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

[PeterMP]

I disagree with that. I gave three cases, none involved folks who knowingly used Monsanto's seed.

The Runyon's, 900 acre farm. No record of ever buying Monsanto's seed from Monsanto, or anybody else. Monsanto invaded their farm, sued them, could not support their claim and gave up on the lawsuit.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html

Were the Runyon's sued, yes or no?

Did Monsanto even ever threaten to sue Runyon?

The Nelsons, 8000 acre farm, They had an agreement with Monsanto, they planted 80 acres with Monanto's seed one year, 1,500 acres another year, Independent board found they had not violated that agreement or saved any of that seed. Monsanto still went after their entire crop in a subsequent year with only trace amounts of their GMA plants pressent.
http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

The board hearing was non-binding and Monsanto didn't even bother to present any evidence, and your link says nothing about the Nelson farm having only trace amounts OR them claiming that the issue was cross-pollination.

Did the board test the plants in the field to see how many had the genes?

He had seed (because he bought it from them). Monsanto thought he had saved some and was using it in his fields the next year. He claimed he didn't.

You nor I know what the result was because the case never went to court.

Maybe he was able to present convincing evidence that it was cross-pollination and Monsanto dropped it. Maybe they had evidence that it wasn't, and he figured he was going to lose.

Monsanto didn't think it was cross pollination. I don't know what his explanation was.

]Schmeiser, 9000 acre Farm, No agreement with Monsanto, only trace amounts of their GMA plants on his farm. Doesn't even use Round up. Supreme Court of Canada found he enjoyed no economic benefit from Monsanto's seed, but still had some of Monsanto's crop in his fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...._v._Schmeiser

From the FIRST PARAGRAPH of your own wiki link:

"The court heard the question of whether intentionally growing genetically modified plants constitutes "use" of the patented invention of genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it does.[1] The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. "

Note, the use of the word INTENTIONAL!

Cross-pollination would be what?

---------- Post added February-20th-2013 at 09:59 PM ----------

he seems to be losing mainly since he kept some for new seed imo

there needs to be a fair use exemption in patent law,this presence of DNA line is problematic since you probably have Monsanto patented DNA in your body

There needs to be some sort of unintentional/non-benefitted exemption in patent law (though there sort of is because the penalty is tied to the benefit, but it should probably be strengthened with respect to DNA).

I'd have a hard time ever supporting the idea that he can go to his local grainary and buy seed that will produce more seed where he essentially knows he's going to get patented technology and then intentionally treat them different from non-patented seeds in a manner where he benefits from the technology

(In other words, if he buys seed from his local grainary and treats them just like he would non-patented seed and harvest the soybeans, I think that should be protected.)

**EDIT**
If not, your allowing him to create a loop that is not practically any different than him keeping the beans and benefitting from the technology. Every year, he can sell his beans to the grainary, re-buy beans from the grainary, and then replant them knowing he's likely got a large number of patented beans and treat them as such.

You my as well just allow him to keep the beans himself.

The patented technoloy will never be used up.

[twa]

(In other words, if he buys seed from his local grainary and treats them just like he would non-patented seed and harvest the soybeans, I think that should be protected.)

what about if he used roundup on the 3rd generation seed?....wheres the line

monsanto clearly benefits from the natural ability of soybean to reproduce.....so should the farmer
monsantos proprietary markup(which must be pretty steep if a farmer will risk killing a crop over ) on self reproducing seed should at least decrease with each generation of seed

[pjfootballer]

Never thought I'd see a 12 page thread on "Soybeans."

[PeterMP]

what about if he used roundup on the 3rd generation seed?....wheres the line

monsanto clearly benefits from the natural ability of soybean to reproduce.....so should the farmer
monsantos proprietary markup(which must be pretty steep if a farmer will risk killing a crop over ) on self reproducing seed should at least decrease with each generation of seed

How's anybody going to know if it is 2nd or 3rd generation seed in terms of roundup treatment?

How would Monsanto prove in court that it was 2nd or 3rd generation seed?

[Larry]

what about if he used roundup on the 3rd generation seed?....wheres the line

In this case? I would say "spraying Roundup on his crops".

