The Monsanto ruling

[jkjsooner]

What do you guys think about the Monsanto ruling yesterday? I thought the case was very interesting.

Basically, the farmer bought soybeans from a grain elevator (usually just used for livestock feed) knowing the Roundup resistant seeds would be present. He planted these and sprayed the crop with Roundup killing off all of the plants that were not roundup resistant. Then I believe he used the result of this crop for future plantings.

Monsanto states that you can't use second generations roundup resistant seeds to produce another crop due to their patent on the seeds.

The thing that complicates this case is that the guy had previously purchased Monsanto seeds and signed the agreement to not use second generation seeds to replant his crop. He argued that since he got the seeds from a grain elevator he wasn't replicating the seeds he bought from Monsanto. The court disagreed.


While I agree with the court in this particular case, I do wonder if some farmer who had never used Monsanto's seeds and never signed the agreement should be prevented from doing what this guy did.

Was this illegal just because this guy signed the agreement? Was it illegal because he sprayed the crop from the grain elevator seeds with Roundup to select Monsanto seeds? Was it illegal that he planted the seeds from the grain elevator to begin with because they contained a percentage of Monsanto seeds?


I think the answer to the last question should be a resounding "no." A farmer couldn't be expected to stop purchasing seed from a grain elevator just because it has become saturated with a patented seed.


Here's a question. Let's say the farmer bought the seeds from the grain elevator and intended to harvest the full crop (Roundup resistant or not) but in the meantime he was a little less careful about his use of roundup on weeds knowing that much of the crop would be resistant. Let's also say he never intended to reuse the output to plant for the next year...


Some people have claimed that Monsanto reps go around spraying small sections of crops (possibly next to the highway on public land) with Roundup to discover people who are using Roundup resistant seeds without being authorized to do so. I don't know if that's true or not but if so it's creepy.

[cleller]

I haven't read up much on this particular thing, but I see it was a unanimous ruling. That whole thing is a greedy mess with the farmers presumed guilty in some of the other stories I've seen.

Some farmers buy seeds from exchanges, with no direct knowledge of where they came from, then find Monsanto agents serving papers on them. Even farmers that have stuff blow in from a neighbor's place find themselves knee deep in lawsuits they can't afford unless they pay Monsanto whatever it demands.

On the other hand, Monsanto has surely spent big money developing all this. The corn mafia, with Uncle Sam providing lots of the incentive cash.

[KantoSooner]

It's in line with previous decisions. 'Winterboer', I believe was one of the first. Dennie Winterboer did exactly the same thing and ultimately lost. He still farms soy beans, but only organic ones from his own seed line.

[jkjsooner]

It's in line with previous decisions. 'Winterboer', I believe was one of the first. Dennie Winterboer did exactly the same thing and ultimately lost. He still farms soy beans, but only organic ones from his own seed line.

Just read that case. It sounds like in that case had Winterboer only used the seeds to replant his crop he would not have lost his case. So this particular case is a little different as the farmer here never intended to sell seeds but just use them for his own future crops.

The Winterboer case leads me to believe that a farmer who never signed an agreement with Monsanto could possibly replant year after year - assuming he obtained the initial seeds legally which would still be an area of contention.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

It seems like the right ruling. There are reasons for patent laws. They are in place to encourage innovation. Using the second generation of a patented seed, seems the same to me as reverse engineering an Ipad and selling it.

Patent holders should be protected whether they are big evil faceless corporations or small inventors. Monsanto's practices in enforcing the patents is a completely seperate discussion and have no bearing on the law.

[yermom]

patenting DNA seems a little overreaching.

Monsanto has way too much power

[KantoSooner]

Well, they did basically bet the farm on this line of products. They used to be involved in all sorts of industrial chemicals including being one of the founding makers of silicon wafers for semiconductor fabrication. They sold everything else, took the money and invested in agricultural biotech. The company would have gone 'poof' if they'd been wrong.
So I cut 'em a bit of slack. They risked big, they deserve to win big, too, if they win.

[jkjsooner]

patenting DNA seems a little overreaching.

Monsanto has way too much power

Well, it sounds like the court is moving against general DNA patents.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324485004578424782830965300.html

In general they're moving towards making patents harder to obtain. I think this is a good move. I think the patent office is broken. They say it's virtually impossible to write any kind of meaningful computer program without unknowingly violating patents. If that's the case then the idea was too obvious and simplistic and never should have been patented.

Then you have people who just sit back and guess where technology is going and patent that. In many cases they have no intention of ever creating such a product and may not have the ability to do so but they'll patent it and wait for someone to actually develop the idea and then sue. These types do nothing to advance science or technology.


As a side point. The funding of science research is in my opinion is one area where government is and should be involved. Many like to think that the free market can and will create anything without government intervention but there are all sorts of things we do through science research which are helpful to humankind but do not offer a financial incentive.

[yermom]

Well, they did basically bet the farm on this line of products. They used to be involved in all sorts of industrial chemicals including being one of the founding makers of silicon wafers for semiconductor fabrication. They sold everything else, took the money and invested in agricultural biotech. The company would have gone 'poof' if they'd been wrong.
So I cut 'em a bit of slack. They risked big, they deserve to win big, too, if they win.

meh. why should they get credit for having all of their eggs in one basket?

[KantoSooner]

meh. why should they get credit for having all of their eggs in one basket?

That's not why I'd let them go ahead and profit. It's the fact that they risked everything on it. They had an idea, for example to create herbicides and herbicide resistant food crops. They got the money together, did the research and developed the product. Had it been a dud, they all would have been out of jobs and the company would have been bancrupt.

You take that sort of risk, I think you deserve to make money off the invention if it works and becomes popular.

When Monsanto abandoned the rest of their business and specialized in biotech, they were entering a field that many thought was a boondoggle. Those same people would have hardly paused to throw a clod or two on Monsanto's grave. They won. They should get to profit.

