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

[twa]

If he was just re-selling the soybeans that he bought, there would be no case. He is before the Supreme Court because he is selling new soybeans that were grown from the soybeans that he bought.

soybeans grown (normal use)from the soybeans he bought, point being he is not selling them as Roundup resistant ones(which is Monsantos money maker)

next ya'll will be telling me where to drive my Chevy

[DjTj]

soybeans grown (normal use)from the soybeans he bought, point being he is not selling them as Roundup resistant ones(which is Monsantos money maker)

Let me know when Congress passes a "normal use" exception to the patent laws. He is unquestionably using the roundup resistant ability of the plants when he is growing them.

next ya'll will be telling me where to drive my Chevy

Stay on the right side of the yellow line, signal your turns, and make sure all of your lights are working.

[PeterMP]

soybeans grown (normal use)from the soybeans he bought, point being he is not selling them as Roundup resistant ones(which is Monsantos money maker)

next ya'll will be telling me where to drive my Chevy

No because as part of driving your Chevy you aren't reproducing patented technology.

The heart of patent protection is the ability to prevent people from reproducing your technology. From the previous courts ruling:

"“[w]hile farmers, such as Bowman, may have the right to use commodity seeds as feed, or for any other conceivable use, they cannot ‘replicate’ Monsanto’s patented technology by planting it in the ground to create newly infringing genetic material, seeds, and plants.”"

That's at the heart of what a patent is. If they don't have patent protection in terms of preventing people from reproducing their technology, they might as well not patent it.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 05:25 PM ----------

Actually, I thought of one, while at lunch. (And, I will point out: I don't see this, or any, court, ruling that this person is guilty because it was intentional. For one thing, I'm under the impression that the precedent has already been firmly established that intent isn't necessary).

But, lets just suppose that the NEXT case involves soybeans that have been engineered to produce 10% bigger yields. (Or some other advantage that applies to all plants, not just cases where the farmer does something out of the ordinary).

Now, suddenly, we can no longer assume that an inadvertent infringer is immune because he didn't profit, or harm Monsanto, with his infringement. He did both. (Even though he may not even be aware of it).

Two legal points:

• There is no intent requirement for patent infringement. Willfulness only matters for calculating damages.
• Patent infringement is a civil issue. There is no criminal patent infringement under federal law.

An update on the oral argument today: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=172366720

Some additional facts about the case from that article: The farmer doesn't seem that sympathetic to me, and it looks like the Supreme Court is going to rule against him.

I know that traditionally that patent infringement doesn't include an intent component, but I think that is going to have to come w/ these things and I think that's why see these limited lawsuits where they can plainly show intent.

I posted before a quote about people making seeds that grow better based on temperature (a southern variant and northern variant of the same crop). The reason you don't see those suits yes is because of showing intent in a robust manner and what that's going to mean for the larger patents related to bio-tech I think.

As an extreme example, I'm a farmer doing non-GMO organic crops. I don't want GMO genes in my crops. Through some cross pollination some of the genes enter my fields and my stores.

Are we really going to say that person that is not only not intending to committ patent infringement, but actively seeking to avoid it is guilty of patent infringement?

I think the bio-techs know that long term things are going to have to change, and I suspect they will trade an "intent" provision for protection against "environmental" contamination lawsuits.

And I don't think that right now they want to deal with environmental contamination issues so are limiting their suits to cases where there is clear intent.

Maybe you'll see something like they can sue you for patent infringement, but there is no penalty w/o intent other than you have to sell whatever "conatminated" seed stock you have to them for a "market" price.

I'm pretty far over in terms of protecting the rights of the patentee on this (in terms of the general public), but even I would support lawsuits in the case that I outlined above.

[AsburySkinsFan]

He is not being accused of illegally acquiring beans, illegally planting the beans, or illegally spraying the beans. All of those steps were legal. But the question the Supreme Court is deciding is whether it was unlawful for him to grow a new crop of beans (that included a copy of Monsanto's patented genes) and then sell those new beans.

Ummm...did that make sense to you when you wrote it? Seriously, if you can read what you just wrote and agree that this guy acted illegally then so help me we are doomed as a nation! He bought beans legally, planted beans legally, sprayed them legally...so it is the growing of the beans that he bught, planted and sprayed that was illegal. What in the world was he supposed to do with those beans?!