Just me. And trying to deduce what's in somebody's head, from looking at their actions. But to me . . .

Show me somebody who's spraying Roundup on his crops, and I'll show you somebody who

1. Believes that a very good portion of his crop is patented.
2. Is willing to kill off a good portion of his crop, just so he can have a crop that's 100% patented.
3. And, after he does it, is absolutely certain that his crop is now 100% patented.

There is no other possible reason for doing so.

(That's one reason why I'm wary of these cases becoming the defining precedent, which are going to "create the law" which will be applied in other cases. For example, I'm wary of establishing precedent that "how the genes got there doesn't matter", based on cases where there was clear, intentional, provable, infringing intent, and then applying that precedent to cases where those criteria don't exist.)

[twa]

In this case? I would say "spraying Roundup on his crops".

There is no other possible reason for doing so.

I would say killing weeds would be a good reason, roundup was not invented to produce patented seeds

If he was treating them with roundup to produce seed for sale as something other than generic soybean I could see a objection... he bought a unrestricted product and should be able to use it(which would include spraying it with roundup)

a dna patent should not make normal use of that product a violation as a result of that products normal use

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 09:05 AM ----------

How would Monsanto prove in court that it was 2nd or 3rd generation seed?

They are very bright people....genetic markers or degradation maybe?

Not my problem

[Larry]

I would say killing weeds would be a good reason

Killing weeds and any crops that aren't patented.

So why spray it on your own crops?

"Honestly, your honor, when I sprayed that Roundup on my crops, I honestly expected it to kill my entire crop. That was my intention. And, when it didn't kill them, I harvested the plants that were resistant, and used them to plant next year's crop, and sprayed that crop with Roundup, too, because I was really, really, trying to kill all of them."

"And all those empty beer cans were in the back of my truck because I was taking them for recycling."

[twa]

Larry ....again ,he clearly purchased the soybeans believing most would not die from spraying,and that they would reproduce

a reasonable use of a purchased product sold w/o restriction or warranty.....the resulting crop is not a copy,but rather the natural result of a normal use of it.

a patent should not preclude normal use of a patented product, nor should dna piggybacking on a product that reproduces naturally do so.

[Larry]

Larry ....again ,he clearly purchased the soybeans believing most would not die from spraying,and that they would reproduce

Meaning, he clearly believed that most of them were patented.

a reasonable use of a purchased product sold w/o restriction or warranty

You know, if you keep throwing that phrase "purchased without restriction" another dozen times, maybe it will become true.

But I doubt it.

[twa]

Did Monsanto design the beans to reproduce or is that a natural,and expected, function of the product?

They knowingly allowed them to be sold in that state.

there must be limit

[DjTj]

there must be limit

Patents expire after about twenty years. After the 2014 growing season, everyone will be allowed to plant and re-plant soybeans with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready gene.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/bu...seed.html?_r=0

[twa]

but can we keep the thread going that long?

[JMS]

Were the Runyon's sued, yes or no?

Did Monsanto even ever threaten to sue Runyon?

The CBS story states they threatened his livelyhood. Clearly they threatened him... Clearly they threatened suit. Here is another story..

n 2005, investigators sent by Monsanto arrived at Mr Runyan's farm unannounced. "They came to my house and wanted all my production records," he says.
They asked questions about his farming operation and wanted to know who he was selling his food-grade soybeans to.


"They wanted to know who I'd bought all my herbicides from and they wanted records and phone numbers," Mr Runyan recalls.



Three months after the investigators left empty handed, Mr Runyan received a letter stating that he had seven days to turn over all his production records to Monsanto.

One reason why Mr Runyan refused was because the letter stated that Monsanto had an agreement with the Indiana Department of Agriculture, but the department didn't exist at that time.
Mr Runyan hired a lawyer to deal with his case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7892328.stm

Also Mr Runyan was a witness against Monsanto in an international court which found Monsanto guilty of violating peoples rights.
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1890431

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 12:45 PM ----------

Killing weeds and any crops that aren't patented.

So why spray it on your own crops?

"Honestly, your honor, when I sprayed that Roundup on my crops, I honestly expected it to kill my entire crop. That was my intention. And, when it didn't kill them, I harvested the plants that were resistant, and used them to plant next year's crop, and sprayed that crop with Roundup, too, because I was really, really, trying to kill all of them."