[yermom]

sure, if someone voluntarily buys their product

[olevetonahill]

I dunno If a Farmer says He wont use it that way and signs an agreement to Not, then HE'S pretty much in the wrong. Now whats the difference In some one Buying a song download then sharing the song wih others?

[yermom]

i'm talking about them pulling crap like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

[KantoSooner]

I have issues with a strain of thought that is prevalent in this country that big is bad. We should not hate success.

[Soonerjeepman]

I have issues with a strain of thought that is prevalent in this country that big is bad. We should not hate success.

but ..but...that means others will suffer...we ALL need to be happy! lol.

[Soonerjeepman]

ok, I was trying to figure this whole thing out, early on...is this right?

Company Monsanto produced seed that is resistant to herbicide. So farmers can plant it, spray for weeds and the crops will grow. This whole 2nd generation seed thing is, if you take seeds from plants that you bought seeds for and replant without paying the company, that is illegal...and that is what happened?

dang, farming has gone high-tech

[Bourbon St Sooner]

So yermom thinks equal protection under the law is nice and all except where it applies to big companies like Monsanto.

[badger]

I remember that China required that any pandas born from pandas on loan to U.S. zoos be declared China's property and be sent back to China as soon as possible. This is a very similar situation.

I can understand why China wants to retain all panda control (they're rare and a national symbol of the country) and I can understand Monsanto wanting to retain control of its seed (also rare and an end result of expensive research and engineering).

So, the ruling makes sense to me. I could see a statute of limitations, however, similar to limitations on patented pharmaceutical drugs (like Lipitor, which Pfizer can no longer count on as a cash cow for those trying to control cholesterol).

I also don't expect Monsanto to be able to keep their seed formula secret forever, much like I think China will endanger and extinct its cash bear through its anti-environmental practices, not to mention reports that their panda money from zoo loan fees usually goes to non-panda projects.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I remember that China required that any pandas born from pandas on loan to U.S. zoos be declared China's property and be sent back to China as soon as possible. This is a very similar situation.

I can understand why China wants to retain all panda control (they're rare and a national symbol of the country) and I can understand Monsanto wanting to retain control of its seed (also rare and an end result of expensive research and engineering).

So, the ruling makes sense to me. I could see a statute of limitations, however, similar to limitations on patented pharmaceutical drugs (like Lipitor, which Pfizer can no longer count on as a cash cow for those trying to control cholesterol).

I also don't expect Monsanto to be able to keep their seed formula secret forever, much like I think China will endanger and extinct its cash bear through its anti-environmental practices, not to mention reports that their panda money from zoo loan fees usually goes to non-panda projects.

All patents provide the patent holder protection against competition for 18 years. After 18 years, farmers can use the second generation seeds and other seed companies will be able to reverse engineer and create those same seeds. It's temporary to allow the patent holder to recoup the cost of R&D and gain profit of that R&D.

[jkjsooner]

ok, I was trying to figure this whole thing out, early on...is this right?

Company Monsanto produced seed that is resistant to herbicide. So farmers can plant it, spray for weeds and the crops will grow. This whole 2nd generation seed thing is, if you take seeds from plants that you bought seeds for and replant without paying the company, that is illegal...and that is what happened?

dang, farming has gone high-tech

Yes, I believe that's basically it. There are other questions that I'm not sure this case answered...


What if a guy who has never bought seed from Monsanto and never signed the agreement did exactly what this guy did?

What if a guy planted seed from a grain elevator but made no effort to selectively choose roundup resistant seed?

What if he did something in the middle. Used grain elevator seed but wasn't careful with his spraying of weeds with roundup knowing that there is roundup resistant plants there.

[jkjsooner]

All patents provide the patent holder protection against competition for 18 years. After 18 years, farmers can use the second generation seeds and other seed companies will be able to reverse engineer and create those same seeds. It's temporary to allow the patent holder to recoup the cost of R&D and gain profit of that R&D.

Yes, I believe this particular patent is about to expire.

[jkjsooner]

I dunno If a Farmer says He wont use it that way and signs an agreement to Not, then HE'S pretty much in the wrong. Now whats the difference In some one Buying a song download then sharing the song wih others?

What if he doesn't sign an agreement? You or I could do exactly what this guy did without ever buying seed directly from Monsanto.

[badger]

What if he doesn't sign an agreement? You or I could do exactly what this guy did without ever buying seed directly from Monsanto.

Meh, his mistake is that he got caught and that he lives in U.S. jurisdiction. I'm sure China has already stolen the seed and is using it without penalty repeatedly

[SoonerBBall]

I have issues with a strain of thought that is prevalent in this country that big is bad. We should not hate success.

That thought is prevalent because of the crony-capitalism that is rampant right now. I am certainly not against big business or success, but I am 100% against success that is gained unfairly with government intervention and through use of a broken legal/patent system.

I have no problem with the ruling as it is since the man in question signed a contract stating that he would not do exactly what he did. I have a gigantic problem with any lawsuits brought against farmers who were never under contract with them.

[KantoSooner]

Fair enough position, BBall. How would you respond if Monsanto turns around, at the end of the 18 years, modifies the herbacide and introduces a 'new' seed genetically engineered to be resistant to that, new, herbacide?

[badger]

Fair enough position, BBall. How would you respond if Monsanto turns around, at the end of the 18 years, modifies the herbacide and introduces a 'new' seed genetically engineered to be resistant to that, new, herbacide?

I'd say that the burden of proof is on them to show that they have invented something new, rather than just give Malibu Stacy a new hat.

[jkjsooner]

I have no problem with the ruling as it is since the man in question signed a contract stating that he would not do exactly what he did.

That's debatable. He did sign a contract that said he would not replant seeds from his Monsanto seeded crop. However, he did not do this directly. Instead he got seed from a grain elevator so he did not reseed from his own crop.

