Supreme Court won’t let farmer dodge Monsanto’s patented seeds

Justices rule 9-0 that Indiana farmer can't rely on a "blame-the-bean defense."

Read the whole story

 

[parasyte]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":1da04fpr]

Chimel31[/url]":1da04fpr]
That's exactly how Monsanto sued some organic farmers and even one seed producer who had to destroy his collection of seeds painfully selected manually over many years.

What case was this? Can you provide a link about this?

I haven't seen anybody cite anything concrete on this. I see various anti-GMO sites mentioning hundreds of lawsuits but none that have gone to trial except for people like Bowman here who were clearly intending to violate patents.

There are definitely a few things about soybeans that can be mentioned but the most important one is that typically they are self-pollinating so patented genes will not spread from one soybean field to another.

Regarding GMOs in general, most will not breed true and so within a generation or two the protected genes would cease to exist in the case of accidental cross-pollination. A farmer intentionally selecting for Roundup resistance is in a completely different category from a farmer down the street working traditionally.

As for buying seeds, it is very unusual to 1) save seed to replant (unless they were previously in the business of making seeds to sell) or 2) buy elevator seed to plant.
For 1, there is usually a lot to be gained from buying new seed: you know it will be as described, while saved seed may not breed true, and purchased seed has usually been treated better than self-harvested seed.
As for 2... you are getting bulk seed from a variety of sources. 80-90%+ concentrations of GMOs notwithstanding, you have no idea the quality of any individual seed or exactly what variety it is.

It should also be noted that buying seeds was the standard method even before GMOs were a big thing; as with GMOs, beneficial hybrids won't always breed true.

(Not particularly relevant to farming, but it's also interesting to note that various kinds of plants have been patentable since 1930, long before any GMO)

 

[Chimel31]

terryy[/url]":1d9fdb2y]I am kind of mixed on this ruling. From the description of things, this farmer did sign an agreement with Monsanto on the seeds but he just chose not to buy all his seeds from Monsanto so I can see where Monsanto would have a case there.

But how about a different situation. How about a farmer who has never signed an agreement with Monsanto, goes out does the same thing as this guy? He's never signed an agreement and unless there's some sort of prohibition against planting seeds you buy from some grain silo. Would this farmer be infringing as well?

The contract applies to the seeds he bought from Monsanto, not to any other seeds. But the contract does not really matter, you are breaking the law if you are stealing IP, whether you signed a contract or not, or even whether you are aware your stuff contains patented IP or not.

In this case, the farmer even knew his soybean had the Monsanto genes. He might have had a case if he was buying grain from the elevator every year, but he bought it only once and then grew it year after year, reusing the seeds with the Monsanto gene so he could apply Roundup. So he was in effect reproducing the IP patented in the seeds, and using them for the purpose they were patented for, resisting to Roundup.

 

[Sobels]

masterbinky[/url]":2u5i1j9s]

Sobels[/url]":2u5i1j9s]

masterbinky[/url]":2u5i1j9s]Letting nature do it's grow/reproduce thing isn't the same as copying. I don't go to the story to buy a copy of a banana.

The farmer did not just let nature do its own thing. He bought the seeds, planted them and sprayed herbicide to select for the herbicide-resistant plants that he knew existed in the population of seeds he bought. That's hardly the same as unknowingly having cross-pollination copy the gene for you.

And they don't buy seeds for plants that don't handle the climate in the area either. He also watered it on a regular basis that he knew would help it grow. So what? This is a living organism that is patented? At what point is a plant not patented anymore? When it becomes a different species? Society is gaining no benefit from overprotecting monsato this like, and it is more likely to cause more harm than good from the legal abuse monsato is known for.

Watering plants does not show any intent to reproduce a patented process. Whether or not genetically engineered seeds in general are patentable was not a source of contention between the two parties of the case. Patenting the result of genetic engineering is not inherently bad - I can see how a particular strain of seed could be the result of non-obvious work and genuinely novel, and seeds definitely constitute part of a process, that is the process of making food.

