73 replies to this topic

[Jabadoodle]

Farmer's Fight With Monsanto Reaches The Supreme Cout

http://www.npr.org/b...e-supreme-court

 

 

After a quick read of this, I'm not sure where I stand. If I set aside any pre-judged dislike for Monsanto, I can see their side more clearly than I can see the farmers. This company put in research to make a plant that is (even by this farmers admission) very helpful. The farmer is trying to plant using that seed. He know that the seed he is buying almost certainly has the Monsanto technology in it.

The legal argument by the farmers defense lawyers seems specious. They claim that patent law recognized that if we buy an iPhone or whaterver, it's ours to do with as we please. But that's not 100% true. For one, we can't clone and iPhone and resell it. For another, if we buy an iPhone, we can't reverse engineer it -- then claim that we own that technology because we bought one phone. It's just like we we buy music: Yes, we can play it all we want or even sell the CD to someone else. But we can't (legally) copy it and sell as many copies as we'd like.

And without patents, why would companies spend the millions of dollars it takes to create these seeds (which again, even THIS farmer says are useful, valuable, save time, etc.)?

The best solution I can see to this (as a whole problem, not just this one case) is for the goverment to step is and say something like: Look, it's great that Monsanto created this seed. And we want you to be compensated well for your efforts so that others will continue to innovate. Yet, having you own this patent on this is dicey because it's life, it's food, it spreads to other fields even if a farmer doesn't mean it to. SO...we're going to take your seed by eminent domain (or some legal construct similar to that) but we're going to pay you a fair price for it. Show us what it cost you to develop it. We'll pay X times that (where X is some high return).

Anyway....interesting stuff.

 

 

[MeOmYo]

Interesting indeed.  I don't think our tax money should be subsidizing Monsanto patents.  Patenting an organism is wrong IMO and if Monsanto doesn't agree/like that, they should find another market.  Rely on your technology without squeezing the farmers, distributors and eventually the consumer's wallets via patent laws.

[Lostsailr]

There is nothing good in the long run with GMO that i can see.  Making plants tollerate RoundUp woud seem to put more chemicals into our food supply.  Organic and other natural farmers do not want Monsanto's poisonous seeds, but their pollen migrates and "infects" natural crops.  I wish all natural and organic farmers could get enough Gov't support to blast those F'ers into permanent bakrupsy... but that's just me. BTW, recent reports state that GMO crops are starting to become less productive than natural ones.  (ever wonder why so amny people have become gluten intollerant/ celiacs sufferers?...about the time factory farmers began using all GMO all the time?  hmmmm!)

[TEO]

Interesting indeed.  I don't think our tax money should be subsidizing Monsanto patents.  Patenting an organism is wrong IMO and if Monsanto doesn't agree/like that, they should find another market.  Rely on your technology without squeezing the farmers, distributors and eventually the consumer's wallets via patent laws.

 

 

This plus the nature of their product is such that it pollutes/cross contaminates neighboring farms not using their product.  Although I realize this issue should probably be a separate lawsuit, I find it relevant to the overall GMO picture.

[Jabadoodle]

* Many may agree that pesticides and GMO is dangerous and we want to eat all organic. We could have a separate discussion about that, even to the point of discussing making them illegal. But for now, GMO & pesticides are legal to grow and hundreds of millions of consumers are willing to buy and eat those products. So that's a separate issue than what's in front of the court in this case.

* Yes...GMO seed can get into a non GMO crop. If that happens, a farmer should NOT have to pay for the seed or be open to a lawsuit. But, as TEO said, that's a separate lawsuit/issue and is NOT what is happening in this case.

* I hear you MeOmYo that you don't want tax dollars going to "subsidize" Monsanto patents. Yet...

1: Companies won't innovate if there is no incentive to do it.
2: People & Companies should be entitled to the fruits of their labor & investments

3: Having seeds that are patented creates all sorts of problems

I suggested paying them off and making the technology public for the public good (I don't call that subsidizing) 

What other possible answers are there?

[TEO]

So the seed thing is like slavery, you buy slaves, then due to that ownership, you also own all the children, grandchildren, etc they ever have?

 

Or a dog/cat and it's offspring?

