Yahoo/AP: High-stakes fight over soybeans at high court

[twa]

He was producing MORE soybeans .

that usually happens when you plant them ,yes

did they patent that part as well?

not a fan of overly restricting things....sorry to be a bother

[PeterMP]

that usually happens when you plant them ,yes

did they patent that part as well?

No, but you did did cut out the rest of the post where I pointed out that he DID do something that they did patent, you know the being able to spray them w/ roundup and not have them die part.

Again, if he plants them in the ground, and they grow and that's the end, I'm on the other side in this thread.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1). Problem is, ASF is incorrect. Monsanto owns a patent on the gene. On a DNA code. First generation, second generation, third, 27th, doesn't matter. They own the life form.

Asked and answered....repeatedly. When they force farmers to sell beans to graineries knowing that those beans WILL be sold as seed and WILL be replanted out of Monsanto's control and reach along the guidelines that Monsanto themselves created and have mandated then they themselves have surrendered their control. The reality is that their patent is unenforceable and they know it.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 06:30 AM ----------

I thought it would be useful to see where this conversation started. We've gone from evil Monsanto sued people who had their beans pollenated with Monsanto pollen (which nobody has presented evidence of in this thread and isn't the case here), and they are a monopoly (I've already quoted where you could buy patented seeds, but not w/ Monsanto technology and even get unpatented seeds).

Essentially to Monsanto is dumb and created liscensing agreements that would cause them to "surrender" their patent rights and were out smarted by a farmer (which would at best be a complex legal issue).

All of which is true.

He was producing MORE soybeans (in a manner that was knowingly and purposely dependent on the patented technology where the MORE soybeans also contain the technology).

If this is what Monsanto wanted to avoid then the patent and controls should be on the Round-Up spray, not the beans which they force to be resold and replanted.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 06:35 AM ----------

No, but you did did cut out the rest of the post where I pointed out that he DID do something that they did patent, you know the being able to spray them w/ roundup and not have them die part.

So you're arguing that Monsanto's patent forbids people from spraying Round-Up on non-RoundUp ready beans? That's what happened.

[PeterMP]

All of which is true.

Really? Where is the law suit based on pollination?

Can you not buy seeds not patented by Monsanto?

If this is what Monsanto wanted to avoid then the patent and controls should be on the Round-Up spray, not the beans which they force to be resold and replanted.

So you're arguing that Monsanto's patent forbids people from spraying Round-Up on non-RoundUp ready beans? That's what happened.

They aren't forcing anybody to replant them, and they certainly aren't forcing anybody to replant them and spray them w/ roundup.

No, and that's not what happened. He purposely bought seeds that he expected to have roundup ready seeds, and then he sprayed those plants with roundup in a manner that would have killed normal plants.

Again, was he purposely and knowingly reproducing patented technology?

[Larry]

Like I've said, I'm not sure where the Courts will come down on this exactly. Hopefully, that's why the Supreme Court has taken the case.

I try and keep adding knowingly and purposely (or something similar) when I write it. If you simply took seeds from the local grain elevator and grew them, you wouldn't knowingly and purposely be reproducing their technology (you might suspect that you are because a large number of farmers use them and so it is likely that they are in there, but the batch you got might be from a farmer that didn't use their technology so you wouldn't know it the same way he did where he sprayed his field to make sure he ONLY had what he wanted).

And certainly as generations went by, you wouldn't know if the genes were kept or lost (if you didn't keep spraying them).

Now, me, assuming that he sprayed Roundup on his crops, (I haven't seen a link actually saying he did, or that the same is true in all of the other prosecusions/threats. But you've got enough credibility in my book that I'm willing to take your word for it.), and that Roundup works like you've described (kills 100% of non-patented crops), . . .

Then, to me, spraying Roundup isn't proof of infringement, necessarily. But it is proof that he knew that he had a high percentage of patented plants, AND intent to upgrade his crop from "high percentage patented" to "100% patented".

To me, it doesn't prove that what he did was infringement. (I'm not sure where that happens.) But, if he did infringe, then it proves that he did it with knowledge and intent.

----------

Possible analogy:

Your neighbor has invented a new breed of animal. Say he's invented pink elephants. Something that's new and unique. And everybody knows that your neighbor owns the patent on pink elephants.