The main issue that I take with Monsanto is when they sue people who have not willingly infringed on a patent, but who are forced to by laws of nature. I don't think farmers should be, in all possible universes, compelled to pay a private corporation, regardless of the farmers' actions. I do believe, however, that a farmer should be held to account when he knowingly and voluntarily uses the work of skilled genetic scientists for his benefit without paying them their due.

 

[PeterJennings]

Too many comments to check if any one mentioned this, but.....

Roundup Ready Soybean patent will expire in 2014. These are referred to as RR1. Of course there is a newly patented RR2 on the way. And it is possible they will find a way to extend the patent on RR1.

http://www.lgseeds.com/content/informat ... ean-grower

 

[HSuke]

JEDIDIAH[/url]":c7jul0is]

g0m3r619[/url]":c7jul0is]

TechGeek[/url]":c7jul0is]

BkMak[/url]":c7jul0is]

TechGeek[/url]":c7jul0is]So now what happens when we genetically modify a human? Does that now make that human a slave for life? How about his children and his children's children? Patents on living things is a very evil concept.

In what universe does a patent on Soybeans = Patents on Human people?

The patent is on a genetic manipulation to the soybean. What happens when we have a genetic manipulation to a human being, say making them resistant to cancer? Does the patent owner now gain complete control over that human being?

Not quite the same thing. Plants are not sentient beings with rights. You do get this right? The plants we are talking about are food. You would have done better by comparing them to genetically modified livestock or pets.

That's not a distinction that's being made in the law.

Also, companies are already trying to patent human genes.

You are conveniently ignoring all of the worst case scenarios. Even without the patent quagmire, this entire situation is a case of engaging in experiments in your production system when you don't have a backup or disaster recovery plan of any kind.

Fortunately, naturally-occurring genes are not patentable, so companies are a bit limited in what they can do. On the other hand, it is troublesome that isolated genes can be patented if they are sufficiently different than naturally-occurring copies (e.g. Myriad Genetics's BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes).

 

[zocki]

I just wanted to add some perspective to the whole "you can't go around Monsanto" argument. It tis true that Monsato is is by far the biggest player in the GMO market. From what I read 87% of all sold GMO seeds are from Monsato. BUT: only about 10% of the world's agrar fields are actually being planted with GMO seeds, a vast 90% are non GMO seeds.

I understand that the situation in the US concerning soy beans is pretty extreme, with almost all soy beans produced being from GMO seeds, and most of them of course from Monsato. But if you really wanted to grow food without using Monsato seeds, there are tons of possibilities, maybe growing Soybeans is not the easiest though.

 

[bleeper]

Once again the supreme court has failed America.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

AnonymousRich[/url]":3lf5l3um]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":3lf5l3um]
There is a difference between intentional and unintentional infringement.

That's not the way I understand it. This is not my original source, but it will do for now.

This is from Canada BTW, but I do recall a similar case in the US.

GMO Monsanto Schmeiser's Story

-- Monsanto "did everything to try to discredit me, which is a typical way of corporations
-- when you fight them in court. In the two years of pretrial, they stated that there was
-- absolutely no record I had ever bought their seed, but they said it didn’t matter how it got
-- there, I infringed on their patent." The Court, after 2 1/2 weeks of trial, ruled that it does
-- not matter how Monsanto’s GMOs get into a farmer’s field--through cross pollination,
-- direct seed movement by wind, by birds, by farmers hauling grains, by floods or storms:
-- "If it happens to get into your crop, your seeds and plants; you no longer own your seeds
-- and plants," said Schmeiser. "It all becomes Monsanto’s property, whether 1% or 50%
-- contaminated. That was a startling, startling decision... it basically takes farmers’ rights away."