[MeOmYo]

Patenting of an organism should be illegal.  you want to invest in GMO research, find a different business model for return on your investment other than patent laws.

 

reverse their patents and as the old saying goes, "tough shit".

 

 

I know it will never happen but I have no leniency or compassion for Monsanto or the "fruits of their labor"

 

I have made the argument on here many times that GMO crops save lives by increasing crop output by up to 60%.  Perhaps not so much here in the US but in other countries where food is scarce, GMO saves lives.  there is good and bad to them.

[Lostsailr]

point 1) BS...companies innovate because they want to, not because there is some external incentive. A good innovation is helpful to them and their customers, not in need of a monopoly

 

2) They ARE entitled to profit from their tampering with our world...so they do.  Just keep their pollen out of the rest of the world (try innovating plants that will only pollenate other GMO plants...then you can protect your patent (as screwed up as it is)

[TEO]

I was thinking about the potential monopoly factor of all this last night.

[china cat]

Did not read all of this but if it's about farmers reusing a patented seed without permission or compensation to the patent owner, then they are in the wrong.

 

Souls have been sold to the devil - now they're paying the price.

 

There has got to be an agricultural revolution--a rebellion to reclaim natural seed

 

problem started with Diamond vs Chackrabarty.

 

http://www.centerfor...ief History.pdf

[china cat]

I was thinking about the potential monopoly factor of all this last night.

 

already monopolized. their goal seems not to be to feed the world, but rather to control the world's food supply.

[TakeAStepBack]

Patents and intellectual property are the great favoritism used by corporations and individuals as a means of government favoritism. I dont think anyone should be able to patent any idea or product. I also dont think Monsanto should receive a single one of my tax dollars.

[Jabadoodle]

So the seed thing is like slavery, you buy slaves, then due to that ownership, you also own all the children, grandchildren, etc they ever have?

 

Or a dog/cat and it's offspring?

 

Nope, not like slavery. The analogy doesn't match up in many ways. Forget the analogy, it's this: Monsanto put in research to develop something that is of value. They own that technology. 

PS on analogies & comparisons: I'm a person that used to use analogies often in discussions to make my point. I found though that they almost always add more confusion than clarity. The reason is the example almost never has all the same factors. I finally figured out that analogies can be very useful when you are simply trying to explain something to someone -- if there is nothing in dispute. Like if I try to explain computer processing power to a mechanic using car engine RPMs. But as a way of making or defending a point they almost always suck.
 

Patenting of an organism should be illegal.  you want to invest in GMO research, find a different business model for return on your investment other than patent laws.

 

reverse their patents and as the old saying goes, "tough shit".

 

 

I know it will never happen but I have no leniency or compassion for Monsanto or the "fruits of their labor"

 

I have made the argument on here many times that GMO crops save lives by increasing crop output by up to 60%.  Perhaps not so much here in the US but in other countries where food is scarce, GMO saves lives.  there is good and bad to them.

 

Again, I hear you and agree. We agree that GMOs have some benefits. We agree that patenting of organisms is a dicey situation and we'ld rather not have it. We agree that finding a different business model would be better. And (I think) we agree that companies aren't going to invenst millions in research unless they have some hope of getting a return. So what is the solution? What business model will work that doesn't involve patents?? ~ I am NOT asking as if an answer doesn't exist. I just don't know what it is....
 

point 1) BS...companies innovate because they want to, not because there is some external incentive. A good innovation is helpful to them and their customers, not in need of a monopoly

 

2) They ARE entitled to profit from their tampering with our world...so they do.  Just keep their pollen out of the rest of the world (try innovating plants that will only pollenate other GMO plants...then you can protect your patent (as screwed up as it is)

Point 1 is NOT BS. Companies will only spend the money to innovate if there is a chance to reap rewards (profit). Their innovations are not "helpful" to the company if they can't sell them and the people using the innovation are only "customers" if they are paying for the product. 

Point 2: I totally agree that when their modified product pollinates a non GMO crop, that's Monsanto's problem. In fact, they should be able to be sued (and lose) cases where they messed up someone else's crops. BUT, that is not the issue here. It's the issue in other law suits...but THIS is not a case of Monsanto seed pollinating non-Monsanto seed.

