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

[AsburySkinsFan]

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

....you shouldn't be allowed to patent lifeforms.

a) What you think the farmers SHOULD do with their crops, and

The same thing farmers have done with their crops from the first time humans placed seeds in the ground...
1) remove from the yield what is required to replant the following year.
2) remove what you need for food/feed for your family and livestock
3) sell the rest for the money you need for what you can't grow or slaughter.

[Larry]

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

You REALLY want to make this THAT personal?

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 06:57 PM ----------

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

Ah, got it. It's only patent infringement if he intentionally copies a patented object in his main crop.

(And he's apparently been doing this for years).

Bank robbers take risks, too. If doing something illegal might not work, then should we make it legal?

[AsburySkinsFan]

You REALLY want to make this THAT personal?

It was sarcasm....chill out.

[twa]

he copied nothing,refined may be more accurate

[JMS]

There's all kinds of ways I can see this thing argued. To me, one of the main ones is: If a company owns a patent on a life form, then does their patent give them the power to punish me, if their life form reproduces? Me, or anyone else who that life form comes into contact with?
will observe that no, I am not intending to start a thread about whether you think genetic engineering, or engineered food, are evil or some such.

A few years back there was another case of another farmer who was planting his crop near a genetically engineered corn crop. The corn cross polinated naturally and the seed company sued the farmer for patent infringment AND WON....

This is a slam dunk... Monsanto has huge pockets, and lady liberty is no longer blind to that... Monsanto wins hands down. It's not right; but that's the way our system works.

[AsburySkinsFan]

he copied nothing,refined may be more accurate

He put the seeds in the ground, blame the seeds for growing.

[JMS]

....you shouldn't be allowed to patent lifeforms.

Duuuuuude... what world are you living in? Not only can companies patent life forms... companies can patent YOU!!!

Companies can literally take your blood, tissue, organs etc... and patent them without your permission... That is the world we live in....''

we've gone a long way past patending plants.

[twa]

He put the seeds in the ground, blame the seeds for growing.

but God gives the increase....Book Em Dano

[Larry]

he copied nothing,refined may be more accurate

Really? I could have sworn that when you plant a bean, what you get back is a lot more beans.

I suspect that this farmer believes that, too. (Since that's the only way he could have made money on the beans he bought.)

And speaking of beans, and of the arguments I'm seeing in this thread, now:



---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 07:22 PM ----------

A few years back there was another case of another farmer who was planting his crop near a genetically engineered corn crop. The corn cross polinated naturally and the seed company sued the farmer for patent infringment AND WON....

As I've mentioned in this thread, I've seen that claim made. But can you please back that up, some?

I've been told (by a poster who I give a lot of credibility to) that it hasn't happened.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 07:25 PM ----------

He put the seeds in the ground, blame the seeds for growing.

Sorry. If this is the level of argument we're gonna see in this thread, then I'm deciding that you've had enough beans already.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Sorry. If this is the level of argument we're gonna see in this thread, then I'm deciding that you've had enough beans already.

This is the tack I take when a topic has been beaten to death and people are still no closer to agreeing.

[Larry]

deleted post.

[Predicto]

This is why the Court accepted the case. Two significant principles of law are clashing, and they need to sort it out.

I'm no fan of Monsanto, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't have a good argument here from a patent usage point of view.

---------- Post added February-19th-2013 at 07:03 PM ----------

This is why the Court accepted the case. Two significant principles of law are clashing, and they need to sort it out.

I'm no fan of Monsanto, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't have a good argument here from a patent usage point of view.

[Larry]

This is why the Court accepted the case. Two significant principles of law are clashing, and they need to sort it out.

I'm no fan of Monsanto, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't have a good argument here from a patent usage point of view

Just curious, what's the 2nd "significant principle of law", here?

Me, I'd just assumed that the existing law was overwhelmingly on Monsanto's side, here. (Too much so, IMO).

I've been arguing on the bases of "where do I think the law should be?"

What's the compelling principle, or law, on the farmer's side?

[twa]

Really? I could have sworn that when you plant a bean, what you get back is a lot more beans.
.

they were refined....beans are obviously not just beans anymore

Predicto, I certainly agree they have a good case,but I see the harm done as minimal

the farmer has a fair point as well ....beans are meant to be planted and reproduce,and a patent shouldn't change that

[JMS]

As I've mentioned in this thread, I've seen that claim made. But can you please back that up, some?
I've been told (by a poster who I give a lot of credibility to) that it hasn't happened..

Yes the issue is there was a famous case involveing a Canadian Farmer (Monsanto vs Schmeiser) who claimed cross polination but latter admitted he had actually purchased some seed from a neighbor.. Monsanto's lawsuit was thus based on that planted their seed, knowingly or not... Ultimately Monsanto won a 5-4 victory in that Mr Schmeiser did not have the right to plant "their seed", but Mr. Schmeister won in that he did not have to pay Monsanto any money as the corn traceable to Monsanto's seed was so small the judges found it offered no economic advantage on his farm
( see judgement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...eiser#Judgment )

The Canadian court case was found on that basis he planted neighors seed which was Monsanto's and did not address the farmer's orignial claim of cross polination.

However, sueing farmers for cross polinated crops has happenned again and again and again. Monsanto's position basically comes down to if their seed is on your farm, it's still their seed, how it got their is really not the issue. Farmers claim cross polination, Monsanto claims "it's their seed"... Monsanto doesn't prove the Farmers purchased the seed from them at one time or another and doesn't care where the farmers got the seed. They don't need to go into that in court. Monsanto's position is it's their intellectual property, and it's on your land.

Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers

The Runyons say they signed no agreements(with Monsanto), and if they were contaminated with the genetically modified seed, it blew over from a neighboring farm.

"Pollination occurs, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their products from landing in our fields," David said.

"What Monsanto is doing across the country is often, and according to farmers, trespassing even, on their land, examining their crops and trying to find some of their patented crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, with the Center For Food Safety. "And if they do, they sue those farmers for their entire crop."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html

Monsanto Still Suing Nelsons, Other Growers
The Nelsons are among the hundreds of farmers Monsanto is suing, usually on the grounds of patent infringement. However, growers have begun to fight back in the courts.

The St. Louis-based biotechnology-agriculture-chemical giant alleges that the Nelsons saved Roundup Ready soybean seed from their 1998 and 1999 crop, a violation of its patent. Monsanto engineered the transgenic soybeans to resist its Roundup herbicide.

The North Dakota State Seed Arbitration Board found no support for Monsanto’s claims in its March 27 hearing on the matter.

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

Here is a NY Time article which discusses how prevelent cross polination is in the United States... most of the US corn crop is either genetically engineered or contaminated with components of genetic seed through cross pollination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/us...ted=all&src=pm