That's interesting. Searching for that person's name led me (through wikipedia) to the Canada Supreme Court
decision on their case here:

http://scc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/sc ... 7/index.do

"The general rule is that the defendant’s intention is irrelevant to a finding of infringement. The issue is “what the defendant does, not . . . what he intends”
...
50 However, intention becomes relevant where the defence invoked is possession without use. Where the alleged use consists of exploitation of the invention’s “stand-by” utility, as discussed above, it is relevant whether the defendant intended to exploit the invention should the need arise."

And the result, as wikipedia put it: "Ultimately, a Supreme Court 5-4 ruling found partly in favor of Monsanto, because Schmeiser had intentionally replanted the seed that he had saved."

I submit that my original post is vindicated.

 

[eng050599]

Chimel31[/url]":25agws2a]

terryy[/url]":25agws2a]I am kind of mixed on this ruling. From the description of things, this farmer did sign an agreement with Monsanto on the seeds but he just chose not to buy all his seeds from Monsanto so I can see where Monsanto would have a case there.

But how about a different situation. How about a farmer who has never signed an agreement with Monsanto, goes out does the same thing as this guy? He's never signed an agreement and unless there's some sort of prohibition against planting seeds you buy from some grain silo. Would this farmer be infringing as well?

The contract applies to the seeds he bought from Monsanto, not to any other seeds. But the contract does not really matter, you are breaking the law if you are stealing IP, whether you signed a contract or not, or even whether you are aware your stuff contains patented IP or not.

In this case, the farmer even knew his soybean had the Monsanto genes. He might have had a case if he was buying grain from the elevator every year, but he bought it only once and then grew it year after year, reusing the seeds with the Monsanto gene so he could apply Roundup. So he was in effect reproducing the IP patented in the seeds, and using them for the purpose they were patented for, resisting to Roundup.

Additionally, the seeds he purchased were listed as commodity seeds, meant for use as feed, not for cultivation. He planted and selected for the individuals that contained the glyphosate resistance with the intent to propagate the seed. He then used this seed in the following years.

 

[Chimel31]

Feanaaro[/url]":3mei90wv]
Exactly, he bought beans and planted them. I gather that this is illegal. I question the sanity of the system that allows such a behaviour to be illegal.

Exactly, the Newtown school killer bought guns and bullets and fired them. I gather that this is illegal. I question the sanity of the system that allows such a behavior to be illegal.

 

[mebeSajid]

I submit that my original post is vindicated

No it's not. Patent infringement is a strict liability offense, at least in the United States. As long as you make, use, offer to sell, or sell a patented item, you've committed direct patent infringement. Intent doesn't play into it.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

Sobels[/url]":2n5erf7h]The main issue that I take with Monsanto is when they sue people who have not willingly infringed on a patent, but who are forced to by laws of nature.

Do you have a link that says that they have ever done that?

 

[fivepopes]

Dputiger[/url]":fcs24n9w]The problem with a decision in his favor is that it would gut the business model for any company, not just Monsanto. He's right that life is self-replicating (a condition not foreseen in patent law), but cutting things off at the first generation would be ruinous to any company in the future.

So, you're saying: Not gutting business models, whatever they may be, is more important than taking the side that is so obviously fair. The argument that a business model, once established, must be protected above all else, is simply false. It's pretty much what the entertainment industry have been fighting so hard for: "We don't want you to make a copy of the stuff you bought, 'cause then we can't sell it to you again and it will gut our business model". Twenty years later, we all agree the industry needs to change their business model.

In no desirable future can someone, corporation or person, sue someone else for planting a bean. I wish we could agree on that now, instead of fighting about it for twenty years.

 

[mebeSajid]

Chimel31[/url]":2p8utzmg]

Feanaaro[/url]":2p8utzmg]
Exactly, he bought beans and planted them. I gather that this is illegal. I question the sanity of the system that allows such a behaviour to be illegal.

Exactly, the Newtown school killer bought guns and bullets and fired them. I gather that this is illegal. I question the sanity of the system that allows such a behavior to be illegal.

There is a key difference. The Newtown school killer's actions were illegal because he fired the bullets at people. There are plenty of legal ways to buy and shoot guns. There isn't a way to buy Roundup Ready soybeans from a party other than Monsanto (or its affiliates) and plant them without being liable for patent infringement.