One day, a pink elephant escapes, and turns up in your herd. Suppose it's purely by accident, and through no fault of yours.

But, suppose that, when that elephant winds up in your herd, you immediately breed it with all of your elephants. And not only breeding it with yours, but you kill all non-pink offspring, while retaining the pink offspring, and breeding them with each other, to create further generations.

It's not a perfect analogy. (Is there such a thing?) But I can sure see parallels.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Really? Where is the law suit based on pollination?

Watch Food Inc. the documentary.

Can you not buy seeds not patented by Monsanto?

Sure you can.

They aren't forcing anybody to replant them,

Sure they are, because they are forcing the beans to be sold to grainaries which then blend them with other beans, there isn't a mechanism for farmer to opt out and get non-Monsanto commodity seed.

]and they certainly aren't forcing anybody to replant them and spray them w/ roundup.

Ahhh, but their patent doesn't prevent the sparying of beans with RoundUp, anyone cannspray any bean with RoundUp.

No, and that's not what happened. He purposely bought seeds that he expected to have roundup ready seeds, and then he sprayed those plants with roundup in a manner that would have killed normal plants.

And good for him for doing that which is completely within Monsanto's guidelines.

Again, was he purposely and knowingly reproducing patented technology?

And again EVERY farmer that plants commodity beans that contain Monsanto beans is allowed to do just that.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 07:50 AM ----------

Possible analogy:

Your neighbor has invented a new breed of animal. Say he's invented pink elephants. Something that's new and unique. And everybody knows that your neighbor owns the patent on pink elephants.

One day, a pink elephant escapes, and turns up in your herd. Suppose it's purely by accident, and through no fault of yours.

But, suppose that, when that elephant winds up in your herd, you immediately breed it with all of your elephants. And not only breeding it with yours, but you kill all non-pink offspring, while retaining the pink offspring, and breeding them with each other, to create further generations.

It's not a perfect analogy. (Is there such a thing?) But I can sure see parallels.

Great analogy and it works perfectly, except for the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with this case. The elephants in question didn't escape, they were sold on the market in the very way that was mandated by the developer of the pink elephant.

[PeterMP]

Watch Food Inc. the documentary.

Right, nobody ever made a "documentary" that included lies. Again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1385693.html

"The group sued Monsanto in March 2011. U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Buchwald, for the Southern District of New York, threw out the case last month, criticizing the groups for a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists"."

"The court ruling said there was no likelihood that Monsanto would pursue patent-infringement cases against the organic farmers, who have no interest in using the company's patented seed products."

Look at that, the organic farm industry SUED Monsanto CLAIMING that Monsanto was going to sue them (for cross pollination issues), and they had NO EVIDENCE that Monsanto was going to do that.

And, I'll take it a step futher, I don't think you can find me a single case where Monsanto sued somebody for cross polination, but I don't think you can find a single case where somebody was growing Monsanto seed in a manner NOT dependent on their technology where Monsanto sued them.

You can repeat things that aren't true as much as you want, that doesn't make them become true.

You came into this thread making a claim that is in contrast to easily obtained information and have just kept doing it through out this thread and haven't actually backed a single bit of it up despite me repeatedly quoting from various sources, including the existing court rulings in this case.

Sure they are, because they are forcing the beans to be sold to grainaries which then blend them with other beans, there isn't a mechanism for farmer to opt out and get non-Monsanto commodity seed.

The guy in this ended up getting non-patented seeds, not JUST seed w/o a patent from Monsanto, from Ohio.

I can't currently get a NiMH car battery unless I place an order with a huge number (so large that it isn't worth even a car company like Toyota to place an order) because the company that makes them won't sell them w/o such a huge order.

The difficulty of doing what you want w/o the patented technology and the difficulty of obtaining the patented technology does not make it legal to infringe on the patent.

It is possible to grow soybeans without infringing on anybody's patents and no just Monsanto's (this guy did it last year), and if it weren't, that still doesn't mean you can infringe on their patants that means you can't do the activity.

Ahhh, but their patent doesn't prevent the sparying of beans with RoundUp, anyone cannspray any bean with RoundUp.

