Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court(rt.com)
rt.com
Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
http://rt.com/usa/patented-monsanto-court-patent-210/
65 comments
Since I am not a lawyer and know nothing about patent law, I have no problem with what the farmer did, up until the point I read that he had intentionally signed other agreements with Monsanto, and that, I think, poisons his intentions.
Apart from that, I can revel in my ignorance that tells me that collecting grain from a common silo and spraying it with roundup is not much more a big deal than going to a river and panning for gold, or passing a list through a filter.
Or even was growing yogurt, and intentionally subjecting his cultures to "too cold temps" in order to evolve strains that would grow at lower temps.
Apart from that, I can revel in my ignorance that tells me that collecting grain from a common silo and spraying it with roundup is not much more a big deal than going to a river and panning for gold, or passing a list through a filter.
Or even was growing yogurt, and intentionally subjecting his cultures to "too cold temps" in order to evolve strains that would grow at lower temps.
Look I'm no proponent of Monsanto, but they do have a point here.
Roundup will kill all non-monsanto plants; they change the formula every year to make sure that you have to keep buying seeds. In this case, the farmer grabbed a ton of seeds, sprayed everything with roundup and kept only the seeds which survived; the seeds he knew to be from Monsanto.
I don't like the idea that Monsanto can go to your farm and throw seeds and suddenly you owe them money, but it seems like they might be in the right here. The farmer did go out of his way to pursue survivable seeds without paying Monsanto for the privilege.
This is different from Yogurt where you have some natural selection. He didn't introduce a chemical to the Yogurt with the intention of killing all non-chemically-protected strains.
Roundup will kill all non-monsanto plants; they change the formula every year to make sure that you have to keep buying seeds. In this case, the farmer grabbed a ton of seeds, sprayed everything with roundup and kept only the seeds which survived; the seeds he knew to be from Monsanto.
I don't like the idea that Monsanto can go to your farm and throw seeds and suddenly you owe them money, but it seems like they might be in the right here. The farmer did go out of his way to pursue survivable seeds without paying Monsanto for the privilege.
This is different from Yogurt where you have some natural selection. He didn't introduce a chemical to the Yogurt with the intention of killing all non-chemically-protected strains.
Oh I'm sure I am probably in the legal wrong.
I think that if cable companies broadcast encrypted signals in through my house, I should legally be able to decrypt them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
I think that if an Apple employee leaves an iPhone 6 in a bar, I should legally be able to break it apart. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
It might be ethically wrong for me to do so, but it should be legal for me to do so.
If Monsanto can't keep its products out of a community silo, and Farmer John wants to go fishing for their seeds by spraying them all with a commonly obtained chemical and seeing what survives, I think that should be legal too.
I think that if cable companies broadcast encrypted signals in through my house, I should legally be able to decrypt them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
I think that if an Apple employee leaves an iPhone 6 in a bar, I should legally be able to break it apart. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
It might be ethically wrong for me to do so, but it should be legal for me to do so.
If Monsanto can't keep its products out of a community silo, and Farmer John wants to go fishing for their seeds by spraying them all with a commonly obtained chemical and seeing what survives, I think that should be legal too.
I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)
No, I don't think that should be legal. Many places have data protection & privacy laws. If you get access to private information, you can't do what you want with it. I'm fine with that being the law and ethics.
No, I don't think that should be legal. Many places have data protection & privacy laws. If you get access to private information, you can't do what you want with it. I'm fine with that being the law and ethics.
I think the airwaves are the public's airwaves. If you broadcast unencrypted information through them, Joe Average Public should not get in trouble for listening to them. But I'll go further to. I think my living room is mine. If you send your encrypted information through it, I should be able to listen to it.
I was born. I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. Things that I can witness and observe in the privacy of my own home should be none of yours or anyone else's business.
If that makes it hard for certain business models, I'm okay with that because the country is intended for the use of its citizens, not its corporations.
I was born. I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. Things that I can witness and observe in the privacy of my own home should be none of yours or anyone else's business.
If that makes it hard for certain business models, I'm okay with that because the country is intended for the use of its citizens, not its corporations.
I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement.
That is not how laws work. You consent is not required.
(Fun fact: There is some people who think that consent is required (and can be withdrawn) for laws to apply to them. It's called "freemen-on-the-land". It's like homeopathy but for laws. It's quite funny)
That is not how laws work. You consent is not required.