 

[alohadave]

armendiel[/url]":2lfqwo22]

rmongiovi[/url]":2lfqwo22]

aiken_d[/url]":2lfqwo22]
No. The odds of your naturally selected seeds expressing the exact patented gene are low.

Patents cover a particular implementation, not an idea. So I can patent a *method* for producing Roundup-resistant crops, but not the *idea* of having Roundup-resistant crops.

Bowman didn't buy his seeds from Monsanto. Did they check the DNA of all his plants to make sure they were actually contamination with the Monsanto modification and not naturally evolved resistance? Or did they just assume "Roundup didn't kill them, they must be Monsanto."

Read up on the effects of glyphosphate. The probability of a naturally evolved resistance is VERY low. As in, so low that it is almost infinitely unlikely.

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate ... oorganisms

 

[Chimel31]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":3bz3gfht]

Chimel31[/url]":3bz3gfht]
That's exactly how Monsanto sued some organic farmers and even one seed producer who had to destroy his collection of seeds painfully selected manually over many years.

What case was this? Can you provide a link about this?

I don't bookmark these, but I think this was in Canada and they settled privately as I remember, several years ago.
It is one example frequently mentioned in the anti-GMO literature, like the books Seeds of Deception/Seeds of Destruction/The World According to Monsanto and others. Only one farmer sued that I remember was organic, and one (maybe that Canadian guy?) did this stuff knowingly according to Monsanto, a bit like what happened just now with The Supremes, who should stick to singing, really...

I have the books, if you want to borrow them, no links for the content of the books.

 

[Miles]

Fortunately, patents cannot be applied to naturally-occurring genes. So we're safe.

Monsanto didn't invent resistance, they just figured a way to insert it.

Not only that, but next year the patent will expire and farmers will come out even more ahead, because they can keep using the invention and stop paying the license. Forever.

RR2 is better still and won't be off patent soon. And then there will be dicamba resistant starting. And then presumably that will eventually be off patent too. So yes, the system is just fine. Pay up for new tech or else keep using the 'old' for free.

 

[eljefeloco]

I'm not always against GMO foods, but when I am, I'm against the companies that enforce contracts that constrict what farmers can do with the end-product of the growth.

I understand that Monsanto needs to protect their business interest, and that this guy was specifically trying to game the system, but these situations just never seem to sit right with me.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

mebeSajid[/url]":8236oswa]

I submit that my original post is vindicated

No it's not. Patent infringement is a strict liability offense, at least in the United States. As long as you make, use, offer to sell, or sell a patented item, you've committed direct patent infringement. Intent doesn't play into it.

Well I know you're exaggerating or painting with too wide a brush, because as already pointed out in this thread, the grain elevator would be on trial if that were true. Grain elevators sell the patented item every day. They just don't sell it for the use of the patented use. The same way Bowman would have been ok if he hadn't used the patented product for the patented use.

 

[Chimel31]

mebeSajid[/url]":3sr3ralp]

Chimel31[/url]":3sr3ralp]

Feanaaro[/url]":3sr3ralp]
Exactly, he bought beans and planted them. I gather that this is illegal. I question the sanity of the system that allows such a behaviour to be illegal.

Exactly, the Newtown school killer bought guns and bullets and fired them. I gather that this is illegal. I question the sanity of the system that allows such a behavior to be illegal.

There is a key difference. The Newtown school killer's actions were illegal because he fired the bullets at people. There are plenty of legal ways to buy and shoot guns. There isn't a way to buy Roundup Ready soybeans from a party other than Monsanto (or its affiliates) and plant them without being liable for patent infringement.

I was just remarking on the stupidity of that comment, not making a valid comparison, but it is illegal to duplicate patented IP without a license, the contract that you sign when you purchase the seeds is what protects you from patent infringement.

 

[accurrent]

Green wingnuttery... check.
Corporate overlords... check.
Supreme court bribery... check.
"How dare they patent a product they developed"... check.