"And all those empty beer cans were in the back of my truck because I was taking them for recycling."

I don't think you spray round up on your crops.. I think you spray it on the fields to kill the weeds before you plant.. then plant the crops which can grow in such a contaminated field.

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 12:57 PM ----------

"The court heard the question of whether intentionally growing genetically modified plants constitutes "use" of the patented invention of genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it does.[1] The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. "

Note, the use of the word INTENTIONAL!

Cross-pollination would be what?.

He INTENTIONALLY PLANTED HIS FEILD!!! He UNINTENTIONALLY contaminated his 9000 acre crop with 45 acres of seed from his neighbor which partially had Monsanto seed from a previous planting.,

Reasons of the Court
Nor does the fact that Schmeiser did not use Roundup herbicide on his crops preclude "use" of the gene. Even though the plants propagate without human intervention the realities of modern agriculture mean there is always human intervention in the growth of plants and thus farming is a method of "use" of plant genes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...._v._Schmeiser

DISPUTE
In 1998, Monsanto learned that Schmeiser was growing a Roundup-resistant crop and approached him to sign a license agreement to their patents and to pay a license fee. Schmeiser refused, maintaining that the 1997 contamination was accidental and that he owned the seed he harvested, and he could use the harvested seed as he wished because it was his physical property. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for patent infringement. Patents being in federal jurisdiction, the case went to federal court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...meiser#Dispute

And remember Mr Schmeister had no economic incentive for planting Monsanto's seed because he did no use roundup anyway.

[PeterMP]

The CBS story states they threatened his livelyhood. Clearly they threatened him... Clearly they threatened suit. Here is another story..



Also Mr Runyan was a witness against Monsanto in an international court which found Monsanto guilty of violating peoples rights.
http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1890431

I'll take that as the Runyan's weren't sued and Monsanto didn't even file any court papers against the Runyan's.

I'll also take that as the Runyan's have never presented any documentation from Monsanto stating that they should be expected to be sued (e.g. the letter you mentioned in the previous post doesn't state if they don't cooperate Monsanto will sue them).

I don't think you spray round up on your crops.. I think you spray it on the fields to kill the weeds before you plant.. then plant the crops which can grow in such a contaminated field.

With roundup resistant crops, you can spray round directly on the plants.

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 01:02 PM ----------

He INTENTIONALLY PLANTED HIS FEILD!!! He UNINTENTIONALLY contaminated his 9000 acre crop with 45 acres of seed from his neighbor which partially had Monsanto seed from a previous planting.

Did the court find that the roundup resistant plants in his field were the result of cross pollination?

Yes or no.

From your own wiki link.

"However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination."

In 1998, did Schmeiser intentionally have as part of his crop patented seeds?


Here's what you said:

However, sueing farmers for cross polinated crops has happenned again and again and again.

Where is that law suit?

You've presented a SINGLE case where Monsanto (potentially aggressively if you believe the farmer) investigated a case of cross pollination (again if you accept evidence that has only been presented by the farmer as accurate), but there was no law suit and no threat of a law suit based on anything you've presented.

[JMS]

Maybe he was able to present convincing evidence that it was cross-pollination and Monsanto dropped it. Maybe they had evidence that it wasn't, and he figured he was going to lose

Origin of the patented seed in Schmeiser's fields

So what it says He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.

At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola in 1997, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated. While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm in 1997 remains unclear, the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant...meiser#Dispute

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 01:15 PM ----------

Did the court find that the roundup resistant plants in his field were the result of cross pollination?

The courts didn't rule on how the plants got into the field. It wasn't the issue. The only issue was once Schmeiser knew he had resistant plants in his field how did he proceed?

He proceeded by trying to isolate the seed that was resistant and harvest it for seed for future use... which the courts found was knowingly using Monsanto's seed, even though he never purchased it, and didn't have any agreement with Monsanto precluding this behavior.

There is nothing in the court finding which addresses how the Monsanto seed was introduced to Schmeiser's crop. Monsanto dropped all reference to that in their suit dealing only with subsequent years after it was introduced.