India Sues Monsanto for . . . Biopiracy?(skepticblog.org)
skepticblog.org
India Sues Monsanto for . . . Biopiracy?
http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/12/29/india-sues-monsanto-for-biopiracy/
6 comments
I'm no expert, but from the post:
"But Indian scientists are less thrilled. Govindarajan Padmanabhan from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore:
Our national labs have all the genes for rice improvement, we do not need Monsanto. The moratorium will actually affect the indigenous effort [to create GM crops that could feed India's rapidly growing population]."
EDIT: Eggplant, rice, what's the difference anyway?
"But Indian scientists are less thrilled. Govindarajan Padmanabhan from the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore:
Our national labs have all the genes for rice improvement, we do not need Monsanto. The moratorium will actually affect the indigenous effort [to create GM crops that could feed India's rapidly growing population]."
EDIT: Eggplant, rice, what's the difference anyway?
> What leverage would they have if one or two foreign companies controlled a large majority of their seed stock?
India has in the past allowed infringement of patented HIV drugs. Why wouldn't India allow infringement of seed company patents in a crisis? The whole thing falls down as soon as farmers are told it is okay to break the "pledge".
India has in the past allowed infringement of patented HIV drugs. Why wouldn't India allow infringement of seed company patents in a crisis? The whole thing falls down as soon as farmers are told it is okay to break the "pledge".
Monsanto is large. They (like many other Fortune 500) can use the US Government to exert much pressure on India to pay the IP tribute for using forbidden seeds as well as accidentally cross-pollenated varieties (assuming they are viable). (why maintain a crypto-fascist empire if you're not going to use it?)
OTOH, India isn't Iraq (et al): they might respond with a big, nuclear-backed, "F* YOU!", and get away by infringing like you said.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Owing your seeds to a company is a bad thing, though.
OTOH, India isn't Iraq (et al): they might respond with a big, nuclear-backed, "F* YOU!", and get away by infringing like you said.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Owing your seeds to a company is a bad thing, though.
Wow the bias inherent in the authors support of GMO (and Monsanto) is dripping. I mean, at least he's honest about it, but it's hard to keep reading after the first paragraph or so.
Here is a different bias.
GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs instantly DRM'd books which then can go out and make all the other books on the same shelf the property of the author too, which you now have to pay him for.
Here is a different bias.
GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs instantly DRM'd books which then can go out and make all the other books on the same shelf the property of the author too, which you now have to pay him for.
> GMO is like a magic word processor that outputs
> instantly DRM'd books [..]
Yeah I was being somewhat intentionally hyperbolic. There isn't (or shouldn't) be any difference between the challenges currently inherent in software IP and "bio IP". However right now all the players in bio IP are huge and fairly clumsy (though that's changing I hear, with bootstrapper generic engineering labs starting to appear) it is kind of remenisicent of the SCO lawsuit days in some ways.
However on the subject of litigious entities Monsanto certainly dishes out far more than they get. Just do a google search for "Monsanto sues" to see what I mean.
Edit: Err down voted for admitting hyperbole, really?
However on the subject of litigious entities Monsanto certainly dishes out far more than they get. Just do a google search for "Monsanto sues" to see what I mean.
Edit: Err down voted for admitting hyperbole, really?
You were probably downvoted for the last paragraph, in which you go right back to harping on Monsanto's litigious tendencies, which you just admitted were essentially a red herring.
I admitted I was being hyperbolic in the previous post where I didn't mention their litigious tendencies.
They do have very litigious tendencies from what I can see, but I'm happy for anyone who disagrees to refute the statement. Takes a bit longer than down voting I suppose.
They do have very litigious tendencies from what I can see, but I'm happy for anyone who disagrees to refute the statement. Takes a bit longer than down voting I suppose.
If you read the details of that particular case it's a lot more complex. GMO isn't like that because there are lots of genetically modified organisms that come with out licensing agreements.
One farmer in particular decided to see if he could use normal plants to reproduce Monsanto seed which he succeded in and then got sued because its a violation of the agreement he agreed to. The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen.