Just another rational Ars discussion.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

Chimel31[/url]":qk1tcla5]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":qk1tcla5]

Chimel31[/url]":qk1tcla5]
That's exactly how Monsanto sued some organic farmers and even one seed producer who had to destroy his collection of seeds painfully selected manually over many years.

What case was this? Can you provide a link about this?

I don't bookmark these, but I think this was in Canada and they settled privately as I remember, several years ago.
It is one example frequently mentioned in the anti-GMO literature, like the books Seeds of Deception/Seeds of Destruction/The World According to Monsanto and others. Only one farmer sued that I remember was organic, and one (maybe that Canadian guy?) did this stuff knowingly according to Monsanto, a bit like what happened just now with The Supremes, who should stick to singing, really...

I have the books, if you want to borrow them, no links for the content of the books.

Well I'm not going to entirely write off your vague recollections just because you're not unbiased on the subject and your sources for the information share the same bias you do. But I have to say I'm not going to lend it much weight

 

[mebeSajid]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":2rtycg31]

mebeSajid[/url]":2rtycg31]

I submit that my original post is vindicated

No it's not. Patent infringement is a strict liability offense, at least in the United States. As long as you make, use, offer to sell, or sell a patented item, you've committed direct patent infringement. Intent doesn't play into it.

Well I know you're exaggerating or painting with too wide a brush, because as already pointed out in this thread, the grain elevator would be on trial if that were true. Grain elevators sell the patented item every day. They just don't sell it for the use of the patented use. The same way Bowman would have been ok if he hadn't used the patented product for the patented use.

Not at all. The seeds are patented, period. The reason the grain elevators can't be held liable is because Monsanto sells the seeds pursuant to a license, and that license includes the right to plant seeds once, and then use the resulting crop, which are seeds, for anything but replanting. Monsanto has no patent rights as to the seeds once the grain elevator has them so long as the grain elevator doesn't plant the seeds itself. Even if the grain elevator did plant the seeds, the grain elevator could only be sued for "making" new seeds, not for planting the old ones, because Monsanto's patent rights as to the seeds that were sold to the grain elevator were exhausted by the first sale doctrine as long as the seeds were grown under a license agreement. Also, there's dicta in the opinion suggesting that the seeds were sold with an implied license to grow them once, were there no license agreement.

Bowman was found liable because he planted the seeds - Monsanto couldn't sue him if he, for example, cooked the seeds, because it sold it's seeds with a license to create one generation of new seeds and that license covered the new products sold (though this case was decided under a theory of patent infringement and not under breach of contract, and Bowman couldn't have been sued for breach because he wasn't a party to that contract anyhow).

 

[TokamakH3]

Sobels[/url]":1lao0995]
The main issue that I take with Monsanto is when they sue people who have not willingly infringed on a patent, but who are forced to by laws of nature.

I'm curious as to when this happened. Do you have a citation?

Edit: Beaten to it. And your answer is essentially no.

 

[Chimel31]

Miles[/url]":17xsgwj3]

Not only that, but next year the patent will expire and farmers will come out even more ahead, because they can keep using the invention and stop paying the license. Forever.

RR2 is better still and won't be off patent soon. And then there will be dicamba resistant starting. And then presumably that will eventually be off patent too. So yes, the system is just fine. Pay up for new tech or else keep using the 'old' for free.

I don't even know if we can talk about RR1 or RR2 Roundup-Ready generations anymore, Monsanto seems to be developing different multi-stacked (several genes combined together, like one for Roundup tolerance, one Bt gene for root worms, one for leaf worms) cultivars every year.

And I don't see the new 2015 dicamba and 2-4-D resistant GM plants as a progress. Sure, they will break the cycle of current weed tolerance to glyphosate, but these herbicides were the main reason we switched to the less toxic glyphosate.