I think the courts ruled that this was just a technicality and he can't use this to skirt his agreement with Monsanto and I agree with that but I'm not sure you can say his agreement stated that he couldn't do "exactly" what he did.

[jkjsooner]

Fair enough position, BBall. How would you respond if Monsanto turns around, at the end of the 18 years, modifies the herbacide and introduces a 'new' seed genetically engineered to be resistant to that, new, herbacide?

In this particular case glyphosate (Roundup) is no longer under patent protection. Others can and do create it. So once the seeds are out of patent protection, you could still buy the herbicide that would kill everything else.

If the herbicide was still under patent protection and if Monsanto only sold the new altered one then I think your point would be valid.

[badger]

In this particular case glyphosate (Roundup) is no longer under patent protection. Others can and do create it. So once the seeds are out of patent protection, you could still buy the herbicide that would kill everything else.

If the herbicide was still under patent protection and if Monsanto only sold the new altered one then I think your point would be valid.

In other words, he only lost this court battle because he signed the agreement not to use 2nd gen seeds but thought he found a loophole?

[jkjsooner]

What I don't get is how we can see dubious patents everywhere yet when Apple created the iPhone it was truly revolutionary. There was nothing close to it and the competitors simply copied much of the interface yet it seems that Apple can't stop them.

I guess a good patent is like pornography. It's hard to define in legal terms but you know it when you see it.

[jkjsooner]

In other words, he only lost this court battle because he signed the agreement not to use 2nd gen seeds but thought he found a loophole?

I don't know. The articles I read mentioned the agreement as if it was relevant but they didn't make it clear that that was the determining factor.

[KantoSooner]

What I don't get is how we can see dubious patents everywhere yet when Apple created the iPhone it was truly revolutionary. There was nothing close to it and the competitors simply copied much of the interface yet it seems that Apple can't stop them.

I guess a good patent is like pornography. It's hard to define in legal terms but you know it when you see it.

That's the point, really. Is it unique enough to get a patent issued, and in key jurisdictions globally, not just the US. My point about Monsanto being able to play this game indefinitely was that they could keep modifying in unique ways forever if they could work out ways in which the mod was a 'must have'.

Apple is funny in that much of what they do is not new or unique, it's in the way they put it all together and assemble an ecosystem, if you will, that works far better than what others have done. Example: people were playing with MP3 players and file sharing a long time before the ipod and itunes came to market.

[olevetonahill]

What if he doesn't sign an agreement? You or I could do exactly what this guy did without ever buying seed directly from Monsanto.

Thats why I compared it to File sharing that got so many in trouble.

[jkjsooner]

Thats why I compared it to File sharing that got so many in trouble.

Yes, but files don't inherently self-replicate. The whole practice of farming requires the use of seeds from one generation to create the crops of the next.

If a non-farmer can't buy seeds from a grain elevator (which inevitably contains at least some Monsanto seed) and use the resulting crop to reseed then Monsanto has essentially cornered the market on soy beans.

I would hope that for the case of someone who hasn't signed any agreement with Monsanto that the patent hasn't been infringed until that farmer intentionally selects Monsanto plants by spraying the entire crop with Roundup.

[jkjsooner]

Apple is funny in that much of what they do is not new or unique, it's in the way they put it all together and assemble an ecosystem, if you will, that works far better than what others have done. Example: people were playing with MP3 players and file sharing a long time before the ipod and itunes came to market.

I'd disagree when it comes to the iPhone. Maybe Apple didn't develop or patent the multi-touch zoom in/out, scroll, etc. features. Maybe these features already existed elsewhere. Maybe others were actively working on similar products and Apple was just the first to the market. I don't know the answer to these. But from an outsider's perspective, what they did with the iPhone was extremely innovative and unique.

[KantoSooner]

Gorilla glass patent was purchased from Corning.
Pinch function to zoom in/out was likewise made by someone else, I forget who.
screen-based keyboard was, I think, developed by HP PARC (Palo Alto Research Center - from whom Jobs had, almost thirty years ealier gotten the ideas for mouses and GUI - amazing history of getting billion dollar ideas there. Bad luck HP that no one there saw what they had).

I am an Apple lover, but I thnk their story becomes even more amazing when you strip away all the stuff they brought in from outside and look at their core skill, that of assembling things so that they work better than the sum of their parts. And I''m also in love with the fact that the build to extremely demanding quality standards. Standards that are honored mostly in the breach by others in the tech industry.

[pphilfran]

Back in the day there was a documentary about how Apple and MS got their start...Jobs was touring PARC and saw what they had, asked for it, and they gave it to him...he went back and trashed the work they were doing and started new with the mouse...

MS sold an operating system to IBM and they didn't even have one available...so they went out and bought one from a dude down the street...

Triumph of the Nerds is worth a watch....

[jkjsooner]

Fair enough position, BBall. How would you respond if Monsanto turns around, at the end of the 18 years, modifies the herbacide and introduces a 'new' seed genetically engineered to be resistant to that, new, herbacide?

Kanto, I have to go back to this. This is more relevant than I originally thought.

Apparently the overuse of glyphosate hascreated Roundup resistant weeds through natural evolutionary process. Monsanto has created Roundup 2 or something like that. I believe they are in the process of creating seeds that are resistant to Roundup 2. This combination would effectively extend their patent.

This one sucks because the now prevalence of Roundup resistant weeds was caused (indirectly) by Monsanto's own products.


Just wait until they actually engineer the weeds to be Roundup resistant and include a few of these weed seeds in their existing seeds to encourage the spread of these weeds and the use of their next generation of Roundup and seeds. I kid about this last part but it isn't outside of the realm of possibility.

[yermom]

I have issues with a strain of thought that is prevalent in this country that big is bad. We should not hate success.

who has a problem with success? i have a problem with abusing the little guy.