 

Did not read all of this but if it's about farmers reusing a patented seed without permission or compensation to the patent owner, then they are in the wrong.

 

Souls have been sold to the devil - now they're paying the price.

 

There has got to be an agricultural revolution--a rebellion to reclaim natural seed

 

problem started with Diamond vs Chackrabarty.

 

http://www.centerfor...ief History.pdf

It is about a farmer using patented seed without permission. I'm unclear when you say "then they are in the wrong" do you mean the farmer or Monsanto?  If Monsanto...why are they in the wrong?

 

[Jabadoodle]

Patents and intellectual property are the great favoritism used by corporations and individuals as a means of government favoritism. I dont think anyone should be able to patent any idea or product. I also dont think Monsanto should receive a single one of my tax dollars.

 

So why would a company (not just seed & GMO companies but others too) spend millions developing something only to have it free to anyone that wants it?  

Real life example: I was just working on a product that a doctor is working on to help people with sleap-apnea. He spent tens of thousands of his own money with "my" company to get some prototypes made. If his idea works, by the time he gets it to market, it will probably have cost him a million dollars or more to get it to work, get it approved by the FDA, etc. ~ But the design is quite simple and would be very easy for anyone to copy...once they knew it worked. So if the day it went on the market he wasn't going to have any protection from oneone else making the same device...why would he spend his money and years of his life developing it?

If I spend a year writing a book or a computer program should you be able to just take it and resell it? 

 

 

[china cat]

It is about a farmer using patented seed without permission. I'm unclear when you say "then they are in the wrong" do you mean the farmer or Monsanto?  If Monsanto...why are they in the wrong?

 

 

Hi Gar

 

I would say, legally, the farmer is wrong.

 

(as much as I abhor Monsanto, they have a case)

[TEO]

It is about a farmer using patented seed without permission. I'm unclear when you say "then they are in the wrong" do you mean the farmer or Monsanto?  If Monsanto...why are they in the wrong?

 

 

Did the farmer use "fresh" patented seed or are these re-used seeds?  (Obviously I need to re-read the fact pattern.)

[Tim the Beek]

Runnin' off to make cheese...is this the case where the farmer bought grain from an elevator and planted it?

 

If so, I haven't rally come to a conclusion about it.

[MeOmYo]

I agree, companies are not going to invest millions in research unless there is a return.  Although, I do believe there would be a return without patents.  Certainly not the return they can obtain with patents but I believe there is still a margin for return.  You simply have to price your seeds to not make it worth a farmer saving seed for future crops.  Noting that on the scales these mid-west farms are running, this is not such an easy venture as many might think.  You have to guarantee these seeds will sprout or you will suffer enormous financial consequences.  A risk I would speculate the farmers would rather entrust in proven seed suppliers.  

 

Again, I hear you and agree. We agree that GMOs have some benefits. We agree that patenting of organisms is a dicey situation and we'ld rather not have it. We agree that finding a different business model would be better. And (I think) we agree that companies aren't going to invenst millions in research unless they have some hope of getting a return. So what is the solution? What business model will work that doesn't involve patents?? ~ I am NOT asking as if an answer doesn't exist. I just don't know what it is....

[MeOmYo]

Did the farmer use "fresh" patented seed or are these re-used seeds?  (Obviously I need to re-read the fact pattern.)

 

 

The farmer used harvested seed from originally purchased and planted patented seed.

[TakeAStepBack]

So why would a company (not just seed & GMO companies but others too) spend millions developing something only to have it free to anyone that wants it?  

Real life example: I was just working on a product that a doctor is working on to help people with sleap-apnea. He spent tens of thousands of his own money with "my" company to get some prototypes made. If his idea works, by the time he gets it to market, it will probably have cost him a million dollars or more to get it to work, get it approved by the FDA, etc. ~ But the design is quite simple and would be very easy for anyone to copy...once they knew it worked. So if the day it went on the market he wasn't going to have any protection from oneone else making the same device...why would he spend his money and years of his life developing it?

If I spend a year writing a book or a computer program should you be able to just take it and resell it? 