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 05:30 PM ----------

If he was just re-selling the soybeans that he bought, there would be no case. He is before the Supreme Court because he is selling new soybeans that were grown from the soybeans that he bought.

Which were sold as COMMODITY SEED! What do you do with seed it NOT replant and grow it.
Honestly this isn't difficult

[DjTj]

Ummm...did that make sense to you when you wrote it? Seriously, if you can read what you just wrote and agree that this guy acted illegally then so help me we are doomed as a nation! He bought beans legally, planted beans legally, sprayed them legally...so it is the growing of the beans that he bught, planted and sprayed that was illegal. What in the world was he supposed to do with those beans?!

Good question. Justice Breyer spoke on that today:

Justice Stephen Breyer said Bowman could make many uses of the soybeans he bought from the grain elevator. “Feed it to the animals. Feed it your family or make tofu turkey,” Breyer said.

But patent law makes it illegal for Bowman to plant them. “What it prohibits here is making a copy of the patented invention and that is what he did,” Breyer said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...286_story.html

[PeterMP]

Which were sold as COMMODITY SEED! What do you do with seed it NOT replant and grow it.
Honestly this isn't difficult

For probably the 5th time in this thread:

"“[w]hile farmers, such as Bowman, may have the right to use commodity seeds as feed, or for any other conceivable use, they cannot ‘replicate’ Monsanto’s patented technology by planting it in the ground to create newly infringing genetic material, seeds, and plants.”"

That's what the previous court rusling said.

Everybody repeat after me, it is illegal to reproduce patented material without the permission of the patent holder.

How you got the material and how "difficult" or "normal" the reproduction process is irrelevant.

Is that really that hard?

It is illegal to reproduce patented material without the permission of the patent holder.

[AsburySkinsFan]

For probably the 5th time in this thread:

"“[w]hile farmers, such as Bowman, may have the right to use commodity seeds as feed, or for any other conceivable use, they cannot ‘replicate’ Monsanto’s patented technology by planting it in the ground to create newly infringing genetic material, seeds, and plants.”"

That's what the previous court rusling said.

Everybody repeat after me, it is illegal to reproduce patented material without the permission of the patent holder.

How you got the material and how "difficult" or "normal" the reproduction process is irrelevant.

Is that really that hard?

It is illegal to reproduce patented material without the permission of the patent holder.

Good question. Justice Breyer spoke on that today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...286_story.html

Wow! Just frickin' wow!!! This guy buys COMMODITY SEED (mixed seed from grainaries) and because that seed contains Monsanto (with or without his knowledge) he is forbidden by law to replant any of that COMMODITY SEED?! Heck, Monsanto by forcing growers to sell their seed to grainaries has thereby prevented ANY of that seed from being replanted in case it contains Monsanto seed.

[PeterMP]

Wow! Just frickin' wow!!! This guy buys COMMODITY SEED (mixed seed from grainaries) and because that seed contains Monsanto (with or without his knowledge) he is forbidden by law to replant any of that COMMODITY SEED?! Heck, Monsanto by forcing growers to sell their seed to grainaries has thereby prevented ANY of that seed from being replanted in case it contains Monsanto seed.

1. Nobody forced anybody to using Monsanto seed. They all, including this guy, knew what was going on when they signed on.

2. Nobody is forcing the grainaries from combine all of their seed together. If there is enough economical advantage (i.e. people are willing to pay enough for non-Monsanto seed from the graneries), they can segregate while the collect it.

[DjTj]

Wow! Just frickin' wow!!! This guy buys COMMODITY SEED (mixed seed from grainaries) and because that seed contains Monsanto (with or without his knowledge) he is forbidden by law to replant any of that COMMODITY SEED?! Heck, Monsanto by forcing growers to sell their seed to grainaries has thereby prevented ANY of that seed from being replanted in case it contains Monsanto seed.

The granary in this case was clearly only selling the beans for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed. If he wanted to buy seed for planting, he could have bought from another source (either a dealer of Monsanto's seed or some source of non-Monsanto seeds). There is no question of "with or without his knowledge" here. He bought Monsanto's seeds for the regular growing season and he knew that most of the granary seed would also be Monsanto seed.