So yermom thinks equal protection under the law is nice and all except where it applies to big companies like Monsanto.

where do you get that? Monsanto contaminates surrounding farms, and somehow that farmer now owes them licensing fees?

[KantoSooner]

Who's abusing the little guy? He can go organic (as Winterboer did and he's very successful now, through weird happenstance I got to meet him and he farms about five sections of Iowa soy bean land that he sells, mostly, to soy milk and soy sauce makers. He plants some strange Japanese strain). Or he could go to the seed depositiory in Iceland and get seed stock there.

'The little guy' is largely a myth when you're dealing with farmers, anyway.

It's the farmer who wants to use Roundup and doesn't want to pay Monsanto for resistant seed who has a problem. And, search as I might in the constitution, I find no 'right' to violate contracts with Monsanto in there.

[KantoSooner]

Back in the day there was a documentary about how Apple and MS got their start...Jobs was touring PARC and saw what they had, asked for it, and they gave it to him...he went back and trashed the work they were doing and started new with the mouse...

MS sold an operating system to IBM and they didn't even have one available...so they went out and bought one from a dude down the street...

Triumph of the Nerds is worth a watch....

My fave is 'Inside Intel'. The entire X86 family of chips was a cludge because the original targetted product was balky and behind schedule. Many of our freezes and crashes to this day are due to Intel rushing to market with an archetecture that was not ready to go and was largely untested.

And, yes, Jobs mostly rejected the work PARC had done, but it set a pattern: he'd go on to take other people's ideas and perfect them. It doesn't denigrate one's regard for him in the least to know that he stood on the shoulders of others.

[jkjsooner]

It's the farmer who wants to use Roundup and doesn't want to pay Monsanto for resistant seed who has a problem. And, search as I might in the constitution, I find no 'right' to violate contracts with Monsanto in there.

What about when there is no contract? A guy who's never bought seeds from Monsanto could do exactly what this farmer did.

And are you trying to say that because Monsanto has patented a subset of soybeans that all farmers (including those who have never signed such a contract) who used to buy cheap seed from the local grain elevator (given not a common practice) now have to abandon that practice just because Monsanto's seeds have "contaminated" the supply?

I understand that once a farmer sprays the crop with roundup with the intent of isolating Monsanto plants/seeds he's crossed the line but I'm worried about the guy who isn't actively trying to subvert Monsanto's patent. I'm worried about the guy who just wants cheap seed for a late season crop or cover crop (in the case of wheat).


I do think some have a point when they worry about the decrease in genetic variability in the supply which makes the supply chain more susceptible.

I'm also worried about abuse by the likes of Monsanto. They could easily play games like the one I listed above just to make sure that their products remain necessary.

I agree with this ruling because it was very narrow. I don't really understand exactly how narrow it is though. I think this area of law has a lot of growing pains in the future similar to Internet law over the last couple of decades.

[KantoSooner]

I'm largely in agreement with you on all points. The most difficult being the issue of people unintentionally buying Monsanto designed seed from a local source.
What we are seeing is a collision between more traditional practices (though they, too, were the results of earlier waves of modernization/industrialization of agriculture) and new technology. I believe we need to think very carefully about the risks and rewards of continuing to move in this direction.
That said, I do not think it's fair or right to change the rules on Monsanto after they literally staked their company's existence on what remains today a fully legal business model.

[yermom]

like the recording industry?

[KantoSooner]

Or rail, or airlines, or computers or a lot of things.

[jkjsooner]

Back in the day there was a documentary about how Apple and MS got their start...Jobs was touring PARC and saw what they had, asked for it, and they gave it to him...he went back and trashed the work they were doing and started new with the mouse...

MS sold an operating system to IBM and they didn't even have one available...so they went out and bought one from a dude down the street...

Triumph of the Nerds is worth a watch....

The whole story about Gates is interesting. He's presented as one of the garage startup billionaires but that is far from the truth. His family was very rich and his mother was close friends with IBM's CEO.

That's not to dismiss Gates's accomplishments which was mostly being savvy enough to see that OS software was where the money was (unfortunately for IBM they did not see that) but family connections and luck (timing) sure helped a lot.

There are real stories of garage billionaires. Gates just happens to not be one of them.

[yermom]

Or rail, or airlines, or computers or a lot of things.

technology moves too fast for patents. the process is way too slow.

the way i heard it explained is that companies need more lawyers than developers at this point. that stifles innovation.

[jkjsooner]

technology moves too fast for patents. the process is way too slow.

the way i heard it explained is that companies need more lawyers than developers at this point. that stifles innovation.

I agree. Luckily for us it seems like a lot of computer pioneers of the '50s weren't into patenting the things/algorithms they created. Had they acted like modern patent trolls it would have delayed our progress for a long time.

What if all the algorithms you learn in a basic algorithm class were patented? Can you imagine not being able to sort a list of things because all of the sort algorithms had patents on them?


I will add that many of the principles of computer science were created within the discipline of math long before the first computer was created. I always find this amazing.

[TAFBSooner]

I have issues with a strain of thought that is prevalent in this country that big is bad. We should not hate success.

In principle, I don't have an issue with Big, I have an issue with Evil.

It's not my fault that there's a positive (not one-to-one!) correlation between the two. Note that this applies to the public sector as well as the private.

In the case of Monsanto, planting Roundup-resistant seed in or near the farmland of their not-yet-customers is Evil. As is the concept that farmers are either customers or not-yet-customers.

[KantoSooner]

So, Monsanto owns every other field in America? It is not Monsanto who is doing the planting.

To you does self interest = evil? Are we not only called but now legally bound to be our brothers' keeper?

If someone wishes to escape from the claws of agribusiness, go get your plot and grow nice heritage crops on it. No one is stopping you. You might make money, you might fail. It's up to you. The only time you are beholden to big corporate is if you want to partake of what they made and that seems pretty fair to me.