 

 

They wouldn't. No one is saying that they give their invention or innovation away. But it should not be that others are barred from making it better if they can. That's how competition works.

 

IN your example, there are already laws that make creating such a simple device very costly/ So it's not applicable to my belief that patent protections stifle innovation. We aren't going to roll back to times when inventions were served up on their merits vs. govt. saying it is ok to make and then protecting you from other innovators, so it's not something we can apply here logically. I was just expressing my thoughts on it.

[Tim the Beek]

Had a moment to peek at the case while the milk gets curdled.

 

I'm still of somewhat mixed thoughts on this, but I think, sadly, I fall on Monsanto's side on this one.

 

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the case which originally allowed life to be patented, is abhorrent to me. But since it is the law of the land, and since Mr. Bowman thought it likely that the grain he bought from the elevator had Monsanto's genes in it, it seems to me he's guilty of infringing on its patent.

 

It's my fervent wish that Monsanto gets bankrupted by cases of farmers who, by pollen drift or other means, end up with these genes even though they don't want its intellectual property all up in their crops. Prolly won't happen though.

[TEO]

The farmer used harvested seed from originally purchased and planted patented seed.

 

 

Then he had already paid for it, good on him if he can reuse, re harvest.

[MeOmYo]

Then he had already paid for it, good on him if he can reuse, re harvest.

 

 

that's just it, according to the patent, he can't

[TEO]

Is it within the Supreme Court's purview to rule on the scope of the patent in this case?

[MeOmYo]

it sure is

 

so, you think his doings are legal?

[Depends]

I'm confused with this case, and I have not come over to Monsanto's side on this.

From what I understand:

When you buy Monsanto seed, you can not use/replant the 2nd generation seed.  I don't like this part, but that is the agreement that you enter into with Monsanto.

You can, however, sell the 2nd generation seed to a grain elevator with zero restrictions.  OK. Seems plausible so far. But as the original farmer, you can't buy back that seed from the grain elevator, which may or may not have been mixed with conventional seed, and reuse 2nd generation of that seed?   Is this what the case is about?

[Julius]

Interesting but the case seems so frivolous I'm surprised it's being heard in the first place.

[TEO]

it sure is

 

so, you think his doings are legal?

 

 

Common sense tells me his doings are just fine, not so sure whether or not it is technically legal.

[Spidergawd]

They wouldn't. No one is saying that they give their invention or innovation away. But it should not be that others are barred from making it better if they can. That's how competition works.

 

IN your example, there are already laws that make creating such a simple device very costly/ So it's not applicable to my belief that patent protections stifle innovation. We aren't going to roll back to times when inventions were served up on their merits vs. govt. saying it is ok to make and then protecting you from other innovators, so it's not something we can apply here logically. I was just expressing my thoughts on it.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I thought if you improve a product significantly enough, you can patent the improvement.  But again, I'm not 100% on this, and I'm sure there are lots of caveats.

 

Overall, I'm very in favor of patents within reason.  There's a reason they are there.  However, I agree with some here and am not comfortable with being able to patent a living organism. 

 

Monshito is putting that frankenseed out in nature, which, IMO, makes it fair game.  Are they going to sue if some seeds blow into my yard and germinate?  Are they going to pay if it cross pollinates something else and thereby screws it up?

 

The more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I become.

[Jabadoodle]

I'm still of somewhat mixed thoughts on this, but I think, sadly, I fall on Monsanto's side on this one.

Exactly. 
 

I agree, companies are not going to invest millions in research unless there is a return.  Although, I do believe there would be a return without patents.  Certainly not the return they can obtain with patents but I believe there is still a margin for return.  You simply have to price your seeds to not make it worth a farmer saving seed for future crops.  Noting that on the scales these mid-west farms are running, this is not such an easy venture as many might think.  You have to guarantee these seeds will sprout or you will suffer enormous financial consequences.  A risk I would speculate the farmers would rather entrust in proven seed suppliers.  

It's a good point that patents may not be the only way for a company to be willing to innovate. The answer may well be in a solution that just "Monsanto vs. Farmers" but how everyone can prosper.

 

Interesting but the case seems so frivolous I'm surprised it's being heard in the first place.