All the food we eat is GMO because the genome of a plant naturally changes, now we just do GMO efficiently. Yes, there are risks, but natural GMO could produce a terminator gene as well. As much as I don't mind GMO I'm fully in support of labeling, especially the idea that those that don't use GMO can label as such.
One farmer in particular decided to see if he could use normal plants to reproduce Monsanto seed which he succeded in and then got sued because its a violation of the agreement he agreed to. The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen.
All the food we eat is GMO because the genome of a plant naturally changes, now we just do GMO efficiently. Yes, there are risks, but natural GMO could produce a terminator gene as well. As much as I don't mind GMO I'm fully in support of labeling, especially the idea that those that don't use GMO can label as such.
The true issue which is ignored is that diversity in crops must be maintained. Monsanto wouldn't want this to be a topic though because that would be contrary to their goals; Diversity means hundreads if not thousands of variations in neighbouring crops, not just one or a few. If society supports the smaller farmers, in case their crop is hit that year, then they can survive financially / pay bills. This is in fact the safest way to do it.
Why is this being downvoted? Are people assuming we can out-engineer nature forever? Single-breed farming makes for a brittle food chain.
It seems about as reasonable as assuming nature can out-engineer nature forever. Classifying changes wrought by man as somehow fundamentally different than any other changes is a fallacy.
Technically it's not a fallacy it's a premise, though a debatable one. These things are fundamentally different, if even just by the definition of nature and man and given that we don't fully understand natures mechanisms ourselves. I agree though, generalizing our own engineering is bad because it isn't "natural" is easily refutable.
I will suggest this though, nature has been out-engineering nature for eons longer than we have, so if you want to get technical it gets the benefit of the doubt here. Our own tinkering has yielded incredible boons and shouldn't be quickly dismissed but we can't ignore the potential dangers and the history of global risk human greed and power seems willing to incur to get what it wants. That's all.
Also reading the grandparent, I don't think his point was that man can't out engineer nature, but that there is a heavy risk inherent in Monsanto's corporate strategy of trying to creating super breeds and monopolize markets with them to the exclusion of diversity (note this is generally considered bad for the market not just nature, call diversity a natural law if you will). So both child comments are arguing for and against a straw man, which, again if you want to be technical about things, is a fallacy.
Full disclosure: I love me some heirloom vegetables from my farm share (dirty hippy I know!)
I will suggest this though, nature has been out-engineering nature for eons longer than we have, so if you want to get technical it gets the benefit of the doubt here. Our own tinkering has yielded incredible boons and shouldn't be quickly dismissed but we can't ignore the potential dangers and the history of global risk human greed and power seems willing to incur to get what it wants. That's all.
Also reading the grandparent, I don't think his point was that man can't out engineer nature, but that there is a heavy risk inherent in Monsanto's corporate strategy of trying to creating super breeds and monopolize markets with them to the exclusion of diversity (note this is generally considered bad for the market not just nature, call diversity a natural law if you will). So both child comments are arguing for and against a straw man, which, again if you want to be technical about things, is a fallacy.
Full disclosure: I love me some heirloom vegetables from my farm share (dirty hippy I know!)
Is my post or the parent somehow committing this fallacy? I explicitly used the same verb for genetic modification on behalf of both subjects: man and nature. The distinction between the subjects is because bacteria and insects ('nature') will devour all of humankind's nutritional resources if people don't continually labor to prevent it. It's a speciesist distinction, but not a fallacious one.
I don't think it is reasonable to assume anything but heat death will win the resource battle in this universe.
I don't think it is reasonable to assume anything but heat death will win the resource battle in this universe.
Man's changes are abrupt and discrete. We are not outside of nature but we rock the boat pretty hard.
So essentially, we're capable of making quicker adjustments than most natural forces? If anything, that should make it easier for us to out-engineer nature, not harder.
That's like saying that deregulated financial instruments made it easier for us to out-engineer the market. It looked like it worked, for a while, but it turned out there were... downsides. When a worldwide monoculture crashes, it's going to be more difficult to effect a food bailout.
