handy redefinition of "genetic defect", but I doubt Steven Jay Gould would agree...
Actually the vast majority of soybeans are processed into useful products like shoyu, livestock feed, plastics, etc. If the viable soybean were a needle in a haystack, no farmer would bother looking for it.
Actually the vast majority of soybeans are processed into useful products like shoyu, livestock feed, plastics, etc. If the viable soybean were a needle in a haystack, no farmer would bother looking for it.
Disclosure of bias: I'm ideologically against the idea of messing with fundamental aspects of life (and the basis of agriculture) for the purposes of copy protection. That said, I very much agree with you. I'd like to explain though and at least elaborate on my biases :)
What you might see would be e.g. the spread of the copyrighted genes without the terminator genes rather than some farmer grovelling through a pile of seeds trying to find something viable. Or descendants of copyrighted plants growing where they shouldn't be - because the ones that could, did. It seems to me that even if you have the terminator genes, as a "corporate innovator", you still need IP protection. A reasonable and conservative person should assume things fuck up at scale and especially with viral technologies like, say, life.
On the other hand, if terminator genes work well, they start looking like a bad idea. For a start they're strategically bad for any nation which might ever be at war or subject to terrorism, due to the fragility of centralised seed production and distribution.
Also, the idea that the terminator genes would spread to other plants (e.g. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes which I never was too worried about) starts to look more like a real thing.
What you might see would be e.g. the spread of the copyrighted genes without the terminator genes rather than some farmer grovelling through a pile of seeds trying to find something viable. Or descendants of copyrighted plants growing where they shouldn't be - because the ones that could, did. It seems to me that even if you have the terminator genes, as a "corporate innovator", you still need IP protection. A reasonable and conservative person should assume things fuck up at scale and especially with viral technologies like, say, life.
On the other hand, if terminator genes work well, they start looking like a bad idea. For a start they're strategically bad for any nation which might ever be at war or subject to terrorism, due to the fragility of centralised seed production and distribution.
Also, the idea that the terminator genes would spread to other plants (e.g. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featgenes which I never was too worried about) starts to look more like a real thing.
I appreciate that bias and appreciate your admission, but I don't share it. I view life as a hungry equilibrium. It has existed on this planet for a long time, and has endured much worse shocks than Monsanto can produce. In the long run biologists will simply see the contributions of intelligent life as another source of genetic variability. That isn't to say that humans always have good ideas about genetic changes: consider the dachshund. Only planetary-scale events have the potential to really screw things up for life per se.
I think we can agree that as harmful non-inherited transmissible genetic variation goes, the terminator gene (if it actually works; do we really know why Monsanto didn't buy Delta & Pine?) is probably the least worrisome. A gene that acts against reproductive fitness is not one that will ever be common in nature. As for other variations, patented or not, I expect most will be out-competed outside carefully controlled environments. Few domestic chickens live long in a predator-rich environment. Roundup tolerance itself is unlikely to enhance fitness in the absence of someone willing to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars every year. Those few human-created variations that can establish themselves in wild populations, if we ever discover such, I'm just going to call evolution. The spectre of the super-weed seems silly to me: the essence of a weed is that, in the absence of human intervention, it crowds out plants that humans like. Roundup is only agriculturally valuable for cultivation of varieties that tolerate Roundup; if weeds gained that tolerance it wouldn't be a net loss for humanity.
I think we can agree that as harmful non-inherited transmissible genetic variation goes, the terminator gene (if it actually works; do we really know why Monsanto didn't buy Delta & Pine?) is probably the least worrisome. A gene that acts against reproductive fitness is not one that will ever be common in nature. As for other variations, patented or not, I expect most will be out-competed outside carefully controlled environments. Few domestic chickens live long in a predator-rich environment. Roundup tolerance itself is unlikely to enhance fitness in the absence of someone willing to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars every year. Those few human-created variations that can establish themselves in wild populations, if we ever discover such, I'm just going to call evolution. The spectre of the super-weed seems silly to me: the essence of a weed is that, in the absence of human intervention, it crowds out plants that humans like. Roundup is only agriculturally valuable for cultivation of varieties that tolerate Roundup; if weeds gained that tolerance it wouldn't be a net loss for humanity.
