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

[twa]

Yes.

.

Are they gonna charge you if your offspring benefit from them?

confiscate them?

Limits

[Larry]

Well, So "valuable" the Canadian Supreme Court decided he saw no economic benefit from using the seed, SIX YEARS AFTER HE PLANTED IT, ? Now that's dancing...

Your explanation for why he was willing to kill off all his non-patented plants, just to get a completely patented crop, is . . . ?

Using seed from plants legally on your property as you see fit, given you have no agreement not too with any third party, certainly was.

There is an agreement.

It's called the law.

The law says "Thou shall not copy somebody else's patent, without their permission".

No further agreement is necessary.

I have never signed a contract promising not to break into your house and kill you. That doesn't mean that if I do so, it's legal.

Eli Whitney did go out of business as his patents were unenforceable.. right. His Gin was so easily reproduced( copied) he couldn't enforce his patent. And in Eli's case his "gin" as I remember was made of wood (boards); so it took effort to build....

Last I heard, killing off all non-patented plants, collecting the seeds from plants that you now know to be patented, keeping those seeds separate from the rest of your crop, and using those seeds to plant thousands of acres counted as "effort".

Just to be clear... Your position is HE infringed not when the plants got into his fields. Your position is HE infringed when he decided to make seed from HIS plants which nobody has accused him of steeling or intentionally planting from Monsanto.... He infringed when he decided to use his property, his plants, on his farm, which nobody has challenged were his.

Just to be clear, my position is he infringed when he intentionally killed off half of his crop, just so he could get a batch of seeds which he knew were patented, and then used those seeds to plant an entirely-patented crop, to make even more of them.

And they weren't his property.

That's what a patent says. The patent owner has exclusive ownership of the patented property.

If you accidentally find a Microsoft Office CD in your front yard, then the fact that you didn't steal it does not make it legal for you to install it on every computer you own, and make thousands of copies of it.

"Finders keepers" does not trump patent laws.

[PeterMP]

Are they gonna charge you if your offspring benefit from them?

confiscate them?

Limits

The limit is nobody is going to force you to use patented technology, and you have the right to educate yourself on pantented technology before you use it.

Also the patent has a lifetime to it so at most they'd be able to confiscate your kid until the patent runs out.

[JMS]

It is illegal to replicate patented technology (now, I think for DNA we should alter that some).

Well somebody should have told the corn that.

Let me give you a hypothetical... If I engineer a strand of corn which has a single pronounced pink dot on the foliage... and I give this corn a genetic advantage over all other corn including Monsanto's Corn... An advantage so pronounced that say after five years it replaces without any assistance all other corn strains.

Can I then claim all corn in this country as my personal property... Hey it's my freaking intellectual property. How dare they use it.

That's really what we are talking about here. The genetic corn has such an advantage over other strains of corn that it has already contaminated most seed stocks in this country..

As Biotech Crops Multiply, Consumers Get Little Choice

Despite persistent concerns about genetically modified crops, they are spreading so rapidly that it has become almost impossible for consumers to avoid them, agriculture experts say.

More than 100 million acres of the world's most fertile farmland were planted with genetically modified crops last year, about 25 times as much as just four years earlier. Wind-blown pollen, commingled seeds and black-market plantings have further extended these products of biotechnology into the far corners of the global food supply -- perhaps irreversibly, according to food experts.

They are even turning up where people least expect them :.....in food supplies where they are forbidden or shunned, like organic products; even in fields that farmers believe are completely free of genetically modified crops.

Food makers around the world are finding traces of gene-altered crops in foods that were not supposed to be made with them; Midwestern farmers are complaining that wind is blowing pollen from gene-altered crops into neighboring fields planted with conventional corn.

Even organic crops labeled ''G.M. Free'' are testing positive for genetic modification. Organic growers are now considering a class-action lawsuit against the biotech industry that would seek damages for the contamination.

''We have found traces in corn that has been grown organically for 10 to 15 years,'' said Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path Foods, an organic producer of breads and cereals based in Delta, British Columbia. ''There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff contained.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/us...ted=all&src=pm

And now we are saying Monsanto has the rights to all of it, regardless of how it got there..

[PeterMP]

Well somebody should have told the corn that.

Let me give you a hypothetical... If I engineer a strand of corn which has a single pronounced pink dot on the foliage... and I give this corn a genetic advantage over all other corn including Monsanto's Corn...
An advantage so pronounced that say after five years it replaces without any assistance all other strands of corn strains.

Can I then claim all corn in this country as my personal property... Hey it's my freaking intellectual property. How dare they use it.

The result of such a case is unclear because no such case has come before the courts.

I wouldn't support that just like I wouldn't support the right of Monsanto to sue farmers just for cross pollination.

[DjTj]

Are they gonna charge you if your offspring benefit from them?

confiscate them?

I think they would have to charge you. Confiscation (injunctive relief) has generally been treated as a more extraordinary remedy. Even in this Monsanto case, the relief will likely be money damages, not confiscation of crops. Especially since the market price for Monsanto's soy beans is well-established.

In the hypothetical case of patented genetic modifications of human beings, I think there would still need to be patent protection over the offspring. Otherwise, the patent-holder's rights could be completely destroyed by a secondary market. Why bother buying from the source when you can get the genes from a sperm bank? Would you invest in genetic research if your customers will be able to take your product into their hands and blow all of your R&D dollars?