As to the stifling of innovation, spare me. We are inventing more 'stuff' today than ever before. We're doing more basic research and engineering more applications of that basic research than ever before. And that is both public and private. What has happened is that we have become accustomed to having things happen easily and quickly. We're sitcom people who want everything wrapped up in neat packages with happy endings in 30 minutes or less. Innovation and the rewards to be derived therefrom are still out there to be had, it just takes, as it always did, tremendous hard work and a healthy dollop of timing and luck.

That people who own patents want to make money off of them rather than giving them away to whoever wants them is hardly evil or any restraint on the progress of mankind.

[TAFBSooner]

So, Monsanto owns every other field in America? It is not Monsanto who is doing the planting.

To you does self interest = evil? Are we not only called but now legally bound to be our brothers' keeper?

If someone wishes to escape from the claws of agribusiness, go get your plot and grow nice heritage crops on it. No one is stopping you. You might make money, you might fail. It's up to you. The only time you are beholden to big corporate is if you want to partake of what they made and that seems pretty fair to me.

As to the stifling of innovation, spare me. We are inventing more 'stuff' today than ever before. We're doing more basic research and engineering more applications of that basic research than ever before. And that is both public and private. What has happened is that we have become accustomed to having things happen easily and quickly. We're sitcom people who want everything wrapped up in neat packages with happy endings in 30 minutes or less. Innovation and the rewards to be derived therefrom are still out there to be had, it just takes, as it always did, tremendous hard work and a healthy dollop of timing and luck.

That people who own patents want to make money off of them rather than giving them away to whoever wants them is hardly evil or any restraint on the progress of mankind.

Self interest makes the world go around. Planting Round-up resistant seeds on the margins of a non-customer's fields, then billing that reluctant new "customer," crosses the line of acceptable self-interest.

[jkjsooner]

As to the stifling of innovation, spare me. We are inventing more 'stuff' today than ever before. We're doing more basic research and engineering more applications of that basic research than ever before. And that is both public and private.

I agree with most of what you said in this post but not this part. Well, I agree that we have become more innovative but a lot of it is despite the patent abuses we've seen over the last few decades. Luckily it appears the courts are starting to agree with me on this one.

Technology by nature increases at almost an exponential rate. The more technology that exists the more areas to build upon this technology. This should not lead one to believe that there are not serious and stifling problems in our current patent system.

You shouldn't be able to patent a science fiction idea or a guess on where technology is going - especially if you have no desire or even ability to make this idea into a real product. Even worse, you shouldn't be able to tie A and B together in a fairly obvious way and call it a new innovation. I think it's pretty much understood that the patent office has lost the ability to discriminate between things that are natural and obvious and things which are truly unique and innovative.

[KantoSooner]

I agree with most of what you said in this post but not this part. Well, I agree that we have become more innovative but a lot of it is despite the patent abuses we've seen over the last few decades. Luckily it appears the courts are starting to agree with me on this one.

Technology by nature increases at almost an exponential rate. The more technology that exists the more areas to build upon this technology. This should not lead one to believe that there are not serious and stifling problems in our current patent system.

You shouldn't be able to patent a science fiction idea or a guess on where technology is going - especially if you have no desire or even ability to make this idea into a real product. Even worse, you shouldn't be able to tie A and B together in a fairly obvious way and call it a new innovation. I think it's pretty much understood that the patent office has lost the ability to discriminate between things that are natural and obvious and things which are truly unique and innovative.

As holder of two patents, I think you vastly underestimate the ability of the patent office to judge novelty.

I also think you underestimate the self-sustainability of technological innovation. You can't simply expect the pace of knowledge acquisition to continue or accelerate without people driving themselves.

A patent shouldn't be easy to get...and isn't. Whether we need to tweak our system is a matter for debate. It is not correct to imply that our current system 'stifles' innovation. If you want to see that, go to Europe.

[KantoSooner]

Self interest makes the world go around. Planting Round-up resistant seeds on the margins of a non-customer's fields, then billing that reluctant new "customer," crosses the line of acceptable self-interest.

Is that what Monsanto is charged with?

[OU68]

Does the thought of a couple of companies having control of the basic food chain bother anyone else?

[TAFBSooner]

Is that what Monsanto is charged with?

Schmeiser accused them of that, but the case didn't get to trial. Lots of farmers have had their fields invaded by Roundup-resistant seeds that may have gotten there inadvertently, and then Monsanto sent them a bill. Then there is the whole convenient issue of Roundup putting evolutionary pressure on weeds to make them resistant, then Monsanto flies in to the rescue with a new 18 year clock for Roundup 2. I would say you’re giving them a great big benefit of the doubt.

You are so much against threats to your personal freedom when they come from the government (about which I agree with you). Why are you so unconcerned when they come from the private sector?

[TAFBSooner]

Does the thought of a couple of companies having control of the basic food chain bother anyone else?

Very much so.

[KantoSooner]

You are so much against threats to your personal freedom when they come from the government (about which I agree with you). Why are you so unconcerned when they come from the private sector?

For a couple of reasons:

First, I have so far not seen a private sector threat to my freedoms that has lasted more than a couple of decades, tops.

Second, I have seen numerous examples of governments that have tyrannized their subjects over extended periods.

Again, we are all free to avoid the Monsanto's of the world. Simply don't buy their stuff. Now, that may be inconvenient, but no one ever guaranteed that you were entitled to all the convenience of the modern world without paying the people who provide it to you.

[pphilfran]

Does the thought of a couple of companies having control of the basic food chain bother anyone else?
Why does Monsanto have such a large market share? There are multiple other seeds to be had outside of Monsanto...

[KantoSooner]

Maybe theirs work bettter?

And, you're right, it's an easy choice if Monsanto is such a big baddy.

[pphilfran]

Maybe theirs work bettter?

And, you're right, it's an easy choice if Monsanto is such a big baddy.