(Fun fact: There is some people who think that consent is required (and can be withdrawn) for laws to apply to them. It's called "freemen-on-the-land". It's like homeopathy but for laws. It's quite funny)
I think you're missing the point.
Broadcasting your radio signals unencrypted means there is no privacy. Making a law saying that it is private is like making a law the sun should come up at 5am. The sun will do what it wants and the communication will be overheard.
If you broadcast signals that are encrypted, but that I can intercept without any kind of physical tampering or alteration or destruction of the signal, again laws are of no help to anyone. The communication will be decrypted and overheard.
It's better to make laws that conform to reality than to make laws that tilt at windmills and are used arbitrarily against citizens.
Broadcasting your radio signals unencrypted means there is no privacy. Making a law saying that it is private is like making a law the sun should come up at 5am. The sun will do what it wants and the communication will be overheard.
If you broadcast signals that are encrypted, but that I can intercept without any kind of physical tampering or alteration or destruction of the signal, again laws are of no help to anyone. The communication will be decrypted and overheard.
It's better to make laws that conform to reality than to make laws that tilt at windmills and are used arbitrarily against citizens.
You think it should be legal to steal people's phones and break them apart? Why?! Isn't that the "Finders Keepers Losers Weepers" doctrine?
I said lose, not steal.
I didn't say "steal" anyone's phones.
And I didn't say it was ethical behavior.
But yes, I think if you lose your trade secrets, your product, whether it's a phone or whether it's the formula for Coca Cola, or KFC, then yes it's lost, and it's your fault.
"If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone"
I don't really see too many laws enacted to ensure the stuff I lose gets back to me, and so because of that I don't understand why there are laws to protect an enormous corporation's property in ways that my property is not protected.
If you can convince me my own personal property is protected in the same manner, I will be happy to change my mind.
I didn't say "steal" anyone's phones.
And I didn't say it was ethical behavior.
But yes, I think if you lose your trade secrets, your product, whether it's a phone or whether it's the formula for Coca Cola, or KFC, then yes it's lost, and it's your fault.
"If you ever drop your keys into a river of molten lava, let 'em go, because man, they're gone"
I don't really see too many laws enacted to ensure the stuff I lose gets back to me, and so because of that I don't understand why there are laws to protect an enormous corporation's property in ways that my property is not protected.
If you can convince me my own personal property is protected in the same manner, I will be happy to change my mind.
Picking up someone's phone that they left at a bar and doing a teardown on it is theft. Not in a "I think this is equivalent to theft" sense; it is theft in the legal "you can be charged with theft for doing it" sense.
It is illegal to take things that other people use and appropriate them for yourself. If someone finds your phone on the street, they need to try to return it.
It is illegal to take things that other people use and appropriate them for yourself. If someone finds your phone on the street, they need to try to return it.
Picking up someone's phone that they left at a bar and doing a teardown on it is theft. Not in a "I think this is equivalent to theft" sense; it is theft in the legal "you can be charged with theft for doing it" sense.
I know this because I know this is what happened to Gawker.
It is illegal to take things that other people use and appropriate them for yourself. If someone finds your phone on the street, they need to try to return it.
I don't know this. That's what I've been saying. Can you point to laws that succinctly state that? Can you point to stories of law enforcement actually investigating such losses?
You might be right, but I've never encountered anyone saying that they lost something and the law helped them get it back. With the exception of money I've never encountered anything in any class growing up detailing what the citizen's duty was when finding a lost article. And even with money, it's pretty clear the responsibilities of the authorities differ from location to location and much of it is on the order of "turn it in, if no one comes for it within 30 days, it's yours".
Is there law that states that?
I know this because I know this is what happened to Gawker.
It is illegal to take things that other people use and appropriate them for yourself. If someone finds your phone on the street, they need to try to return it.
I don't know this. That's what I've been saying. Can you point to laws that succinctly state that? Can you point to stories of law enforcement actually investigating such losses?
You might be right, but I've never encountered anyone saying that they lost something and the law helped them get it back. With the exception of money I've never encountered anything in any class growing up detailing what the citizen's duty was when finding a lost article. And even with money, it's pretty clear the responsibilities of the authorities differ from location to location and much of it is on the order of "turn it in, if no one comes for it within 30 days, it's yours".
Is there law that states that?