Regulated financial instruments are a monoculture.
Besides, what makes you think that regulators get things right? Even if you ignore regulatory capture, regulators are imperfect, have less information than market participants have, and have their own goals.
Besides, what makes you think that regulators get things right? Even if you ignore regulatory capture, regulators are imperfect, have less information than market participants have, and have their own goals.
Well said.
Imagine the horror: New: Microsoft Corn95! We want to see Corn95 planted in every field. It will be the corn of choice for Enterprise farmers everywhere!
New! Symantec BlightCheck! automatically scans your crops for blights brought on by passing bird and insect traffic. In today's age of connected farms, you need BlightCheck!
New! MicroSoft CropWall! Seal your crops inside a protected environment!
Ah, monoculture.
Imagine the horror: New: Microsoft Corn95! We want to see Corn95 planted in every field. It will be the corn of choice for Enterprise farmers everywhere!
New! Symantec BlightCheck! automatically scans your crops for blights brought on by passing bird and insect traffic. In today's age of connected farms, you need BlightCheck!
New! MicroSoft CropWall! Seal your crops inside a protected environment!
Ah, monoculture.
The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen.
Says who? Why don't you do some research before calling something BS? Read this account: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Monsanto is trying to control nature. Bees don't care if they're picking up pollen from a "Monsanto Licensee" ! Why should the recipient of the pollen be held liable?
Says who? Why don't you do some research before calling something BS? Read this account: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Monsanto is trying to control nature. Bees don't care if they're picking up pollen from a "Monsanto Licensee" ! Why should the recipient of the pollen be held liable?
This is the case that is always mentioned, but the facts in the case are overwhelmingly in Monsanto's favor. If this is the only case detractors have, then, yes, I'd say that "The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen."
I am unaware of any case in which an innocent farmer was a legitimate victim of accidental transfer. Can you please cite another source?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
Edit: Please also read ahelwer's comment further down.
I am unaware of any case in which an innocent farmer was a legitimate victim of accidental transfer. Can you please cite another source?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
Edit: Please also read ahelwer's comment further down.
Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready. They never tried to claim that somebody who accidentally gets their plants owes them money.
(And before anybody accuses me of being a Monsanto fanboy or something: I really don't care about this issue. I just decided to actually do some research after reading like 10 different rants against Monsanto in one day, and I found that although Monsanto sound like dicks, people still seem to feel the need to exaggerate.)
(And before anybody accuses me of being a Monsanto fanboy or something: I really don't care about this issue. I just decided to actually do some research after reading like 10 different rants against Monsanto in one day, and I found that although Monsanto sound like dicks, people still seem to feel the need to exaggerate.)
> Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready.
Why shouldn't he?
Why shouldn't he?
Because Monsanto holds a patent on that technology. Their claim was patent infringement.
If iPhones hacked into Android phones on the same network and installed iOS, would Apple have any case against the folks who subsequently used that iOS installation on their Android devices?
I can't see the commonalities you're trying to draw between the actual scenario Monsanto thought happened (guy accidentally acquired their seed, intentionally decided to grow it and sell it instead of his own seed) and the scenario you're presenting (person accidentally gets OS installed on their phone, continues using phone).
Accidentally acquired their seed? He grew his own crops, collected his own seeds, and re-planted that seed the next year, like pretty much every farmer in history has.
Monsanto's product contaminated his seeds, through no fault of his own. An apology, not a lawsuit, was in order.
Monsanto's product contaminated his seeds, through no fault of his own. An apology, not a lawsuit, was in order.
Like I said, they're dicks, but they weren't quite doing what people try to say they were.
So what you're saying is they came around and said:
Oh, sorry, but we infected your field.
And by the way you're not allowed to use your own seeds (the ones produced by his field) anymore because we infected them.
Oh, sorry, but we infected your field.
And by the way you're not allowed to use your own seeds (the ones produced by his field) anymore because we infected them.