 

[accurrent]

Just to be clear, Monsanto does not sue farmers for pollen contamination.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/1 ... eds-busted

 

[Sobels]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":24uwe73c]

Sobels[/url]":24uwe73c]The main issue that I take with Monsanto is when they sue people who have not willingly infringed on a patent, but who are forced to by laws of nature.

Do you have a link that says that they have ever done that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_C ... _Schmeiser

Schmeiser noticed that some of his crop had become Roundup-resistant and selected for these crops. Monsanto sued him for claims regarding both the crop in which Schmeiser had originally noticed the RR plants, and the subsequent year after they had been selected for. Later, they dropped claims regarding the earlier year. However, it would have been (in my opinion) an undue burden on Schmeiser to destroy his crop because it had been contaminated by RR plants, so even drawing claims for the latter year was morally dubious to me.

 

[TokamakH3]

Chimel31[/url]":3uucwnv0]

And I don't see the new 2015 dicamba and 2-4-D resistant GM plants as a progress. Sure, they will break the cycle of current weed tolerance to glyphosate, but these herbicides were the main reason we switched to the less toxic glyphosate.

The main reason was it was very difficult and expensive to apply a large range of corn-selective herbicides that depended on the growing conditions, weeds present, and time of year. 2,4-D can be used on corn, but only at just the right growing time, and there's still a good chance of some injury. Glyphosate tolerance made it a whole lot easier, and cheaper, to manage weeds.
That glyphosate is somewhat safer than what was widely used was an added bonus.

 

[geofftaylor]

herozero[/url]":22mbhy2e]

Dilbert[/url]":22mbhy2e]

PapagenoF[/url]":22mbhy2e]I'm extremely leery of anything that lets "IP" into food production.

This.

Speak with your wallet. Don't buy such foods.

I'd love to except that Proposition was defeated here in CA, because apparently it's too liberal and stupid to know what's in your food. That and all the money big agribusiness spent on defeating it. Our democracy at work. </rant>

What democracy? The United States of America has never, ever been a democracy.

 

[kevinpet]

Feanaaro[/url]":1kp3msp3]One can slice the patent argument however one wants, but the fact remains that a person buys beans, plant them, and can be condemned for that.

Not true at all. He sprayed the beans with roundup specifically because he knew that the beans would mostly be Monsanto strains which were immune. If he hadn't taken advantage of their patented feature, Monsanto would have had a very hard time making any sort of case.

But go ahead spouting off the groupthink; it's easier than researching anything.

 

[taswyn]

Monsanto's seeds self reproduce without intervention.

Fundamentally, I see that as Monsanto's problem. While I agree that the actions taken by the farmer in this case were clearly in bad faith, and I tend to agree that he did knowingly select for the Monsanto seeds, I also feel that this case sets a very ugly precedence in terms of patents and reproduction.

When the farmer in question bought seeds and then specifically selected for the Monsanto engineered ones by using their patented trait, I can understand where that should, if we accept gene patents, fall under patent law.

However, Monsanto is responsible for selling a product that self reproduces. I strongly feel that once someone has bought their seeds, future generations belong to the buyer through the fact that this reproductive process is integral to the original purchase.

If Monsanto wanted to be able to charge for each generation, they should have engineered a seed that was unable to reproduce in the wild, or at least unable to reproduce without some specialized protein or similar being used to allow their reproductive process at one point or another.

Patents aren't supposed to be some be-all-solve-all to every aspect of a business problem. If Monsanto wants to make money engineering genes on something that easily reproduces, the reproduction should seriously be Monsanto's problem, not the buyer's. To me that aspect of this case sets a very ugly precedent.

 

[Chimel31]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":rivjdc5w]
Well I'm not going to entirely write off your vague recollections just because you're not unbiased on the subject and your sources for the information share the same bias you do. But I have to say I'm not going to lend it much weight

I don't feel I have a "bias" on Monsanto or GMOs in general, and you shouldn't trust any source that you haven't verified. That's what the footnotes and references are for. The trials have been covered by many newspapers and are probably publicly available, even if the private settlements (when any) are not.