Anyone can spary any bean with roundup. What you can't do is reproduce patented technology and that's what he was doing.

Anybody can buy plastic and mold it, what you can't do is buy plastic and mold it so that it has the same shape as a patented gas cap.

And again EVERY farmer that plants commodity beans that contain Monsanto beans is allowed to do just that.

Where's the case that says that?

For anything that is patented. Where is a single case, or quote from the patent law, that says you can knowing and intentionally reproduce patented technology for your economic benefit (there is an exception for developing countries and drugs, but that clearly wouldn't apply here).

That's what a patent protects. You can't reproduce the thing I have patented without permission for your economic benefit.

Feel free to back your first claim (about them being "forced" by Monsanto) too, quote anything that says there is an exception to valid patents based on the prior behavior of the patent holder (other than them lying on the patent which would cause the patent to be revoked and not be a valid patent) that negates patent claims.

Unless, people want to actually quote from something intelligent and move this discussion along, I'm done.

This guy knowingly and intentionally was reproducing patented technology. How you came about the patented technology is irrelevant.

I can buy a car from GM, move a part to another car, sell it to somebody else, they can wreck it and sell it to a junk yard (GM "foced" you to sell it to a place that mixes car parts), and the junk yard can then sell yout he part. None of that invalidates GMs patent, and if you start producing more of that part you are infringining on GMs patent.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 08:17 AM ----------

Now, me, assuming that he sprayed Roundup on his crops, (I haven't seen a link actually saying he did, or that the same is true in all of the other prosecusions/threats. But you've got enough credibility in my book that I'm willing to take your word for it.), and that Roundup works like you've described (kills 100% of non-patented crops), . . .

Then, to me, spraying Roundup isn't proof of infringement, necessarily. But it is proof that he knew that he had a high percentage of patented plants, AND intent to upgrade his crop from "high percentage patented" to "100% patented".

To me, it doesn't prove that what he did was infringement. (I'm not sure where that happens.) But, if he did infringe, then it proves that he did it with knowledge and intent.

----------

Possible analogy:

Your neighbor has invented a new breed of animal. Say he's invented pink elephants. Something that's new and unique. And everybody knows that your neighbor owns the patent on pink elephants.

One day, a pink elephant escapes, and turns up in your herd. Suppose it's purely by accident, and through no fault of yours.

But, suppose that, when that elephant winds up in your herd, you immediately breed it with all of your elephants. And not only breeding it with yours, but you kill all non-pink offspring, while retaining the pink offspring, and breeding them with each other, to create further generations.

It's not a perfect analogy. (Is there such a thing?) But I can sure see parallels.

I've already quoted from documents in this case where he clearly bought the seeds, sprayed the crop up with roundup at least 2 times, which would have killed non-roundup ready soybeans, used those seeds to grow more crops, and continued to spray them.

As far as I know, nobody is claiming otherwise in this case or any case involving Monsanto.

Reproducing patented technology is a violation of a patent. It doesn't matter how you came to have the pattened technology or how you are reproducing it (w/ the exceptions of drugs in 3rd world countries).

Even if you don't know the thing is covered by a patent, it is a violation. In this case, he knowingly and purposely reproduced patented technology.

I really don't know what else to say.

If somebody wants to come in with some new information, I'd love to see it, but otherwise I'm done.

[twa]

But where is a limit?
He bought a product and used it in a manner not inconsistent with the norm, the fact he bought the soybean and w/o restriction should matter.

he in no way changed the soybean....a patent should not restrict normal use of a legally purchased product unless it is part of a contract

allowing a GM truck to be sold as is or unbranded should not give you the right to tell me how to use it

the reproducing part is inherent in the product he bought

[Larry]

Great analogy and it works perfectly, except for the fact that it doesn't have anything to do with this case. The elephants in question didn't escape, they were sold on the market in the very way that was mandated by the developer of the pink elephant.

You keep pushing this claim that Monsanto FORCES people to sell their products as seed.

They do exactly the opposite. Monsanto customers are prohibited (by contract, not necessarily by patent law) from selling their crop as seeds, or from using it as seeds, themselves.

The elevator at least claims that they didn't sell the beans as seed.