You can find similar laws in many states. Here is Florida's:
705.102 Reporting lost or abandoned property.— (1) Whenever any person finds any lost or abandoned property, such person shall report the description and location of the property to a law enforcement officer. ... (3) It is unlawful for any person who finds any lost or abandoned property to appropriate the same to his or her own use or to refuse to deliver the same when required. (4) Any person who unlawfully appropriates such lost or abandoned property to his or her own use or refuses to deliver such property when required commits theft as defined in s. 812.014, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.*
Similar laws are on the books in many US jurisdictions. It is actually quite common to bring police into these matters. (P.S. You might reasonably think of e.g. an envelope with one paycheck worth of money as the upper bound on property likely to be found abandoned, but a lot of the legal cases for this sort of thing involve cash hordes or doing things like abandoning e.g. a building or very valuable capital machinery.)
There's a locally famous case in my neck of Japan where a construction company, hired to break ground on a new building, discovered approximately $300,000 in cash buried in a tin can. It actually went before a magistrate, quite unusually for Japan, because it was very unclear who owned the money. The ruling was that the construction company received 25% (for having legal control of the work site) and the workers received 75% (for having actually found the money), while the land owner received 0%, because they had "no cognizable interest in property which they were unaware existed", and the (unknown) owner of the property had forfeited any interest in it by abandoning it in circumstances where they could not reasonably have precluded others from accessing it.
The court might have been smiling as it said that, particularly to the land owner, because the "Everybody knows it and nobody is saying it" conclusion was that the only reason somebody buries $300k and refuses to acknowledge it when it is unearthed is because the money is dirty. (The rumor was "untaxed proceeds of mob operations.")
705.102 Reporting lost or abandoned property.— (1) Whenever any person finds any lost or abandoned property, such person shall report the description and location of the property to a law enforcement officer. ... (3) It is unlawful for any person who finds any lost or abandoned property to appropriate the same to his or her own use or to refuse to deliver the same when required. (4) Any person who unlawfully appropriates such lost or abandoned property to his or her own use or refuses to deliver such property when required commits theft as defined in s. 812.014, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.*
Similar laws are on the books in many US jurisdictions. It is actually quite common to bring police into these matters. (P.S. You might reasonably think of e.g. an envelope with one paycheck worth of money as the upper bound on property likely to be found abandoned, but a lot of the legal cases for this sort of thing involve cash hordes or doing things like abandoning e.g. a building or very valuable capital machinery.)
There's a locally famous case in my neck of Japan where a construction company, hired to break ground on a new building, discovered approximately $300,000 in cash buried in a tin can. It actually went before a magistrate, quite unusually for Japan, because it was very unclear who owned the money. The ruling was that the construction company received 25% (for having legal control of the work site) and the workers received 75% (for having actually found the money), while the land owner received 0%, because they had "no cognizable interest in property which they were unaware existed", and the (unknown) owner of the property had forfeited any interest in it by abandoning it in circumstances where they could not reasonably have precluded others from accessing it.
The court might have been smiling as it said that, particularly to the land owner, because the "Everybody knows it and nobody is saying it" conclusion was that the only reason somebody buries $300k and refuses to acknowledge it when it is unearthed is because the money is dirty. (The rumor was "untaxed proceeds of mob operations.")
Thank you, that's interesting and leads to this from the wiki (corresponding to English common law, I think.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_pr...
"The rights of a finder of such property are determined in part by the status in which it is found. Because these classifications have developed under the ancient and often archaic common law of England, they turn on nuanced distinctions. The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.[1] This rule varies by jurisdiction"
At any rate, it basically seems to boil down to what I've said, which is that unless there is a specific law in your area stating otherwise, if you lose property, you lost it, and while it may be unethical to not report it, it's generally not illegal.
Should it be? In general I'd say no, because off the top of my head, it seems the costs outweigh the benefits. And then we come to how that impacts Monsanto.
I'd say if Monsanto can't keep it's seeds out of a silo, that's Monsanto's problem and not one that needs government intervention, which is likely to be massive and onerous to other interests. It's the nature of seeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_pr...
"The rights of a finder of such property are determined in part by the status in which it is found. Because these classifications have developed under the ancient and often archaic common law of England, they turn on nuanced distinctions. The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.[1] This rule varies by jurisdiction"
At any rate, it basically seems to boil down to what I've said, which is that unless there is a specific law in your area stating otherwise, if you lose property, you lost it, and while it may be unethical to not report it, it's generally not illegal.
