Farmer’s Supreme Court fight to limit Monsanto seed patents looks bleak

Can patents on crops and seeds live on through the generations? Seems likely.

Read the whole story

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

The idea that this guy is somehow not a criminal is laughable. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose.

He also told Monsanto about it, asking for advice: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana- ... d=18540373

"In 2007 he wrote to the company: 'I have been buying soybeans from an elevator for planting after wheat. There is no way of knowing what variety I have planted. However, most of the soybeans I have purchased turned out to be resistant to Roundup.'"

It's not accurate to characterize him as a criminal.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

The idea that this guy is somehow not a criminal is laughable. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose.

He also told Monsanto about it, asking for advice: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana- ... d=18540373

"In 2007 he wrote to the company: 'I have been buying soybeans from an elevator for planting after wheat. There is no way of knowing what variety I have planted. However, most of the soybeans I have purchased turned out to be resistant to Roundup.'"

It's not accurate to characterize him as a criminal.

He sprayed his soybeans with Roundup because he knew that they would be resistant to it.

He bought the soybeans in this way (which most farmers DO NOT DO) so that he could avoid paying Monsanto for their IP, while simultaneously using said IP to his advantage.

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

The idea that this guy is somehow not a criminal is laughable. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose.

He also told Monsanto about it, asking for advice: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana- ... d=18540373

"In 2007 he wrote to the company: 'I have been buying soybeans from an elevator for planting after wheat. There is no way of knowing what variety I have planted. However, most of the soybeans I have purchased turned out to be resistant to Roundup.'"

It's not accurate to characterize him as a criminal.

He sprayed his soybeans with Roundup because he knew that they would be resistant to it.

He bought the soybeans in this way (which most farmers DO NOT DO) so that he could avoid paying Monsanto for their IP, while simultaneously using said IP to his advantage.

1. There is nothing categorically wrong with using IP and not paying the IP holder.
For example, if I buy a used Rolex off eBay, Rolex isn't seeing a dime.
2. There is nothing categorically wrong with doing something that most people DO NOT DO.
For example, you post on Arstechnicha (which most people DO NOT DO).
3. If he sprayed the plants with Roundup(TM) then he quite obviously FAILED at avoiding paying Monsanto for their IP, in any case.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

The idea that this guy is somehow not a criminal is laughable. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose.

He also told Monsanto about it, asking for advice: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana- ... d=18540373

"In 2007 he wrote to the company: 'I have been buying soybeans from an elevator for planting after wheat. There is no way of knowing what variety I have planted. However, most of the soybeans I have purchased turned out to be resistant to Roundup.'"

It's not accurate to characterize him as a criminal.

He sprayed his soybeans with Roundup because he knew that they would be resistant to it.

He bought the soybeans in this way (which most farmers DO NOT DO) so that he could avoid paying Monsanto for their IP, while simultaneously using said IP to his advantage.

1. There is nothing categorically wrong with using IP and not paying the IP holder.
For example, if I buy a used Rolex off eBay, Rolex isn't seeing a dime.
2. There is nothing categorically wrong with doing something that most people DO NOT DO.
For example, you post on Arstechnicha (which most people DO NOT DO).
3. If he sprayed the plants with Roundup(TM) then he quite obviously FAILED at avoiding paying Monsanto for their IP, in any case.

Roundup (or more precisely, the chemical that makes up Roundup) is not Monsanto's IP anymore, and I have no idea whether he used brand-name Roundup or not.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

The idea that this guy is somehow not a criminal is laughable. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose.

He also told Monsanto about it, asking for advice: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana- ... d=18540373

"In 2007 he wrote to the company: 'I have been buying soybeans from an elevator for planting after wheat. There is no way of knowing what variety I have planted. However, most of the soybeans I have purchased turned out to be resistant to Roundup.'"

It's not accurate to characterize him as a criminal.

He sprayed his soybeans with Roundup because he knew that they would be resistant to it.

He bought the soybeans in this way (which most farmers DO NOT DO) so that he could avoid paying Monsanto for their IP, while simultaneously using said IP to his advantage.

And he told the IP owner exactly what he was doing, which criminals DO NOT DO. I'm not saying he's not mistaken, but it's simply laughable to call someone a criminal over something they went out of their way to inform the "victim" about doing.

 

[Fyrebaugh]

The idea that this guy is somehow not a criminal is laughable. He knew exactly what he was doing and he did it on purpose.

He also told Monsanto about it, asking for advice: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/indiana- ... d=18540373

"In 2007 he wrote to the company: 'I have been buying soybeans from an elevator for planting after wheat. There is no way of knowing what variety I have planted. However, most of the soybeans I have purchased turned out to be resistant to Roundup.'"