Yep...and there is nothing stopping any other ag company from developing their own herbicide/seed system...other than years of research and untold amounts of funding...

[yermom]

For a couple of reasons:

First, I have so far not seen a private sector threat to my freedoms that has lasted more than a couple of decades, tops.

Second, I have seen numerous examples of governments that have tyrannized their subjects over extended periods.

Again, we are all free to avoid the Monsanto's of the world. Simply don't buy their stuff. Now, that may be inconvenient, but no one ever guaranteed that you were entitled to all the convenience of the modern world without paying the people who provide it to you.

i guess you missed the part where they sue you for using "their" crops when they contaminate your farm with their GMO ****

[pphilfran]

i guess you missed the part where they sue you for using "their" crops when they contaminate your farm with their GMO ****

When you profit from their technology you are liable to pay for the product....

If somebody sends you the latest and greatest album (free of charge and without you asking) that has just been released and you decide to start selling that album on your own would you be liable?

[yermom]

not if they drop those albums off at my house with all my other albums

[KantoSooner]

i guess you missed the part where they sue you for using "their" crops when they contaminate your farm with their GMO ****

Again, was that the charge?

And, show me scientific evidence that 'GMO' is bad. I'm in the food biz and so far all I've seen is Prince Charles blathering on about 'frankenfood'. If you absolutely don't want to eat anything GMO, then you can do that. It takes effort, but if that's your choice, go to it. No one is stopping you. Just as no one is stopping me from buying tomatoes at the farmer's market...with the full knowledge that almost surely those tomatoes were grown from seed with enhanced frost resistance. 'Cause you just don't get tomatoes this early any other way. (Wihtout, of course, trucking them from Guatemala or some such.)

[yermom]

i'm talking about this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

this guy had Roundup Ready Canola growing on his land, and Monsanto takes him to court for saving his seeds and planting them the next year.

their business model is the opposite of the recording industry, actually. record companies had a monopoly on production for a long time. it's not like you could make your own records at home, reasonably... then it was other media.

now you don't need media at all. what do they really offer?

with plants, they kinda reproduce themselves. they are already working against technology that is thousands of years old

[badger]

with plants, they kinda reproduce themselves. they are already working against technology that is thousands of years old

I swear, officer! I didn't plant that marijuana plant! Mother Nature did! :P

[KantoSooner]

Yermom, As I read the link, the facts are that he pruchased seed (and therefore 'contracted' with Monsanto) and grew a crop and harvested some for seed (a violation of his contract with them). I don't see reference to accidental mixture of GMO and non except as a defense he didn't use. And I see no reference whatsoever to intentional mixture of his crop by the nefarious agency of Monsanto.
If he didn't want to play by Monsanto's rules, he shouldn't have bought Monsanto's products. Yes, he would have had a non-Roundup ready crop, but so be it. If he was such a great guy, he wouldn't have wanted to use Roundup anyway, no?

Far from being a big guy/little guy case, this one could be framed as a case of a scam artist trying to slip and slide under and around his contractual obligations to make a few bucks more. I'm not too sympathetic. Apparently the Canadian Supreme Court wasn't, either.

[yermom]

Where does it say he bought Monsanto seeds?

[pphilfran]

He didn't buy the seeds but he did know that he had resistant plants in his field (he performed his own test)...he then knowingly saved the seeds from the resistant field and used them at the next planting...Monsanto approached him about the planting and asked for him to pay a licensing fee...he refused....the courts backed Monsanto...

[KantoSooner]

Where does it say he bought Monsanto seeds?

You are absolutely correct. I didn't read that the first time.

On reread, the case becomes more damning yet for our farmer. He was a seed breeder and seller. In other words, a competitor to Monsanto. Some GMO seed somehow got in his field so he concentrated it with the intent of selling it. Pretty analogous to a disc of software 'happening' to be mailed to me by people unknown and then I burn copies and sell them.

[Midtowner]

I'd have to side with Monsanto on this one. There is a lot of gray area out there on the first sale doctrine where it applies to digital or self-replicating materials like seeds. It would seem that if the farmer here carries the day, copyrighted digital content could be freely copied, Monsanto would probably be out of business or take a huge hit and we'd see the prices on things like seed and digital content skyrocket as producers would try to be making profits off of the first sale. Dogs and cats living together/mass hysteria.

Yes, Monsanto is a mean 'ol corporation which puts the squeeze on farmers and whatnot. Whatever... buy their products or don't buy their products if you hate 'em so much. If Monsanto loses a lot of the protections of patent law to innovators will be out the door, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

[pphilfran]

I'd have to side with Monsanto on this one. There is a lot of gray area out there on the first sale doctrine where it applies to digital or self-replicating materials like seeds. It would seem that if the farmer here carries the day, copyrighted digital content could be freely copied, Monsanto would probably be out of business or take a huge hit and we'd see the prices on things like seed and digital content skyrocket as producers would try to be making profits off of the first sale. Dogs and cats living together/mass hysteria.

Yes, Monsanto is a mean 'ol corporation which puts the squeeze on farmers and whatnot. Whatever... buy their products or don't buy their products if you hate 'em so much. If Monsanto loses a lot of the protections of patent law to innovators will be out the door, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

There was little doubt in my mind where your thoughts would be...

[pphilfran]

You are absolutely correct. I didn't read that the first time.

On reread, the case becomes more damning yet for our farmer. He was a seed breeder and seller. In other words, a competitor to Monsanto. Some GMO seed somehow got in his field so he concentrated it with the intent of selling it. Pretty analogous to a disc of software 'happening' to be mailed to me by people unknown and then I burn copies and sell them.

Jesus, I missed the seed broker part...

[pphilfran]

You are absolutely correct. I didn't read that the first time.

On reread, the case becomes more damning yet for our farmer. He was a seed breeder and seller. In other words, a competitor to Monsanto. Some GMO seed somehow got in his field so he concentrated it with the intent of selling it. Pretty analogous to a disc of software 'happening' to be mailed to me by people unknown and then I burn copies and sell them.