(I have no clue as to how true that is. When Farmer Bob, soybean farmer, showed up at the elevator and asked for a pickup load of soybeans, did the people behind the counter really not know he was buying them for seed? Or are they simply "Well, I didn't know"-ing to avoid possibly being sued, themselves? I dunno.)

But it seems like one Dallas of a reach, here, to try to claim that Monsanto somehow is forcing people to sell their crops as seed, so then they can sue people for it.

----------

Possible thoughts on how to come up with rules that I think we can live with, here.

I could see an argument that says that every person who breeds patented life is infringing on the patent. But that the farmers who buy Monsanto's seed (and sign the contract) are receiving a license that allows them to infringe on Monsanto's patent (as long as they comply with the restrictions in the contract.)

Legally, I could see that kind of a ruling working. It would forbid producing somebody else's patented life form, while allowing the owner to sell the rights to infringe on that patent.

But, I see drawbacks from such a ruling, too.

The biggest, IMO, is that patent law doesn't forbid knowingly infringing a patent. Inadvertent infringement is still infringement.

In short, if creating more resistant soybeans infringes Monsanto's patent, then the farmer who's crop has been cross-pollinated is infringing. So is the guy who buys soybean seeds which might contain patented beans.

In short, (based on my admittedly vast experience with patent law), a ruling like that would put the burden on everybody who doesn't buy from Monsanto, to do whatever it takes to keep Monsanto's genes on the other side of the fence.

And I got a problem with that. I think that, if you want to claim to own a life form, then the burden is on you, to prevent your dinosaurs from escaping your park and entering the ecosystem.

But, then, if we can't say that breeding ("copying") a patented life form is infringement, then where can we draw the line?

How do you create a set of rules in which Monsanto can protect their property?

Do they have to re-write their contract, demanding that Monsanto farmers are only allowed to sell their crops to Monsanto-approved buyers? (Said buyers would be required to sign contracts, promising not to sell the purchased, patented, seeds, to anybody other then Monsanto-approved soybean buyers. And all of those would also have to sign contracts, promising that they will either re-sell the beans, or use them in ways where they don't reproduce, like animal feed.)

Frankly, I could see a chilling effect on the economy, if they go that route, too. As I understand it, something like 80% of the soybeans in this country are Monsanto patented. If we force Monsanto into something like that, then we very quickly reach the point where every grain elevator in the country is required by contract to refuse to sell to any farmer who doesn't sign Monsanto's contract.

Think Monsanto's got a monopoly now? Wait till the courts force them to either surrender their patents, or seize control of the entire soybean economy.

Maybe change patent law, so that it's only infringement if the plaintiff can prove that the accused infringer knowingly reproduced their patented life form? I can see problems, there, too. Both because proving knowing infringement makes it tough on the owner to prosecute, and because "knowing" can be a vague thing. "Gee, Farmer Bob. When you planted those seeds that you saved from last year, didn't you know that there was a chance that maybe 1% of your crop might have been cross-pollinated?" (And then we're back to where the burden is on the non-customers, to prevent accidental infringement.)

----------

In short, I'm not sure that I can write a set of rules, that I think I would be happy with.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We're just going round and round now, but the analogy of the car part simply is not applicable here. The farmer did not take a Monsanto bean into a lab and reverse engineer the bean to discover the DNA chain necessary for a RoundUp ready bean and then make the same genetic alterations to a regular soybean to replicate Monsanto's patented DNA. If he did that then I say patent law applies, but he didn't.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 09:59 AM ----------

You keep pushing this claim that Monsanto FORCES people to sell their products as seed.

I think if you go back and re-read what I've said you'll find that I never said that the farmers are forced to sell their excess beans (not seed) to granaries which then combine the Monsanto beans with other beans which are then resold as commodity seed. Monsanto requires the farmers to put their excess beans into the bean market.

This whole problem was created by Monsanto's short-sightedness, now they want to punish someone because of that short-sightedness.

[PeterMP]

Possible thoughts on how to come up with rules that I think we can live with, here.

I could see an argument that says that every person who breeds patented life is infringing on the patent. But that the farmers who buy Monsanto's seed (and sign the contract) are receiving a license that allows them to infringe on Monsanto's patent (as long as they comply with the restrictions in the contract.).