It's not accurate to characterize him as a criminal.

He sprayed his soybeans with Roundup because he knew that they would be resistant to it.

He bought the soybeans in this way (which most farmers DO NOT DO) so that he could avoid paying Monsanto for their IP, while simultaneously using said IP to his advantage.

And he told the IP owner exactly what he was doing, which criminals DO NOT DO. I'm not saying he's not mistaken, but it's simply laughable to call someone a criminal over something they went out of their way to inform the "victim" about doing.

Not to mention that he didn't buy his seed from them, didn't sign an agreement not to plant or replant them, had no guarantee that the seed he did buy would be resistant to Roundup..... Yea, not criminal behavior...

 

[accurrent]

And he told the IP owner exactly what he was doing, which criminals DO NOT DO. I'm not saying he's not mistaken, but it's simply laughable to call someone a criminal over something they went out of their way to inform the "victim" about doing.

Not to mention that he didn't buy his seed from them, didn't sign an agreement not to plant or replant them, had no guarantee that the seed he did buy would be resistant to Roundup..... Yea, not criminal behavior...

A criminal is someone who commits a crime — let's not play games with words.

Announcing the crime to the company you're ripping off is evidence of stupidity, not innocence.

 

[Berial]

So wait. If you buy seeds from someone that has them and is willing to sell them to you. No agreements are signed. You plant them and spray them. And based on the results:

If most of the plants die (weren't Monsanto seeds) you aren't a crook just dumb.
If most of the plants live (were Monsanto seeds) you ARE a crook and are dumb because you told Monsanto.


That sum it up?

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

A criminal is someone who commits a crime — let's not play games with words.

Announcing the crime to the company you're ripping off is evidence of stupidity, not innocence.

It's evidence that he had no intent to disobey the law. The law is unclear here, otherwise the supreme court would never have agreed to hear the case.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

So wait. If you buy seeds from someone that has them and is willing to sell them to you. No agreements are signed. You plant them and spray them. And based on the results:

If most of the plants die (weren't Monsanto seeds) you aren't a crook just dumb.
If most of the plants live (were Monsanto seeds) you ARE a crook and are dumb because you told Monsanto.


That sum it up?

Doesn't really clarify anything. If you buy a bootleg DVD on the street and (A) it turns out to be a feature film then you've broken copyright law, but (B) it turns out to be a rick-roll then you haven't broken copyright law. It even works for criminal law, if you break into a car and drive it away, and (A) it turns out to be someone else's car then you've broken the law, but (B) it turns out to be a car you own, even if you didn't know you owned it because it was a surprise gift, then you haven't broken the law.

Intent is (often) necessary but not sufficient to consider an action criminal.

 

[Berial]

So wait. If you buy seeds from someone that has them and is willing to sell them to you. No agreements are signed. You plant them and spray them. And based on the results:

If most of the plants die (weren't Monsanto seeds) you aren't a crook just dumb.
If most of the plants live (were Monsanto seeds) you ARE a crook and are dumb because you told Monsanto.


That sum it up?

Doesn't really clarify anything. If you buy a bootleg DVD on the street and (A) it turns out to be a feature film then you've broken copyright law, but (B) it turns out to be a rick-roll then you haven't broken copyright law. It even works for criminal law, if you break into a car and drive it away, and (A) it turns out to be someone else's car then you've broken the law, but (B) it turns out to be a car you own, even if you didn't know you owned it because it was a surprise gift, then you haven't broken the law.

Intent is (often) necessary but not sufficient to consider an action criminal.

Actually are you sure you (the buyer) broke copyright law? Wouldn't the seller be the one that broke the law?

And while everyone uses car analogies wouldn't this be a case of you bought a used car(that may or may not have been stolen) and had to break in to open the door? Because no one is denying that the guy bought the seeds involved.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

Actually are you sure you (the buyer) broke copyright law? Wouldn't the seller be the one that broke the law?

And while everyone uses car analogies wouldn't this be a case of you bought a used car(that may or may not have been stolen) and had to break in to open the door? Because no one is denying that the guy bought the seeds involved.

The buyer (of the DVD or the car) would be guilty of receiving stolen property:
Receiving stolen property is defined by statute in most states. Generally it consists of four elements: (1) the property must be received; (2) it must have been previously stolen; (3) the person receiving the property must know it was stolen; and (4) the receiver must intend to deprive the owner of his or her property.

Edit: I'm not surprised if the powers that be consider their resources better spent pursuing the sellers than the buyers, but the buyers are still quite obviously breaking the law, just like napster downloaders or j-walkers (crimes which for the most part go unenforced). Meanwhile, it's unclear to me if Bowman was actually breaking the law, considering that his action of telling Monsanto about it contradicts the 3rd and 4th elements described above.