Should it be? In general I'd say no, because off the top of my head, it seems the costs outweigh the benefits. And then we come to how that impacts Monsanto.
I'd say if Monsanto can't keep it's seeds out of a silo, that's Monsanto's problem and not one that needs government intervention, which is likely to be massive and onerous to other interests. It's the nature of seeds.
A couple people have mentioned that the Roundup formula changes every year. Where did that idea come from? Roundup's active ingredient is glyphosate, aka N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, and it's been that way since Roundup was introduced in the 1970s.
It's a short opinion, written in fairly plain English, and worth reading: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf.
The most salient points are on page 9-10:
"Still, Bowman has another seeds-are-special argument: that soybeans naturally “self-replicate or ‘sprout’ unless stored in a controlled manner,” and thus “it was the planted soybean, not Bowman” himself, that made replicas of Monsanto’s patented invention. Brief for Petitioner 42; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 14 (“[F]armers, when they plant seeds, they don’t exercise any control . . . over their crop” or “over the creative process”). But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way,the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained, supra at 2–3, Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium. He purchased beans from a grain elevator anticipating that many would be Roundup Ready; applied a glyphosate-based herbicide in a way that culled any plants without the patented trait; and saved beans from the rest for the next season." (9)
"Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose." (10)
"We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article." (10)
The most salient points are on page 9-10:
"Still, Bowman has another seeds-are-special argument: that soybeans naturally “self-replicate or ‘sprout’ unless stored in a controlled manner,” and thus “it was the planted soybean, not Bowman” himself, that made replicas of Monsanto’s patented invention. Brief for Petitioner 42; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 14 (“[F]armers, when they plant seeds, they don’t exercise any control . . . over their crop” or “over the creative process”). But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way,the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained, supra at 2–3, Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium. He purchased beans from a grain elevator anticipating that many would be Roundup Ready; applied a glyphosate-based herbicide in a way that culled any plants without the patented trait; and saved beans from the rest for the next season." (9)
"Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose." (10)
"We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article." (10)
Although many people hate to see Monsanto win, it seems clear that this case was well considered, and that the license was violated here. No one should be surprised that Monsanto won this one.
However, the passage of the Farmer Assurance Provision aka. "The Monsanto Protection Act" is a much more horrific legislative end-run around the will of the people.
However, the passage of the Farmer Assurance Provision aka. "The Monsanto Protection Act" is a much more horrific legislative end-run around the will of the people.
the license was violated here
I can see this point. Contracts should be honored.
However, the string "patent" occurs 96 times in the ruling in question. ("licens" occurs eight times.) It is difficult to credit that this was a case about licenses rather than one about patents.
I can see this point. Contracts should be honored.
However, the string "patent" occurs 96 times in the ruling in question. ("licens" occurs eight times.) It is difficult to credit that this was a case about licenses rather than one about patents.
It seems to me that this whole legal struggle would have been unnecessary if Monsanto had not been pressured into abandoning genetic use restriction technology [1], aka "terminator genes".
I am aware though not fully acquainted with the concerns about "food security" in developing nations that led to the moratorium, but at least in developed nations, why favor the legal tactic of signing contracts that forbid replanting over the technological solution? They seem to accomplish the same end, after all. It also seems prudent, from an ecological perspective, to ensure that genetically modified plants cannot accidentally spread into the wild.
I cannot help but suspect at some level that the widespread fear of this technology is the result of successful scaremongering based on its unfortunate moniker ("terminator" or "suicide" seeds); it would be reassuring to learn of better reasons for the ban.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
I am aware though not fully acquainted with the concerns about "food security" in developing nations that led to the moratorium, but at least in developed nations, why favor the legal tactic of signing contracts that forbid replanting over the technological solution? They seem to accomplish the same end, after all. It also seems prudent, from an ecological perspective, to ensure that genetically modified plants cannot accidentally spread into the wild.
I cannot help but suspect at some level that the widespread fear of this technology is the result of successful scaremongering based on its unfortunate moniker ("terminator" or "suicide" seeds); it would be reassuring to learn of better reasons for the ban.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
It sounds like the primary reason for the ban on this technology is that the green lobby doesn't like it.
IANAL but it seems especially bad that the verdict was unanimous. I guess it really is time to shutter the USDA, because any pretense that this government supports the farmer, rather than the same corporate interests that all other agencies do, is demolished at this point.
Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all.
I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm them and resell them at a lower cost until the end of time?