Yes, basically. That isn't an unreasonable reading of patent law. If he had actually tried to apply Roundup to the crops or sell the seeds to other farmers, he probably would have lost the suit. As I understand it, he won because he wasn't actually using the patented technology, not because the patent was rendered void by the fact that the seeds were produced on his land.
The thing you have to realize about patents is that it doesn't matter if you yourself built the thing that implements the patent; what matters is just whether you're using the patented technology or not.
The thing you have to realize about patents is that it doesn't matter if you yourself built the thing that implements the patent; what matters is just whether you're using the patented technology or not.
Which I find insane when it comes to crops. If the person had willfully taken some seeds and used them sure, but patent law really should have some sort of exemption for cases where the patented product is overtly trespassing. It's ridiculous that because some company patented a gene a farmer who never wanted the plant in the first place is limited in what he can do to his own property. (Can't use roundup, can't harvest his seeds, etc.)
It's a small step from this situation to creating a virus, patenting it and releasing it in the wild and calling all people that get the cold your property.
Patent ownership in this kind of case (the plants, not the people) needs to be dialed back.
It's a small step from this situation to creating a virus, patenting it and releasing it in the wild and calling all people that get the cold your property.
Patent ownership in this kind of case (the plants, not the people) needs to be dialed back.
Never mind a human virus. If Monsanto could create an airborn plant retrovirus they could potentially frame someone for stealing Monsanto seed and planting their entire farm.
More like they tried to make him throw all of his money in the garbage rather than infringe on their IP.
I'm curious to hear what other biological scientists in India and government officials and NGO officials in India who deal with food policy have to say about the issue.
Article seems very confident that farmers will be more able to afford bt brinjal more than they can currently afford pesticides. Where is the evidence this skeptic has presented that argues that Monsanto is interested in reducing its profit streams from Indian farming? Once granted a monopoly on bt brinjal, no corporation would voluntarily reduce its revenues rather than increase the price of bt brinjal. Farmer debt incurred from Monsanto-style agriculture is causing incredible rates of suicide across India, and Monsanto has a legal obligation to its shareholders to keep it that way.
"Compared to old-school, trial-and-error cross pollination, GMO is like using a word processor instead of a manual typewriter."
I think that one shitty analogy holds everything the author is trying to convey. And it's the same lack of reason and actual argument with a blind approval of technology that any biochem company would love to fill your ears with.
I think that one shitty analogy holds everything the author is trying to convey. And it's the same lack of reason and actual argument with a blind approval of technology that any biochem company would love to fill your ears with.
Monsanto has been suing farmers for years over alleged theft of GMO--it's nice to see them sued in return. I get the impression Monsanto's legal team is as over-reaching as that of the RIAA.
I am involved in the agricultural community, and this sort of crowdsourced assertion has been bouncing around in the internet echo chamber for years. It started with Percy Schmeiser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
You can read that yourself and draw your own conclusions (hint: you can't seed upwards of 90% of your field by driving past it with a truck). This has since then snowballed into the story of Monsanto employing a vast legal team to oppress the poor 'simple farmers'. This is patronizing - farmers (outside of communities that explicitly shun technology) are generally a very well-informed and technologically adept crowd, well used to hacking together electronics packages to make their lives easier (a cool example http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1254445743). The whole motherhood and apple pie callback to the days of yore definitely doesn't hurt the message though, so it stays around.
Anyway, take a look at the material on both sides of this topic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
You can read that yourself and draw your own conclusions (hint: you can't seed upwards of 90% of your field by driving past it with a truck). This has since then snowballed into the story of Monsanto employing a vast legal team to oppress the poor 'simple farmers'. This is patronizing - farmers (outside of communities that explicitly shun technology) are generally a very well-informed and technologically adept crowd, well used to hacking together electronics packages to make their lives easier (a cool example http://www.arduino.cc/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1254445743). The whole motherhood and apple pie callback to the days of yore definitely doesn't hurt the message though, so it stays around.
Anyway, take a look at the material on both sides of this topic.
Monsanto as a company makes me sick. Their treatment of farmers that choose not to use their seeds is an abomination. It's like me getting sued for software piracy b/c the guy sitting next to me is using pirated software and the wind is blowing in my direction. #reform-patent-laws-please
> Their treatment of farmers that choose not to use their seeds is an abomination.