[deleted]
It's probably possible to do that with fruit (making seedless fruit), but probably not possible with edible seeds like soybean or corn. If we were playing God here, why didn't Monsanto just invent a plant that would produce all different kinds of fruit on one plant so that we didn't have to plant a bunch of different crops? It would be even better if the plant could position the fruit at known intervals on a branch to increase the speed of harvesting machinery.
So obviously some things aren't quite possible. Your suggestion is nice, but I don't think it's as easy as doing a few years of research.
So obviously some things aren't quite possible. Your suggestion is nice, but I don't think it's as easy as doing a few years of research.
I believe there is a variety of rice that is an infertile hybrid. I recall seeing it on some PBS show,l or similar, but don't have a reference at the moment.
Well, all I'm saying is if it were easy to do, Monsanto probably would have done it already to protect their business model. Unfortunately modifying DNA is not quite as easy as setting compiler flags.
Oh god. Can we just stop following the law in something so obvious? What's fair and normal for 10000000 of years, has recently been changed by some writings on a paper.
And don't give me the 'you let this slip but where do you draw the line next time'.
Humanity has become so obsessed with these rules, guidelines, standards, that we've imprisoned ourselves for the sake of a few bucks.
In the end, there will be just one factory with a big tomato logo on it, from which all the worlds tomatoes will come.
In the end, there will be just one factory with a big tomato logo on it, from which all the worlds tomatoes will come.
The argument not being made here is this: why should you be able to patent DNA sequences? Sure Monsanto is patenting the method to create the sequences, but enforcing the end result of the method (seeds) doesn't make any sense as a patent. It's like patenting a machine that makes widgets, then suing people who don't use the widgets the way you'd like them to.
Why this link from "rawstory" instead of the guardian? http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2013/feb/09/soybean-farmer-mon...
The Supreme Court of Canada heard a similar case 9 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmei...
(Spoiler alert: Monsanto won.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmei...
(Spoiler alert: Monsanto won.)
This guy needs a kickstarter campaign. He can send us some 2G soybeans from his farm if he wins the case and we can all plant them in our gardens.
Unrelated, but their mobile version of the page is utterly unusable on my iPad 1. Wished they just served up the non-mobile version.
My question is, will Justice Clarence Thomas recuse himself from a case involving his former employer?
Funny I just watched a documentary a few days ago about Monsanto and how some GM crops strip the lining and the gut causing a myriad of health problems. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnlTYFKBg18 Not sure how much of it is fact though.
Monsanto owns a patent on certain soybean seeds. They sell 1G seeds to farmers, allowing the farmers to grow them into 2G seeds. The farmers are not licensed to plant the 2G seeds. Bowman bought some 2G seeds and planted them, and Monsanto sued.
Bowman says that the planting of 2G seeds is permitted under the doctrine of "patent exhaustion." According to that doctrine, if a patented physical object is sold under proper license, then a patent lawsuit involving that same physical object is not permitted, even if the object is sold to someone else.
The lower court said that patent exhaustion doesn't apply to the 2G seeds, because Monsanto only granted a license on the 1G seeds. The 1G seeds are not the same physical object as the 2G seeds.
At first I thought this was a simple case, but Bowman is making a very interesting argument in the Supreme Court. It is based on an old case called Quanta.
In Quanta, the patent was directed to a certain computer process, and the patent owner sold computer chips with circuitry for performing that process. The chips themselves were useless, of course, but they just needed to be combined with some standard hardware and turned on to work. Did this mean that, by adding the extra hardware, a new physical object had been made that could be the subject of a lawsuit? The Supreme Court said no: because the chips "embodied" the patented invention and only required standard hardware to be added, the chips invoked patent exhaustion, so lawsuits based on their further use were barred.
Bowman's argument: the 1G seeds "embody" the invention (by having the DNA and biological machinery to produce 2G seeds), and only "standard hardware" (soil, watering, etc.) needs to be added to get the working invention (the 2G seeds), so therefore the 2G seeds fall under patent exhaustion.
The main counterargument is that in Quanta, the original computer chips were still present and intact, whereas the 2G seeds do not include the 1G seeds intact. This requires a narrower interpretation of Quanta, and I could see the Supreme Court going with either this narrower reading or Bowman's broader one.
(For fun, you can try to come up with hypothetical cases that are in between: what if the patentee in Quanta had sold semiconductor masks for making chips?)