I said the same thing about music and it blew right over the top of his head...

[Midtowner]

I've done a little further research. Apparently, the farmer's position is couched in the First Sale Doctrine, which states a patent holder's interest in an item is extinguished after it is sold. That doctrine has recently been upheld with a company buying textbooks overseas and selling them cheaply within the U.S.

Of course textbooks are not self replicating as seeds are, so it's not in the best interest of a well regulated and orderly market to expect the courts to hold that copies of products would fall within the first sale doctrine (and that's what the Court has now unanimously held).

Some of y'all might not like Monsanto and other corporations, but they're playing within the rules. This Farmer thought he had found a loophole and ended up being wrong.

[jkjsooner]

I've done a little further research. Apparently, the farmer's position is couched in the First Sale Doctrine, which states a patent holder's interest in an item is extinguished after it is sold. That doctrine has recently been upheld with a company buying textbooks overseas and selling them cheaply within the U.S.

Of course textbooks are not self replicating as seeds are, so it's not in the best interest of a well regulated and orderly market to expect the courts to hold that copies of products would fall within the first sale doctrine (and that's what the Court has now unanimously held).

Some of y'all might not like Monsanto and other corporations, but they're playing within the rules. This Farmer thought he had found a loophole and ended up being wrong.

I don't dislike Monsanto nor do I disagree with this ruling as it relates directly with this farmer. However, there are open questions here.

Had someone who never bought Monsanto seed gone to the grain elevator and bought seeds to plant, planted them, never actively selected for Roundup resistant plants, would he have violated Monsanto's patents?

If so then I have a serious problem. This is a practice that has existed for generations. Monsanto shouldn't be able to stop this practice just because their seeds contaminated the supply.

I'd also say the farmer should be able to use Roundup if he uses it in a way that is common in the industry for non-Roundup ready crops. (Sometimes farmers may spray isolated areas of large infestations of weeds and kill the weeds and crop in that area. In that case it's not the farmer's fault that a few soybean plants might survive.)

[jkjsooner]

When you profit from their technology you are liable to pay for the product....

If somebody sends you the latest and greatest album (free of charge and without you asking) that has just been released and you decide to start selling that album on your own would you be liable?

This analogy only works if the farmer actively selected Monsanto seeds. It's easy to tell which album was given to you. You can't pick out and throw away Monsanto seeds in a truck load of millions of seeds.

You can of course figure out which plants were Monsanto plants later but only by killing the non-Monsanto plants which isn't doing you a lot of good if you're trying to exclude Monsanto seeds from your supply.

[pphilfran]

This analogy only works if the farmer actively selected Monsanto seeds. It's easy to tell which album was given to you. You can't pick out and throw away Monsanto seeds in a truck load of millions of seeds.

You can of course figure out which plants were Monsanto plants later but only by killing the non-Monsanto plants which isn't doing you a lot of good if you're trying to exclude Monsanto seeds from your supply.

When I was typing it I kinda thought someone would bust my chops on that point...

Overall, it is a difficult situation...then when Monsanto comes knocking on your door you start to plead innocent..they say fine, sign this agreement and pay this royalty...

[yermom]

This analogy only works if the farmer actively selected Monsanto seeds. It's easy to tell which album was given to you. You can't pick out and throw away Monsanto seeds in a truck load of millions of seeds.

You can of course figure out which plants were Monsanto plants later but only by killing the non-Monsanto plants which isn't doing you a lot of good if you're trying to exclude Monsanto seeds from your supply.

so what happens when he doesn't actively select RR crops and 60% of his plants are Monsanto patented plants just from contamination?

[pphilfran]

so what happens when he doesn't actively select RR crops and 60% of his plants are Monsanto patented plants just from contamination?

I am guessing that when Monsanto comes knocking with papers in hand an agreement would be reached on licensing...

[Midtowner]

so what happens when he doesn't actively select RR crops and 60% of his plants are Monsanto patented plants just from contamination?

Here's a link to the full opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf

My reading of this tells me that if he went to the grain elevator and bought a bunch of seeds and 60% were Monsanto, no big deal. First sale doctrine. Those seeds are his and he can do what the hell he wants to with them. He just can't use the second generation seeds which are Monsanto's innovation. He has to go back to the elevator and buy more seed.

He of course has the option to go overseas and buy some definitely, 100% not Monsanto seed and plant that, but the key here is that he can't make new copies of Monsanto's invention and sell those.

ETA: Thinking that through another step, I don't know that my initial analysis is right. I think we start to ask whether that grain elevator is authorized to sell that seed and I'm thinking no.

[yermom]

I am guessing that when Monsanto comes knocking with papers in hand an agreement would be reached on licensing...

and THAT is bull****

[Midtowner]

They create great products and have spent lots of money in developing them. It's not BS, it's business.

[yermom]

products that will grow on their own in nature, and get carried off in the wind to other places.

their business model only works because there aren't a ****load of small farms. when most agriculture is done by a handful of corporations, it's easy to track people down and force them into your business model.

what is the non-Monsanto customer supposed to do when more than half of his plants are tainted with Monsanto DNA from contamination from neighboring farms? burn it all down?

[jkjsooner]

Here's a link to the full opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf

My reading of this tells me that if he went to the grain elevator and bought a bunch of seeds and 60% were Monsanto, no big deal. First sale doctrine. Those seeds are his and he can do what the hell he wants to with them. He just can't use the second generation seeds which are Monsanto's innovation. He has to go back to the elevator and buy more seed.

He of course has the option to go overseas and buy some definitely, 100% not Monsanto seed and plant that, but the key here is that he can't make new copies of Monsanto's invention and sell those.

ETA: Thinking that through another step, I don't know that my initial analysis is right. I think we start to ask whether that grain elevator is authorized to sell that seed and I'm thinking no.