Maybe we need a different type of IP protection for this kind of thing: If you're able to independently reproduce this patented gene on your own then by all means utilize it, otherwise buy from us. But I find it hard to find the farmer wholly sympathetic on this whole thing.
And after all, this decision makes its harder to introduce those supposedly-evil GMOs in our American farms, so this should really be considered a victory, amirite?
I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm them and resell them at a lower cost until the end of time?
Maybe we need a different type of IP protection for this kind of thing: If you're able to independently reproduce this patented gene on your own then by all means utilize it, otherwise buy from us. But I find it hard to find the farmer wholly sympathetic on this whole thing.
And after all, this decision makes its harder to introduce those supposedly-evil GMOs in our American farms, so this should really be considered a victory, amirite?
>> I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies)
Can you name any YC-backed companies whose products are widely suspected to be causing unprecedented harm to society (or at least have the potential to) but are getting increasing legal immunity? We also hate corporations that enforce patents in software because it's ridiculous to patent software - how about patenting genetic codes?
Can you name any YC-backed companies whose products are widely suspected to be causing unprecedented harm to society (or at least have the potential to) but are getting increasing legal immunity? We also hate corporations that enforce patents in software because it's ridiculous to patent software - how about patenting genetic codes?
How many YC-backed companies are simply facets of the half-trillion dollar global advertising industry, which is rooted in trademark monopolies and has the effect of getting people to pay huge premiums for cheap products by creating artificial differentiation between otherwise fungible goods?
Well, Hipmunk (to pick a random one I've happened to use before) makes it easier to fly around, which causes increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere, which causes increased sea levels and higher global temperatures. YC is funding the destruction of the planet!
> We also hate corporations that enforce patents in software because it's ridiculous to patent software - how about patenting genetic codes?
Well, that's why I mentioned alternative IP regimes. I don't believe one should be able to patent a "natural fact" (such as my own genes), but I also don't feel that the skill and capital required to move genes from one cell to another in a manner which is still viable and ends up being more useful is completely immaterial.
For software programs we have copyright, not patent, to protect us. Let me be very clear, I'm a big fan of the GPL, and it requires a strong IP regime to work.
But I'm not sure that "copyright" would apply exactly to genetic code either, though maybe Monsanto could make that work. Pick your poison. :P
> We also hate corporations that enforce patents in software because it's ridiculous to patent software - how about patenting genetic codes?
Well, that's why I mentioned alternative IP regimes. I don't believe one should be able to patent a "natural fact" (such as my own genes), but I also don't feel that the skill and capital required to move genes from one cell to another in a manner which is still viable and ends up being more useful is completely immaterial.
For software programs we have copyright, not patent, to protect us. Let me be very clear, I'm a big fan of the GPL, and it requires a strong IP regime to work.
But I'm not sure that "copyright" would apply exactly to genetic code either, though maybe Monsanto could make that work. Pick your poison. :P
I would agree with your last points, but I still see almost zero connection between the actual reasons why people hate Monsanto and Hipmunk.
I hope no one hates Hipmunk, it's the best way I've ever booked a flight, bar none.
I just hope the sea level holds up long enough to retire to some tropical island.
I just hope the sea level holds up long enough to retire to some tropical island.
What "unprecedented harm" are you referring to here?
Are you kidding? There have been a number of studies on hive collapse, organ failure and other problems that appear to implicate Monsanto that have been widely discussed on HN. To be clear I'm not saying that any one of these studies absolutely conclusively points a finger of blame on Monsanto - I'm saying that there is enough suspicion of harm that saying we hate them just because they are incorporated is an even more ridiculous accusation than any of the above.
This is the very definition of FUD.
And if they weren't such aggressive lobbyists, I would agree with you. My original point was that they are much more deserving of close scrutiny at this point than any YC-backed company. Do you dispute that?
America has a strong environmentalist lobby that would like to kill GMO research and put agriculture back into the Stone Age. Monsanto needs a powerful lobbying arm for defensive purposes. A hostile government could hound them out of existence otherwise either through new legislation or through executive action by the EPA and USDA.
Organ failure from Roundup-Ready soy?
Claiming people hate Monsanto just because they're a corporation?
Non sequitur. I asked for you to expand on the "unprecedented harm" caused by Monsanto, and you gave me "organ failure". I asked a question about that claim, and you dodged it. Want to try again?