 

[accurrent]

A criminal is someone who commits a crime — let's not play games with words.

Announcing the crime to the company you're ripping off is evidence of stupidity, not innocence.

It's evidence that he had no intent to disobey the law. The law is unclear here, otherwise the supreme court would never have agreed to hear the case.

First, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Second, the article is titled "Farmer’s Supreme Court fight to limit Monsanto seed patents looks bleak" for a reason. The justices strongly indicated they found his actions illegal.

 

[Berial]

I think #3 and #4 are why most people would get off and in a lot of cases (not all) they may honestly have been unknowing and therefore not breaking the law. The seller is the obvious law breaker and much easier proven.

The guy in question, bought some seeds that were not sold as Monsanto property, but which he correctly assumed would be mostly Monsanto seed. I can see a law being written to prevent or adjust such sales in the future, but I just don't see how what this guy did was morally wrong.

Also, I'm becoming less and less of a fan of 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' when you can put 100 lawyers in a room and THEY couldn't tell you when something is illegal or not or even what the law actually means. With laws that opaque you end up with tyranny, in that any of us could be arrested at any time from simple ignorance.

Hell at this point I figure we all break at least one law every damn day and we never know it.

 

[ReaderBot]

"Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?"

Because if they didn't, people wouldn't be able to use Roundup on their soybeans. That was specifically the exact reason they were created in the first place. If Monsanto can't sell more than one generation of their seeds, they still profit from their use.

Honestly, has the justice system completely abrogated logic and reason?

Because people are honest individuals who never would let someone else have their "one generation" of seeds, right?

Enforceability matters.

Monsanto doesn't give a fuck about selling soybeans. They care about selling Roundup. And the only people who can use it are the people using their soybeans.

The more people who use their Roundup resistant soybeans, the more Roundup they will sell.

"Enforceability" has nothing to do with anything. Soybean piracy is beneficial to Monsanto.

I can't believe I have to come back here and spoon feed this elementary school-level logic to you clowns.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

I think #3 and #4 are why most people would get off and in a lot of cases (not all) they may honestly have been unknowing and therefore not breaking the law. The seller is the obvious law breaker and much easier proven.

How can you possibly buy a burned label-less DVD or a car lacking keys and not know they are stolen/pirated? How can you possibly do that without desiring to get the goods without paying the fair market price that would be due a rightful owner of those goods?

I don't see how you could ever make a reasonable claim of not satisfying both #3 and #4 with the goods described.

 

[Berial]

I think #3 and #4 are why most people would get off and in a lot of cases (not all) they may honestly have been unknowing and therefore not breaking the law. The seller is the obvious law breaker and much easier proven.

How can you possibly buy a burned label-less DVD or a car lacking keys and not know they are stolen/pirated? How can you possibly do that without desiring to get the goods without paying the fair market price that would be due a rightful owner of those goods?

I don't see how you could ever make a reasonable claim of not satisfying both #3 and #4 with the goods described.

Some stolen/pirated DVDs look EXACTLY like the originals. It can be very easy to buy illegal copies by accident, especially if you buy them in a second hand store or other place that looks legit selling cheap/second hand items.

As for the car, just think of it as a bad analogy as most car analogies are when used vs intellectual property rights discussions.

 

[Caillebotte]

Monsanto doesn't give a fuck about selling soybeans. They care about selling Roundup. And the only people who can use it are the people using their soybeans.

As has been pointed out several times, Roundup is no longer under patent. You can (legally) buy glyphosate from several vendors other than Monsanto.

And glyphosate is quite useful to people not growing glyphosate-resistant crops. I have some in my garage, which I use to kill plants in places where I want nothing to grow, or in places where I want to kill off what is still growing and do not plan to grow anything for about 2 months. (Glyphosate degrades fairly rapidly in the environment, so its effects rarely last longer than about six weeks.)

In growing crops, glyphosate resistance is quite useful because the glyphosate will kill the weeds competing with the crops for nutrients while not damaging the resistant crops; it is this highly useful property that Monsanto wants to protect.

"Enforceability" has nothing to do with anything. Soybean piracy is beneficial to Monsanto.

No, because, unlike glyphosate, the glyphosate-resistant soybeans are still under patent, which means that only Monsanto can sell the seeds without violating the patent.

I can't believe I have to come back here and spoon feed this elementary school-level logic to you clowns.

Perhaps it is because you do not understand the issues and have reading comprehension skills comparable to your manners.

 

[Zak]

OK, so it seems that Monsanto is off the hook for good thanks to our dear president Obama.