What's wrong with the status quo?

Again, Monsanto isn't suing people for unknowningly infringing on their patent, and I believe patent law says you either have to have benefitted or the patent holder has to have been harmed from said infringement.

IF I grow Monsanto beans where I'm not using their technology (I'm not treating them with roundup), am I benefitting from infringing on their patent? Are they being harmed?

Of course that's not what happened here.

The guy in this case is now growing soybeans without violating Monsanto's patent. Why didn't he just do that from the start? Do we really need to re-write the patent laws to handle every case where somebody thinks they've come up with a new way to circumvent a patent?

The other point that I want to make is patent law is silent on how easy it is to reproduce the thing patented. Some of the best and monetarily most worthwhile patents have been unbelievably simple things where the concept fo "reengineering" is completely irrelevant.

You start to limit patents to only things that are hard to produce in the first place, and the people you'll really hurt is the every day Joe that has a novel, but easy and good idea.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 10:57 AM ----------

But where is a limit?
He bought a product and used it in a manner not inconsistent with the norm, the fact he bought the soybean and w/o restriction should matter.

he in no way changed the soybean....a patent should not restrict normal use of a legally purchased product unless it is part of a contract

allowing a GM truck to be sold as is or unbranded should not give you the right to tell me how to use it

the reproducing part is inherent in the product he bought

There is nothing "normal" about spraying soybeans with roundup.

The soybeans that he bought have the same restrictions that buying a GM truck does. You can't use them to reproduce somebody's patents w/o their permission.

The only reason that we don't see it more with GM trucks is because its well known that we don't allow it. Stop enforcing patents on GM trucks and see how long it takes for people to start using them to produce patented technology. The samething is happening with soybean seeds.

The guy in this case produced soybeans last year where nobody is claiming that he's violating their patent and has set himself up to do so in future years.

[twa]

Fair use has to come in sometime, he used a product he bought in a manner that should be expected
their technology is inherent in the product,not something he imbued or copied

[Larry]

I think if you go back and re-read what I've said you'll find that I never said that the farmers are forced to sell their excess beans (not seed) to granaries which then combine the Monsanto beans with other beans which are then resold as commodity seed. Monsanto requires the farmers to put their excess beans into the bean market.

As opposed to, say, putting them into the auto parts market?

[twa]

There is nothing "normal" about spraying soybeans with roundup.
.

How can you say that if 80% of the soybean crops are doing so?

it is the new normal

[Larry]

What's wrong with the status quo?

Well, for one, I get the impression that none of us knows exactly what the status quo IS.

Again, Monsanto isn't suing people for unknowningly infringing on their patent, and I believe patent law says you either have to have benefitted or the patent holder has to have been harmed from said infringement.

IF I grow Monsanto beans where I'm not using their technology (I'm not treating them with roundup), am I benefitting from infringing on their patent? Are they being harmed?

1) There's a huge difference between "Monsanto isn't suing people for unknowing infringement" and "unknowing infringement isn't illegal".

It's common for new laws to start out by only prosecuting the most flagrant violators, to create precedent, and then move from there, to prosecuting lesser offendors, and pointing at the precedent.

If you want to waterboard somebody, you make sure that the first test case is somebody you can point at and claim (whether it's true or not) that doing so saved numerous lives. Puts the judge in the position of either ruling that waterboarding is legal (in all cases), or turning loose someone who actually knew about a not-yet-completed terrorist attack.

You prosecute people who have 16,000 downloaded songs on their hard drive. After they're convicted, then you go after people who have hundreds. After you've defeated them, then you go after people who have three.

Forgive me if I don't want to just assume that no patent holder will ever, in the future, go after people for unintentional infringement. (In fact, I think it's a safe bet that you will completely agree with me that patent holders have gone after unintentional infringement. And won. That precedent is already well established.)

----------

That said, though, you do raise an interesting point.

As long as patent infringement is handled as a civil matter, then the patent owner, while he doesn't have to prove intent, does have to prove harm to himself, and/or benefit to the infringer.

And I could see how that limitation might shield the inadvertent infringer.

It's at least a possibility.