Even in the present Monsanto case, if the farmer wins, it means he is free and clear to do whatever he wants with his soy beans, right? Can he switch over all of his fields to growing Monsanto beans for seed and then selling those seeds at a discount to other farmers? Can he set up a lab to extract the patented genes from his unrestricted beans and create seed that is the same quality as Monsanto's? If it is unrestricted, then it's unrestricted, right?

Limits

A patent is a limited monopoly that expires after about twenty years. That is the limit that Congress has set to try to compensate inventors while balancing the needs of the public for access to technology. This is not some kind of untested regime, and we have had many drugs go through the same life cycle where Tylenol or Advil had limited periods of patent protection to build up their market and their brand before generics had access to sell the same medicine under different names. Monsanto and the farmers should be able to get along within the same system, and for the large part it has worked pretty smoothly for the soybean industry over the last decade or so.

[twa]

Also the patent has a lifetime to it so at most they'd be able to confiscate your kid until the patent runs out.

+ the statute of limitations?

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 03:24 PM ----------

Even in the present Monsanto case, if the farmer wins, it means he is free and clear to do whatever he wants with his soy beans, right? Can he switch over all of his fields to growing Monsanto beans for seed and then selling those seeds at a discount to other farmers? Can he set up a lab to extract the patented genes from his unrestricted beans and create seed that is the same quality as Monsanto's? If it is unrestricted, then it's unrestricted, right?

.

I'd say that would go beyond normal fair use of a purchase, particularly if you are competing for sales.

Still don't think planting soybean you purchased with the patent holders implied consent is over the line.....selling it as that type of seed ....yes.

I wonder if he regrets informing Monsanto what he was doing?

[JMS]

I think they would have to charge you. Confiscation (injunctive relief) has generally been treated as a more extraordinary remedy. Even in this Monsanto case, the relief will likely be money damages, not confiscation of crops.

Monsanto is confiscating crops, and seeking money. The former is important because they don't want second, third or fourth generation out there. It interferes with their trademark..

As for "charge you" for children benefiting from stem cells. Then what's to stop me from charging all my children, grand children, even great grand children down through eternity for my genetic uniqueness which they are using? Seems like a perfect way to endow the eternal flame, and personal chef I plan to use in perpetuity... I guess the real question is, how does charging children of stem cell recipients or my progeny ultimately benefit the consumer... It doesn't, quite the opposite, so we shouldn't.

---------- Post added February-22nd-2013 at 11:35 AM ----------

Why bother buying from the source when you can get the genes from a sperm bank? Would you invest in genetic research if your customers will be able to take your product into their hands and blow all of your R&D dollars?

Buying from the source will always yield reliable results. Buying from a secondary market won't. second generation seeds will always give reduced results, diluted genes. ( cross pollination, mutations, recessive traits, etc ). The only reliable way to achieve the best results is from Monsanto; and that's really what Monsanto should be in the business of doing.. promoting and selling their brand.




Even in the present Monsanto case, if the farmer wins, it means he is free and clear to do whatever he wants with his soy beans, right? Can he switch over all of his fields to growing Monsanto beans for seed and then selling those seeds at a discount to other farmers? Can he set up a lab to extract the patented genes from his unrestricted beans and create seed that is the same quality as Monsanto's? If it is unrestricted, then it's unrestricted, right?

A patent is a limited monopoly that expires after about twenty years. That is the limit that Congress has set to try to compensate inventors while balancing the needs of the public for access to technology. This is not some kind of untested regime, and we have had many drugs go through the same life cycle where Tylenol or Advil had limited periods of patent protection to build up their market and their brand before generics had access to sell the same medicine under different names. Monsanto and the farmers should be able to get along within the same system, and for the large part it has worked pretty smoothly for the soybean industry over the last decade or so.[/QUOTE]

[PeterMP]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...court/2116333/

Monsanto won unanimously.

[twa]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...court/2116333/

Monsanto won unanimously.

tis unnatural....but predictable

Center for Food Safety executive director Andrew Kimbrell called the ruling a setback for farmers. "The court chose to protect Monsanto over farmers," he said. "The court's ruling is contrary to logic and to agronomics, because it improperly attributes seeds' reproduction to farmers, rather than nature."

[PeterMP]

tis unnatural....but predictable

Center for Food Safety executive director Andrew Kimbrell called the ruling a setback for farmers. "The court chose to protect Monsanto over farmers," he said. "The court's ruling is contrary to logic and to agronomics, because it improperly attributes seeds' reproduction to farmers, rather than nature."

How many seeds naturally spray themselves with Round Up?

[twa]

How many seeds naturally spray themselves with Round Up?

does spraying roundup create seed?.......enjoy the fruits of monopoly

[PeterMP]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...1-796_c07d.pdf

"Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beans
himself or feed them to his animals. Monsanto, although the patent holder, would have no business interfering in those uses of Roundup Ready beans. But the exhaustion
doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsanto’s permission (either express or implied). And that
is precisely what Bowman did. He took the soybeans he purchased home; planted them in his fields at the time he thought best; applied
glyphosate to kill weeds (as well as any soy plants lacking the Roundup Ready trait); and finally harvested more (many more) beans than he started with. That is how “to
‘make’ a new product,” to use Bowman’s words, when the original product is a seed."

"In all this, the bean surely figured. But it was Bowman, and not the bean, who controlled the reproduction (unto the eighth generation) of Monsanto’s patented invention."

"Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions
are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control."

[twa]

he did not control the reproduction of anything except non-patented beans....the patented ones were used as beans have been for ages.

ironic that using a Monsanto product on a Monsanto product is considered reproducing a Monsanto product


welcome to hell boys

[AsburySkinsFan]

What?! SCOTUS sides with big business again....shocker.