You asked me to expand on "unprecedented harm" in the context of reasons people hate Monsanto, and I gave you the 2 reasons I hear most often from people who hate Monsanto: hive collapse, organ failure, both of which I originally heard about on HN. Google either one and you'll see that these are exactly what I said they are: widely suspected as being caused by Monsanto GMO. The former, I'll agree, has practically been proven false. I never once stated definitively that Monsanto was causing harm, I said they were widely suspected, that they had the potential to, and that they were receiving additional legal protections - and that that is why people hate them. It's not comparable at all to YC companies, and the implication that HNers who hate Monsanto are hypocrites is false, and is, in fact, more ridiculous a claim than that Monsanto GMO crops cause this damage. Show me a full, capital-letter-to-period sentence that I have written that is untrue and I'll agree that I dodged something.
You write this as if the comments you originally wrote aren't right there in the thread.
The court record strongly suggests that farmers can acquire Monsanto seeds and treat them like normal crops; I've looked for cases where Monsanto sued someone that hadn't allegedly sprayed Roundup on their crops and came up blank (but would welcome a counterexample).
Does the supreme court ruling care whether Roundup was used? All I saw was that "copying" the seeds was not allowed, because they are patented.
They discuss it at length to point out that he should have known he was doing something wrong, but it does not appear to be a requirement as such. They found that he was not protected by exhaustion and that he was creating new patented articles, so it's hard to see how they could come to a different conclusion even without that part.
Of course, IANAL and you should get one if it's important to be sure of that.
Of course, IANAL and you should get one if it's important to be sure of that.
>Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all.
Monsanto is somewhat infamous for suing farmers for planting seeds from plants that were accidentally cross-pollinated with Monstanto crops. So to answer your question, you can't use non-Monsanto seeds if any of the farms around you are using Monsanto seeds.
Monsanto is somewhat infamous for suing farmers for planting seeds from plants that were accidentally cross-pollinated with Monstanto crops. So to answer your question, you can't use non-Monsanto seeds if any of the farms around you are using Monsanto seeds.
I read this often in these threads, but have never seen a citation to such a case. Could you provide one?
I got my information from the documentaries "The Future of Food" and "Food, Inc" both of which have an obvious bias. I'm having trouble tracking down any other citations at the moment.
Here is a [again, biased] citation about Monsanto suing people for saving seeds, allegedly going so far as to forge documents: http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
Here is a [again, biased] citation about Monsanto suing people for saving seeds, allegedly going so far as to forge documents: http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago?
Well, they can't buy such seeds at the elevator like they could 100 years ago. And now they can't plant elevator seeds period, without paying the Monsanto tax. (I know that isn't the explicit text of the ruling, but it is certainly its result for the most marketable crops.)
My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all.
Yeah I'm sure his unicorn herd is thriving. If you actually have a family connection to agriculture, you know that outside a few sheltered crops like avocados, "family" farming has been steadily supplanted by corporate farming. I'm not against that per se, because competition, but my point was to impeach the oft-repeated lobbyists' saw that USDA is "for the farmers! [and their children!]"
what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm them and resell them at a lower cost until the end of time?
Monsanto already make a killing selling Roundup, to which these seeds are a completely complementary good. If Monsanto were good at business rather than evil at business, they would increase the price of Roundup and give the seeds away. (That would still be bad for both the environment and agriculture, but it wouldn't be as bad.)
this decision makes its harder to introduce those supposedly-evil GMOs in our American farms
News flash from the mid-90s: GMO crops are here already, in fact in many areas most farmers use them; that's why you can't avoid them at the elevator.
Well, they can't buy such seeds at the elevator like they could 100 years ago. And now they can't plant elevator seeds period, without paying the Monsanto tax. (I know that isn't the explicit text of the ruling, but it is certainly its result for the most marketable crops.)
My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all.
Yeah I'm sure his unicorn herd is thriving. If you actually have a family connection to agriculture, you know that outside a few sheltered crops like avocados, "family" farming has been steadily supplanted by corporate farming. I'm not against that per se, because competition, but my point was to impeach the oft-repeated lobbyists' saw that USDA is "for the farmers! [and their children!]"
what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm them and resell them at a lower cost until the end of time?