 

My belief is that it's being heard by the Supreme Court because this is a case Monsanto can win -- which of course helps Monsanto in other cases. I wish the case of patented-seed pollinating non-patented-seed had been heard instead. 

 

Monshito is putting that frankenseed out in nature, which, IMO, makes it fair game.  Are they going to sue if some seeds blow into my yard and germinate?  Are they going to pay if it cross pollinates something else and thereby screws it up?

 

The more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I become.

Exactly the case I wish would be brought to the SC.

 

[china cat]

  Are they going to sue if some seeds blow into my yard and germinate?  Are they going to pay if it cross pollinates something else and thereby screws it up?

 

The more I think about this, the more uncomfortable I become.

 

[china cat]

and in international news....

 

 

Launching a lawsuit against the very company that is responsible for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes, 5 million farmers are now suing Monsanto for as much as 6.2 billion euros (around 7.7 billion US dollars).

The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that led certain farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt’, Monsanto has been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous royalty charges.

The farmers state that Monsanto has been unfairly gathering exorbitant profits each year on a global scale from “renewal” seed harvests, which are crops planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest.

The practice of using renewal seeds dates back to ancient times, but Monsanto seeks to collect massive royalties and put an end to the practice. Why? Because Monsanto owns the very patent to the genetically modified seed, and is charging the farmers not only for the original crops, but the later harvests as well. Eventually, the royalties compound and many farmers begin to struggle with even keeping their farm afloat. It is for this reason that India slammed Monsanto with groundbreaking ‘biopiracy’ charges in an effort to stop Monsanto from ‘patenting life’.

 

http://www.whydontyo...-7-billion.html

[Julius]

I have zero emotions towards this issue and prefer to examine the problem using logic. I find Monsanto's business practices to be aggressive, even punitive. But the anti-Monsanto propaganda annoys me even more because it paints the company as a monopolist, which is absurd. The seed industry is one of the most open in the world with hundreds of suppliers and no force that has a dominant market share. Farmers have a CHOICE about which seed supplier to use so don't come crying to me just because you made the wrong one.

[Tim the Beek]

Monsanto does not have monopoly power. Not yet, at least, but consider the following:
 

 

According to Context Network, the proprietary seed market (that is, brand- name seed that is subject to exclusive monopoly – i.e., intellectual property), now accounts for 82% of the commercial seed market worldwide. In 2007, the global proprietary seed market was US$22,000 million. (The total commercial seed market was valued at $26,700 million in 2007.) The commercial seed market, of course, does not include farmer-saved seed.

The World's Top 10 Seed Companies

Company - 2007 seed sales (US$ millions) - % of global proprietary seed market
 
1.Monsanto (US) - $4,964m - 23%
2.DuPont (US) - $3,300m - 15%
3.Syngenta (Switzerland) - $2,018m - 9%
4.Groupe Limagrain (France) - $1,226m - 6%
5.Land O' Lakes (US) - $917m - 4%
6.KWS AG (Germany) - $702m - 3%
7.Bayer Crop Science (Germany) - $524m - 2%
8.Sakata (Japan) - $396m - <2%
9.DLF-Trifolium (Denmark) - $391m - <2%
10.Takii (Japan) - $347m - <2%
Top 10 Total - $14,785m - 67% [of global proprietary seed market]
Source: ETC Group

The top 10 seed companies account for $14,785 million - or two-thirds (67%) of the global proprietary seed market.

The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, accounts for almost one-quarter (23%) of the global proprietary seed market.

The top 3 companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta) together account for $10,282 million, or 47% of the worldwide proprietary seed market.

ETC Group conservatively estimates that the top 3 seed companies control 65% of the proprietary maize seed market worldwide, and over half of the proprietary soybean seed market.

Based on industry statistics, ETC  Group estimates that Monsanto's biotech seeds and traits (including those licensed to other companies) accounted for 87% of the total world area devoted to genetically engineered seeds in 2007.