And so's their treatment of farmers who do choose to use their seeds, and their treatment of populations close to farming communities, as well as their treatment of... well pretty much everybody once you get down to it[0].
[0] example: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...
And so's their treatment of farmers who do choose to use their seeds, and their treatment of populations close to farming communities, as well as their treatment of... well pretty much everybody once you get down to it[0].
[0] example: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...
"And so's their treatment of farmers who do choose to use their seeds"
I grow some RR crops and am not sure what you are referring to here. For the most part, farmers weren't reusing their seeds to begin with. The people in the business of genetics do a much better job, which helps keep the farm profitable.
On my farm, in the last couple of years, we have moved to growing entirely RR-free soybeans because a market has opened for soybeans free of the gene, but it limited to few Asian markets that our local distribution network has been able to capture.
With all the complaints about Monsanto in America, I find it interesting that the North American market by and large still demands RR-present commodities. Farmers are left to fill that demand, whether they like Monsanto or not.
I grow some RR crops and am not sure what you are referring to here. For the most part, farmers weren't reusing their seeds to begin with. The people in the business of genetics do a much better job, which helps keep the farm profitable.
On my farm, in the last couple of years, we have moved to growing entirely RR-free soybeans because a market has opened for soybeans free of the gene, but it limited to few Asian markets that our local distribution network has been able to capture.
With all the complaints about Monsanto in America, I find it interesting that the North American market by and large still demands RR-present commodities. Farmers are left to fill that demand, whether they like Monsanto or not.
The big rise of GM corn in the US was due a gene that made feed corn resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which they are the primary world producer of. This has actually increased herbicide use significantly in both corn and soya crop where round-up ready is being planted, because now you can over spray without worry. The gene is patented and requires an IP license for each plant grown that comes bundled with the official seed.
This changes the farm dynamic considerably, as farmers who traditionally saved seeds for next years crop are now increasingly dependent on a single company and their IP portfolio. While the production gains and reduced labor costs are substantial, this has been tempered by seed license costs that have risen much faster than inflation.
At some point having too much of your food supply under the control of one corporation is a national security issue. If trends continue to the point that little other seed is being produced Monsanto could exert extreme pricing pressure or worse as production needs to be planned in advance.
This is probably not too big an issue in the US where they could simply be nationalized if things got out of hand, but what about India? What leverage would they have if one or two foreign companies controlled a large majority of their seed stock? Once farming evolves it's very difficult to go back, you aren't planting as many hectares and you have fewer trained workers and you're no longer producing the pesticides you need. But if they ignored the patent they'd definitely face WTO sanctions and be unable to find buyers for exports.
This is where the current fight comes in and gets rather misrepresented. The case isn't that they stole an Indian eggplant but that they imported the patented gene without approval from the recently created regulatory body. Obviously some amount of regulation is required there, as a sovereign state can't just have anybody walking in and splicing anything they feel like into sustenance crops. What if some huge chinese pharmaceutical company imported a drug into the US without any FDA approval and announced their intention to start human trials. Is there any doubt the government would quickly get an injunction against them?
He paints it as greedy bureaucrats wanting a handout and that certainly could be the case. But where the fight got started was over GM cotton that at the time was unregulated. It's such a good crop that farmers were switching very quickly and the government became concerned they wouldn't have any bargaining power left soon. So there were price controls a new regulatory body a sales ban and more price controls and yet they did lose control of the cotton crop without gaining any significant concessions.
That's all this probably comes down to - using any legal strategy to delay things until Monsanto is willing to agree to some concessions. Traditional price controls or progressive tariffs can have some pretty nasty consequences, so Monsanto has good reason to not like them. I'm not sure anyone knows the best way structure some protections, but it's clearly in their national interest to make sure they're covered. Monsanto could probably end this right now without any money changing hands by offering India a royalty free license they could use as a stick to keep the pricing at sustainable levels. As usual it turns out everyone's greedy.