Monsanto already make a killing selling Roundup, to which these seeds are a completely complementary good. If Monsanto were good at business rather than evil at business, they would increase the price of Roundup and give the seeds away. (That would still be bad for both the environment and agriculture, but it wouldn't be as bad.)
this decision makes its harder to introduce those supposedly-evil GMOs in our American farms
News flash from the mid-90s: GMO crops are here already, in fact in many areas most farmers use them; that's why you can't avoid them at the elevator.
> If you actually have a family connection to agriculture, you know that outside a few sheltered crops like avocados, "family" farming has been steadily supplanted by corporate farming.
Gee asshole, it's almost like there's a fucking reason I said my grandpa's farm is small.
And it's not unicorns, it's horses, beef cattle and some heifers, and the hay required to feed them (and the alfalfa needed to restore the fields while they lie fallow).
> Monsanto already make a killing selling Roundup, to which these seeds are a completely complementary good. If Monsanto were good at business rather than evil at business, they would increase the price of Roundup and give the seeds away. (That would still be bad for both the environment and agriculture, but it wouldn't be as bad.)
That might apply to this case, but that doesn't answer the general question.
Let's say some Big Pharma spends $15 billion to develop a cure for acne by using genetic manipulation techniques, but the cure has to be delivered by a refitted retrovirus and the retrovirus can be "farmed" by anyone with an incubation lamp and a supply of eggs into however many doses are desired.
No side product here, just the acne "cure". How do you allow for development and marketing of that? What's your solution?
Patent is what we have for short-term protection. I don't think any of us want to broach into the realm of infinite-length copyright. Do you have a better idea?
Gee asshole, it's almost like there's a fucking reason I said my grandpa's farm is small.
And it's not unicorns, it's horses, beef cattle and some heifers, and the hay required to feed them (and the alfalfa needed to restore the fields while they lie fallow).
> Monsanto already make a killing selling Roundup, to which these seeds are a completely complementary good. If Monsanto were good at business rather than evil at business, they would increase the price of Roundup and give the seeds away. (That would still be bad for both the environment and agriculture, but it wouldn't be as bad.)
That might apply to this case, but that doesn't answer the general question.
Let's say some Big Pharma spends $15 billion to develop a cure for acne by using genetic manipulation techniques, but the cure has to be delivered by a refitted retrovirus and the retrovirus can be "farmed" by anyone with an incubation lamp and a supply of eggs into however many doses are desired.
No side product here, just the acne "cure". How do you allow for development and marketing of that? What's your solution?
Patent is what we have for short-term protection. I don't think any of us want to broach into the realm of infinite-length copyright. Do you have a better idea?
> And now they can't plant elevator seeds period, without paying the Monsanto tax. (I know that isn't the explicit text of the ruling, but it is certainly its result for the most marketable crops.)
No, they can't plant elevator seeds, spray them with Roundup, and then do the whole "aw shucks, looks like your seeds were the only ones that survived, who would've guessed?" routine when Monsanto comes a knocking.
No, they can't plant elevator seeds, spray them with Roundup, and then do the whole "aw shucks, looks like your seeds were the only ones that survived, who would've guessed?" routine when Monsanto comes a knocking.
> Monsanto already make a killing selling Roundup,
Your information is extremely dated. The patent for Roundup expired over a decade ago, and in the last 5 years the market has been flooded with cheap chinese made Glyphosate.
Your information is extremely dated. The patent for Roundup expired over a decade ago, and in the last 5 years the market has been flooded with cheap chinese made Glyphosate.
but isn't the main crux of the case the fact that monsanto changes roundup every year such that only the new strain soybeans is resistent to it?
if roundup was readily copy-able, how could this be possible?
if roundup was readily copy-able, how could this be possible?
Everything you wrote is completely confused. Monsanto doesn't invent a new strain of herbicide resistant crops every year. Roundup doesn't change. It is a trade name for a chemical with an expired patent, and many different companies make it.
The main criticism that resonates with me is that protected genes like this case are kind of an anti-LGPL, turning naturally open systems into closed ones just by nature of life reproducing via airborne fertilization.
Now this wasn't a great test-case since the defendant was trying to specifically rip Monsanto off, but it is my opinion that it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure their protected product doesn't spread on its own.
Now this wasn't a great test-case since the defendant was trying to specifically rip Monsanto off, but it is my opinion that it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure their protected product doesn't spread on its own.
Monsanto developed a mechanism to prevent its crops from spreading by causing them to produce sterile seeds, but it pledged not to use the technology under pressure from anti-corporatist groups[1][2].