The only books available on GMOs are all against it, which is probably telling, so of course that's the only place where you can find such references. I never trust any book on faith though, even if they seem to lean in my position. I also have books on the science of bioengineering, but you wouldn't find references to such trials there.

 

[TokamakH3]

Sobels[/url]":2jimwhuc]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_C ... _Schmeiser

Schmeiser noticed that some of his crop had become Roundup-resistant and selected for these crops. Monsanto sued him for claims regarding both the crop in which Schmeiser had originally noticed the RR plants, and the subsequent year after they had been selected for. Later, they dropped claims regarding the earlier year. However, it would have been (in my opinion) an undue burden on Schmeiser to destroy his crop because it had been contaminated by RR plants, so even drawing claims for the latter year was morally dubious to me.

"Evidence was presented indicating that such a level of purity could not occur by accidental means."

They did not sue him solely for having contaminated seeds. Even the 1997 crop that Monsanto dropped their claims against were shown to most likely not have been accidental.

"he court said it was persuaded "on the balance of probabilities" (the standard of proof in civil cases, meaning "more probable than not" i.e. strictly greater than 50% probability) that the Roundup Ready canola in Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 field had not arrived there by any of the accidental means, such as spillage from a truck or pollen travelling on the wind, that Mr. Schmeiser had proposed."

The 1998 crop was certainly not accidental contamination, as Shmeiser never even claimed they were:

"Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination."

 

[redspear2]

Sobels[/url]":1d2rfe0p]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":1d2rfe0p]

Sobels[/url]":1d2rfe0p]The main issue that I take with Monsanto is when they sue people who have not willingly infringed on a patent, but who are forced to by laws of nature.

Do you have a link that says that they have ever done that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_C ... _Schmeiser

Schmeiser noticed that some of his crop had become Roundup-resistant and selected for these crops. Monsanto sued him for claims regarding both the crop in which Schmeiser had originally noticed the RR plants, and the subsequent year after they had been selected for. Later, they dropped claims regarding the earlier year. However, it would have been (in my opinion) an undue burden on Schmeiser to destroy his crop because it had been contaminated by RR plants, so even drawing claims for the latter year was morally dubious to me.

In that case Schmeiser intentional grew the crop after he found out he had it. He even eliminated acres worth of regular crop by over spraying with Roundup and seeing what survived. He did this in 1997. In 1998 Monsanto approached him asking him to sign a contract. Intent played a big factor in that ruling.
While he may have been innocent in the crop passing in to his farm he actively sought it out at the cost of his own crops. He claimed he owned the seeds he was growing sounds similar to this case. If Monsanto had gone after him for accidental contamination and he hadn't actively tried to uncover it it would never have gotten that far.

 

[⎋⎋⎋]

mebeSajid[/url]":31x6e2cj]

⎋⎋⎋[/url]":31x6e2cj]

mebeSajid[/url]":31x6e2cj]

I submit that my original post is vindicated

No it's not. Patent infringement is a strict liability offense, at least in the United States. As long as you make, use, offer to sell, or sell a patented item, you've committed direct patent infringement. Intent doesn't play into it.

Well I know you're exaggerating or painting with too wide a brush, because as already pointed out in this thread, the grain elevator would be on trial if that were true. Grain elevators sell the patented item every day. They just don't sell it for the use of the patented use. The same way Bowman would have been ok if he hadn't used the patented product for the patented use.

Not at all. The seeds are patented, period. The reason the grain elevators can't be held liable is because Monsanto sells the seeds pursuant to a license, and that license includes the right to plant seeds once, and then use the resulting crop, which are seeds, for anything but replanting. Monsanto has no patent rights as to the seeds once the grain elevator has them so long as the grain elevator doesn't plant the seeds itself. Even if the grain elevator did plant the seeds, the grain elevator could only be sued for "making" new seeds, not for planting the old ones, because Monsanto's patent rights as to the seeds that were sold to the grain elevator were exhausted by the first sale doctrine as long as the seeds were grown under a license agreement. Also, there's dicta in the opinion suggesting that the seeds were sold with an implied license to grow them once, were there no license agreement.