First I'll address a couple of things you said above that need clarification.


The bean is the seed. Why the hell would you raise soybeans if you or the grain elevator can't sell them?

Logically there's no distiction between replanting and buying from a grain elevator. Both are second generation. If you couldn't replant but could buy from the elevator then you'd just sell some and buy that amount back.



I have a big problem with what you're saying. The practice of buying seeds at the grain elevator has been practiced for generations. Now because Monsanto has inserted their patented seeds into the supply you think it's fair for every farmer to be forced to abandon this practice?

I think the only fair solution would be that farmers who want cheap seeds (which is why you would get them from the grain elevator), don't want to take advantage of the features of Monsanto's seeds, and never actively selects Monsanto seeds should be able to buy seeds from the grain elevator just as they have done for generations. It's absolutely unreasonable to expect farmers to change their practice because Monsanto couldn't effectively keep their seeds out of the grain elevators.

If a farmer does exactly what I said above it poses absolutely no threat to Monsanto's business model. Anyone who wants to spray their crop with Roundup would know that they would have to buy seed from Monsanto and could not use second generations seeds. If you're not doing this then why should Monsanto care? It's also fair to farmers who have every right to continue their business practice that's been done for generations.



Let me ask you this? Let's say I patented some useless seed but I somehow made sure my seed made it into every grain elevator. Can I now extract money from anyone who wants to use seed bought at a grain elevator? For a farmer who doesn't need Roundup Ready seeds this is exactly the situation they are in.

[jkjsooner]

And Midtowner before you say it I know this is not wha this farmer did. For starters he had bought Roundup Ready seeds and signed an agreement with Monsanto. He also actively selected Monsanto seeds and then used these for future generations.

I agree with the decision against this farmer. However, you seem to have taken it much farther than that to a level where innocent farmers are forced to abandon time honored business practices.

The assertion that they can buy seeds from Europe is insulting. For starters, the reason you'd buy lower quality seeds from a grain elevator is because they're cheap. This is a common practice when buying wheat for use as a winter cover crop. It's fair to ask the farmer to pay for much more expensive seed (from Europe for God's sake) so that his fields can be covered for the winter?


Edit: I just read the opinion. I see that they state that the opinion is narrow and doesn't cover situations where replication might be out of the buyer's control. Unfortunately there was no statement about how this does not cover a case where the buyer had no intention of obtaining the patented product or using its benefits.

[pphilfran]

products that will grow on their own in nature, and get carried off in the wind to other places.

their business model only works because there aren't a ****load of small farms. when most agriculture is done by a handful of corporations, it's easy to track people down and force them into your business model.

what is the non-Monsanto customer supposed to do when more than half of his plants are tainted with Monsanto DNA from contamination from neighboring farms? burn it all down?

It will be based on how much is cross pollinated and if the farmer/seller/buyer knew it was Monsanto derived seed...

I try to not us Wiki for factual information but I don't feel like digging too deep...

Since the mid‑1990s, Monsanto indicates that it has filed suit against 145 individual U.S. farmers for patent infringement and/or breach of contract in connection with its genetically engineered seed but has proceeded through trial against only eleven farmers, all of which it won.

As an example...from the case we were discussing earlier...

The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.[139]

[jkjsooner]

It will be based on how much is cross pollinated and if the farmer/seller/buyer knew it was Monsanto derived seed...

I could not disagree with this more. I don't care how much cross pollination was there. To expect the farmer to abandon his ability to replant because his crop has been too contaminated is an invasion of his rights to farm his land as has been done for generations.



The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.[139]

Now you'r talking about something very different. It sounds like this guy's crop was cross pollinated and instead of just continuing as normal he actively selected these seeds for future generations. That is a different story.

If your first sentence was only meant in cases where the percentages show that active selection was done then I could agree.

However, going back to the grain elevator example, I still contend that Monsanto has no right to assert their control over the business practices that existed long before Monsanto patented their seeds. I don't care if the farmer ends up with 75 or 90% Monsanto seeds. So long as he made no effort to increase these percentages and use the patented properties it shouldn't matter.

It does not harm Monsanto's business model one bit. If Monsanto doesn't want their seeds replicated without active selection (no roundup) of Monsanto seeds then they should have prevented their farmers from putting their seeds in grain elevators.


These are the arguments people make. They don't care about a ruling against Bowman or Schmeiser as both are guilty acting in a way that attempted to use and replicate Monsanto technology. But people do worry about the innocent cases where people are forced to abandon their normal business practice because Monsanto's patented products can't be avoided. As it is, organic farmers have asked for Monsanto to promise not to sue them if they're crops are contaminated with Monsanto seed. Monsanto has refused. An organic farmer would never use Roundup so there should be no concern but Monsanto seems like they may want to squeeze money out of these farmers if they happen to reproduce Monsanto seed by no fault of their own.

[pphilfran]

I don't think I was clear....

In each case the defendant knew they were using cross fertilized seed and proceeded to use the seed anyway..

The percent of cross contamination is going to be key...I am sure there are studies that show how much cross contamination is normal....if you are under that, say 25%, then you ain't got nuttin to worry about...60/70/80% and above and you have serious problems...

[jkjsooner]

I don't think I was clear....

In each case the defendant knew they were using cross fertilized seed and proceeded to use the seed anyway..

The percent of cross contamination is going to be key...I am sure there are studies that show how much cross contamination is normal....if you are under that, say 25%, then you ain't got nuttin to worry about...60/70/80% and above and you have serious problems...

well, knowingly reproducing cross pollinated seed shouldn't be sufficient since an organic farmer may know s/he has Monsanto seed but can't do anything about it. You can get rid of non-Monsanto seed in future generations but you can't do the opposite.

The percentages might work for cross pollination but what about the grain elevator example where you will invariably end up with a high percentage?