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
[1]http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.asp... [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
[1]http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.asp... [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2
I would certainly agree that it is in Monsanto's best interests to ensure their seeds don't spread on their own, if only because the presumption of innocence that must attach to each and every single case they'd try to prosecute.
I know that civil cases have an easier standard of proof but it would still have be difficult to prove every time that a farmer was trying to screw Monsanto over.
I know that civil cases have an easier standard of proof but it would still have be difficult to prove every time that a farmer was trying to screw Monsanto over.
The ruling punted the issue of blown seeds, it was specific to this case - that the farmer knew and exploited a loophole to get 2nd gen crops while still agreeing not to.
Now, I disagree with the decision, but only on ideological grounds. From a rights standpoint, this ruling won't really answer the question of the canadian farmer and wind-blown Monsanto seeds.
Now, I disagree with the decision, but only on ideological grounds. From a rights standpoint, this ruling won't really answer the question of the canadian farmer and wind-blown Monsanto seeds.
I'm concerned that one of the only companies working on the efficiency of food production has such bad PR. Is there anyone else inventing innovative crop technologies like Monsanto? For the future of the human species, I hope the anti-corporation types don't gather enough power to drive them into the ground before capable competitors pop up.
There are lots of them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Hi-Bred
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#Bayer_CropScience
(Call that a sampling, I didn't try to do an exhaustive search)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Hi-Bred
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#Bayer_CropScience
(Call that a sampling, I didn't try to do an exhaustive search)
I don't think modifying already self-replicating seeds should give you a right to dictate what happens with subsequent generations of those seeds. Any such agreements should be rendered invalid (like non-compete agreements in California).
I realize this is an issue with the laws themselves and probably not within the purview of the Supreme Court, but I was kind of hoping they'd step in and end the madness.
I realize this is an issue with the laws themselves and probably not within the purview of the Supreme Court, but I was kind of hoping they'd step in and end the madness.
More background on Monsanto:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...
Those who concentrate on questions of narrow legality with respect to this organization are missing the forest for the trees. We have observed this system long enough to know what it does. The reason this system employs an army of lawyers and private investigators against the town of Pilot Grove (literally, the henchmen outnumber the population of the town!) is not because it seeks justice in fair proceedings. They kill the chicken to frighten the monkeys. It doesn't actually matter what a particular farmer has done when the Monsanto Man starts snooping around. The Beast must be fed, and until all American farmland is under the control of a single corporate operator that transfers all profits directly to Monsanto, the Beast will be on the hunt.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...
Those who concentrate on questions of narrow legality with respect to this organization are missing the forest for the trees. We have observed this system long enough to know what it does. The reason this system employs an army of lawyers and private investigators against the town of Pilot Grove (literally, the henchmen outnumber the population of the town!) is not because it seeks justice in fair proceedings. They kill the chicken to frighten the monkeys. It doesn't actually matter what a particular farmer has done when the Monsanto Man starts snooping around. The Beast must be fed, and until all American farmland is under the control of a single corporate operator that transfers all profits directly to Monsanto, the Beast will be on the hunt.
The most ludicrous part of all of this is that you can patent biology.
This isn't natural biology... it's engineered biology. That's a big difference.
Then they should engineer it to be seedless too so they don't have this problem. I really can't believe we're living in a society where a corporation can successfully use the courts to make natural reproduction illegal.
They didn't make reproduction illegal. They confirmed that Monsanto's patent lets them restrict how you can use the products of reproduction (beans/seed).
These beans wouldn't naturally exist if it weren't for Monsanto. It would be extremely difficult to produce a soy bean that didn't produce seeds... since that's the bean part.
This is very different from the Myriad BRCA1 patent where they patented a naturally occurring mutation in humans. In Monsanto's case, they actually produced something that was novel - an herbicide resistant soy bean.
These beans wouldn't naturally exist if it weren't for Monsanto. It would be extremely difficult to produce a soy bean that didn't produce seeds... since that's the bean part.
This is very different from the Myriad BRCA1 patent where they patented a naturally occurring mutation in humans. In Monsanto's case, they actually produced something that was novel - an herbicide resistant soy bean.
What scares me is that you know they're working on doing precisely this, and eventually they will probably be successful.
Most people who see this story play out seem to think that it implies a Monsanto seed could blow onto your field and then get you sued. But of course, if you didn't know you were planting Monsanto seeds, you wouldn't think to try to kill them with Roundup.