Bowman was found liable because he planted the seeds - Monsanto couldn't sue him if he, for example, cooked the seeds, because it sold it's seeds with a license to create one generation of new seeds and that license covered the new products sold (though this case was decided under a theory of patent infringement and not under breach of contract, and Bowman couldn't have been sued for breach because he wasn't a party to that contract anyhow).

I'm sorry you're contradicting yourself in a number of ways, let me just back-track. What I meant in the post you latched onto was that Bowman went out of his way to exploit the patented use, while the scenario described in the post I responded to would differ in that Monsanto (as the victim of "corporate espionage") would have neither gone out of their way, nor have benefited from the patented product in the first place. I described this as "intent," as did the Canadian supreme court case that someone else brought up to challenge it. But I think that word choice is causing a misunderstanding with you, because you're contrasting it with action, which of course it also is. I would have said he demonstrated his intent through his actions, but why bother defending an unnecessary word choice? I apologize for using "intent." I would rather say "exploitation," in that Bowman exploited the patented invention, as opposed to the "espionage" story in which Monsanto would not have exploited the invention. Likewise, the elevator is not exploiting the invention, despite selling it for profit. The Canadian farmer also lost due to the fact that he went out of his way to exploit the patented invention.

 

[TokamakH3]

taswyn[/url]":2s7nnsut]
If Monsanto wanted to be able to charge for each generation, they should have engineered a seed that was unable to reproduce in the wild, or at least unable to reproduce without some specialized protein or similar being used to allow their reproductive process at one point or another.

Now THAT would be a real, live, verifiable threat to the food supply. Crops that can't reproduce if the company selling them goes under. I would be very much against that and am happy that our patent system allows an alternative for this technology to be protected.

 

[Pjerky]

Dilbert[/url]":4g43n8zb]

PapagenoF[/url]":4g43n8zb]I'm extremely leery of anything that lets "IP" into food production.

This.

Speak with your wallet. Don't buy such foods.

I guess we would stop buying any products that contain soy. Something that wouldn't bother me at all since there are studies that show that long term consumption of soy is actually bad for you. But there is a much greater problem here. That is Monsanto and their dominance of our food supply.

They are trying to make it impossible to grow crops whose seeds are not supplied by them. Thus they are creating a brand new food tax. Once the market is completely or almost completely saturated they can go after anyone. They have already gone after farmers who had a crop partially infected/mixed with seeds with their patented genes in them that got into the mix by the wind blowing them over from neighboring fields.

The problem is the severe danger of being able to patent something that can self-replicate, essentially life. Corporations are inherently greedy, that is how they have to operate, especially when they have shareholders. So they cannot be trusted with such a central part of our very survival as a species. No offense to corporations, that is just the nature of things (pun intended).

With that in mind I truly believe that genes should not be patent-able. I am ok with patenting methods of gene manipulation. But even that I would tread lightly with.

 

[tului]

In other news, people have no rights. Businesses have whatever rights they can buy. Someone massacre congress and these judges and let's get some non-crooks in power.

 

[redspear2]

tului[/url]":3i414ygv]In other news, people have no rights. Businesses have whatever rights they can buy. Someone massacre congress and these judges and let's get some non-crooks in power.

This seems more like business versus business and the guy was actively trying to steal. He will be free to do what he pleases in less than 2 years.

 

[mstrcat]

I really have to say that the Supreme Court got this one wrong. Regardless of all the other facts in the case, once he buys the seeds from the grainery, with no contract with Monsanto, they are his do do with what he wants, regardless of where they came from and regardless of Monsanto's claims. This should hve been decided on 1st sale grounds, not patent law.

If I buy a car and use the parts to make two motorcycles, that's up to me, not Ford. It is sad that this is a supreme court case, since there isn't any appeal besides trying to get congress to fix it via legislation. Sigh.