The company claims that it licenses its biotech traits to an additional 250 companies. In 2007, almost half (48%) of DuPont's seed revenue came from products that carried a biotech trait. UK consultancy firm, Cropnosis, puts the global value of GM crops in 2007 at $6.9 billion.

http://gmwatch.org/c...who-owns-nature

And then explain to me why I shouldn't be concerned, particularly given Monsanto's business practices, that market share (and therefore control) is becoming overly centralized in the seed industry.

 

[jnjn]

do these patents eventually expire in the same way that pharmaceutical patents expire?  if so, how long until it expires?

[china cat]

we saw the same thing happen with the media: They gain so much power that they destroy/buy up the competition.

 

In 1980 90% of media was controlled by 50 corporations. Today 90% is controlled by 6.

 

 

 

Given this giant, I think it naive to assume the same won't/isn't happening with our food supply. It is happening.

 

anti-trust laws should be applied and  Diamond Vs. Chakrabarty should be overturned.

[TakeAStepBack]

Ah, government. The problem, and solution to, ALL of lifes problems.

[china cat]

I'm not anti-reg Dave. not given the power of today's corporations.

[china cat]

though, they do seem to regulate on behalf of the corps, don't they?

[china cat]

we shouldn't advertise to children (I wish the FCC would do something about it, as other nations have), we shouldn't allow 5 or 6 corps to control the nation's news, we shouldn't let corps pollute (more than they already do)...

 

How do we solve this?

[TakeAStepBack]

How do we solve this?

 

I'm not so sure anyone wants to hear my answer to that. But I'm all ears on others thoughts.
 

[concert andy]

I'm not so sure anyone wants to hear my answer to that. But I'm all ears on others thoughts.
 

 

 

[Depends]

we shouldn't advertise to children (I wish the FCC would do something about it, as other nations have), we shouldn't allow 5 or 6 corps to control the nation's news, we shouldn't let corps pollute (more than they already do)...

 

How do we solve this?

I know next to nothing about all this, but, wasn't there some sort of rules/laws that prohibited a corporation from having too much media in a specific city/region.  Like they couldn't own more than X TV/Radio stations, or something like that.

Advertise to kids bothers me, but it is nothing new.

Advertising prescription drugs bothers me.  IMO, in a perfect world, your doctor (who would not be accepting $$ from pharma companies to push their brand) would prescribe the best medicine for your ailment.  Now people say, "No, I want the stuff with the pretty fields of flowers", or whatever. 

[Tim the Beek]

do these patents eventually expire in the same way that pharmaceutical patents expire?  if so, how long until it expires?

 

I believe it's 20 years...though there's some though in some cases that the utility of the seeds is diminishing before the patents are up...weeds getting resistant to Roundup and the like.

[concert andy]

I know next to nothing about all this, but, wasn't there some sort of rules/laws that prohibited a corporation from having too much media in a specific city/region.  Like they couldn't own more than X TV/Radio stations, or something like that.

Advertise to kids bothers me, but it is nothing new.

Advertising prescription drugs bothers me.  IMO, in a perfect world, your doctor (who would not be accepting $$ from pharma companies to push their brand) would prescribe the best medicine for your ailment.  Now people say, "No, I want the stuff with the pretty fields of flowers", or whatever. 

 

The side effects always scare me in these commercials.  

[Julius]

Once you've read and processed this piece by a former anti-GMO crusader who has now changed his mind, I'm sure your stubborness will be unchanged because you still need something fake to get upset about:

 

http://www.marklynas...3-january-2013/

[Tim the Beek]

Once you've read and processed this piece by a former anti-GMO crusader who has now changed his mind, I'm sure your stubborness will be unchanged because you still need something fake to get upset about:

 

http://www.marklynas...3-january-2013/

 

Who are you referring to as "you," here?

[Julius]

Who are you referring to as "you," here?

The whole knee-jerk anti-GMO movement who generally present their case with oversimplified memes that omit any of the scientific facts that don't support their contentions.

[Tim the Beek]

Monsanto does not have monopoly power. Not yet, at least, but consider the following:
 

 

And then explain to me why I shouldn't be concerned, particularly given Monsanto's business practices, that market share (and therefore control) is becoming overly centralized in the seed industry.

 

[Julius]

And while I'm at it, those who have bought into what is essentially an urban legend that vaccines cause autism are also worthy of a good laugh.