The 75-year-old Bowman bought the expensive seeds for his main crop of soybeans, but decided to look for something cheaper for a risky, late-season soybean planting.

He went to a grain elevator that held soybeans it typically sells for feed, milling and other uses, but not as seed.

Bowman reasoned that most of those soybeans also would be resistant to weed killers, as they initially came from herbicide-resistant seeds too. He was right, and he repeated the practice over eight years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...286_story.html

Wow indeed.

[DCsportsfan53]

I don't particularly know or care who is legally right in this situation. Honestly, working the technicalities of law makes me nauseous in general. Seems like in that arena semantics rules all and for me, nothing could be more frustrating or pointless. What I do believe is that looking at this thing from a layman's perspective and with common sense, I hope Monsanto loses because, legally or not, they have clearly bullied their way into a monopoly that only benefits them and not the farmers or consumers.

[Larry]

Wow! Just frickin' wow!!! This guy buys COMMODITY SEED (mixed seed from grainaries) and because that seed contains Monsanto (with or without his knowledge) he is forbidden by law to replant any of that COMMODITY SEED?! Heck, Monsanto by forcing growers to sell their seed to grainaries has thereby prevented ANY of that seed from being replanted in case it contains Monsanto seed.

It's getting deep, here.

1. He knowingly bought patented seed.
2. He planted it.
3. He then sprayed his crops with a poison which he knew would kill any non-patented seed that he bought. (This is how we knowingly did #1) Thus turning his crop from being mostly patented, to 100% patented.
4. He then allowed the crop to grow, thus turning the patented seed he bought into a much larger pile of patented seed.

Could you please complete the following sentence:

This person should be allowed to knowingly duplicate a patented life form, without the permission of the patent holder, because . . .

----------

Second point:

Boy, you're really beating this claim that Monsanto has done something evil by FORCING farmers to sell their crops on the open market, huh? (The bastiges!)

Could you please tell us

a) What you think the farmers SHOULD do with their crops, and
b) Why this option WOULDN'T have you railing about how the evil Monsanto is FORCING farmers to do something terrible?

----------

Now, though, PeterMP,

I'm not seeing anything in the court's rulings that you're citing, or in your stated position, any more, that says that what this person would be, or should be, legal, if he hadn't known about it.

When we started off, your position was that well, if he hadn't sprayed the crop with Roundup, then what he did was fine.

Now it's "he planted patented beans and raised them". (And that seems to be the court's ruling, too.)

I'm not seeing anything here, in the court quotes you're making or in your posts, any more, that in any way says that if he hadn't sprayed Roundup on his crops, that things would be in any way different.

Could you explain?

[twa]

larry, #1 should be he bought what he hoped was a mixture containing a high % of patented seed by products.

[Larry]

larry, #1 should be he bought what he hoped was a mixture containing a high % of patented seed by products.

And was so confident that he got it, that he was willing to spray his entire crop with a chemical that would have killed all of it, if what he bought WASN'T mostly patented.

And, once he did that, then he KNEW that his entire (surviving) crop was patented.

It's really are to try to get people to believe that you didn't know you had bought an entire, patented, whole-house fire extinguisher system, after you've intentionally set your own house on fire, multiple times.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I don't particularly know or care who is legally right in this situation. Honestly, working the technicalities of law makes me nauseous in general. Seems like in that arena semantics rules all and for me, nothing could be more frustrating or pointless. What I do believe is that looking at this thing from a layman's perspective and with common sense, I hope Monsanto loses because, legally or not, they have clearly bullied their way into a monopoly that only benefits them and not the farmers or consumers.

Yep, but don't say that here because obviously some folks carry Monsanto stock options.

[twa]

And was so confident that he got it, that he was willing to spray his entire crop with a chemical that would have killed all of it, if what he bought WASN'T mostly patented.
.

but not confident enough to try it with his main harvest

both the soybeans purchased and the growing period were a roll of the dice....as was spraying it

I admire ingenuity and risk taking....we should not kill that

add
I could see making him pay for any seed kept back, but only that