Supreme Court To Hear Monsanto Seed Dispute

[jim49er]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a dispute between a soybean farmer and Monsanto Co. over the company's efforts to limit farmers' use of its patented, genetically engineered Roundup Ready seeds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/07/supreme-court-monsanto-seeds_n_1946361.html

[DamianTV]

...

The justices said they will hear an appeal from Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, who is trying to fend off Monsanto's lawsuit claiming Bowman made unauthorized use of the seeds.

...

So now if I sell you a kitten, I can sell you a license which tells you that your next kitten must be purchased from me? What a fucked up world this is that companies even think that they should be allowed to get away with this shit. For the sake of being able to eat in the future, I hope this farmer wins without ever having to say one word.

[dillo]

does monsanto have a monopoly on these seeds or something?

[DamianTV]

Complete and Total Monopoly.

Oh yeah, they are all GM so they will KILL you.

[ghengis86]

Monsanto is pure evil.

[jbauer]

does monsanto have a monopoly on these seeds or something?

Yes round-up ready is monsantos exclusive deal...until the patent runs out, since soybeans are not hi-bred you can replant them and they grow just as well with the same traits as their parents. As far as I know you sign a user agreement when you buy any variety of soybeans (not just monsantos) that you can't replant them.

So although monsanto is known as pure evil here (and I'm not trying to standing up for them) this becomes a contract law case. If the farmer replanted something he said he wouldn't in his user agreement then he's dead in the water and monsanto is 100% correct.

[donnay]

Monsanto is deceptive in their practices and this needs to come out in court!! They did this same thing in India to the Indian farmers. Monsanto has lots of money and they lobby to monopolize. The supreme court will be in the pocket of these evil bastards. We need them in a jury trial with jurors who understand their deceptive practices!!

[KingNothing]

I'm going to go-ahead and say that there's more to the story than those who wish to demagogue Monsanto lead us to believe and that, like always, more nuance than ZOMG THOSE PEOPLE ARE PURE EVIL is required.

[specsaregood]

The Obama administration urged the court not to take the case and warned that the outcome could affect patents involving DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies.

so don't take the case because the decision might affect things?

[Brian4Liberty]

Monsanto and others have also gone after farmers who never even planted seeds from Monsanto. Their crops were naturally cross-pollinated (wind, insects, animals), and Monsanto still won cases against those farmers.

[dannno]

Yes round-up ready is monsantos exclusive deal...until the patent runs out, since soybeans are not hi-bred you can replant them and they grow just as well with the same traits as their parents. As far as I know you sign a user agreement when you buy any variety of soybeans (not just monsantos) that you can't replant them.

So although monsanto is known as pure evil here (and I'm not trying to standing up for them) this becomes a contract law case. If the farmer replanted something he said he wouldn't in his user agreement then he's dead in the water and monsanto is 100% correct.

No, most likely the round-up ready seeds were purchased by a neighbor and birds/wind caused cross-pollination and Monsanto is claiming ownership of their entire seed stock because they got their seeds cross-pollinated.

[Beorn]

I wonder if Thomas will recuse himself this time???
Probably not.

[specsaregood]

I wonder if Thomas will recuse himself this time???
Probably not.

I hope not. He's better than the rest when it comes to private property rights.

[Kelly.]

Yes round-up ready is monsantos exclusive deal...until the patent runs out, since soybeans are not hi-bred you can replant them and they grow just as well with the same traits as their parents. As far as I know you sign a user agreement when you buy any variety of soybeans (not just monsantos) that you can't replant them.

So although monsanto is known as pure evil here (and I'm not trying to standing up for them) this becomes a contract law case. If the farmer replanted something he said he wouldn't in his user agreement then he's dead in the water and monsanto is 100% correct.

what in the world are you talking about?
every pack of seeds i have ever bought have never mentioned i can not collect the seeds and reuse them?

[Kelly.]

I hope not. He's better than the rest when it comes to private property rights.
you know Thomas has ties to mosanto, right?
like he used to be a lawyer for them....

[specsaregood]

what in the world are you talking about?
every pack of seeds i have ever bought have never mentioned i can not collect the seeds and reuse them?

Have you ever bought any patented gmo seeds?

[specsaregood]

you know Thomas has ties to mosanto, right?
like he used to be a lawyer for them....

So? I did some work for monsanto years ago as well. It doesn't necessarily mean he agrees with the company's actions. Thomas has a history of being better on private property issues than the other justices. eg: he dissented from the majority position on the eminent domain for private businesses.

[Kelly.]

Have you ever bought any patented gmo seeds?
never had a need to.
i was replying directly to jbauers statement that all soybeans seed purchases require an agreement, which is not true.

i do know monsanto requires a agreement, but from the article:

Bowman used the patented seeds, but also bought cheaper soybeans from a grain elevator and used those to plant a second crop

edit:
its hard to tell what the lawsuit is even about...

[specsaregood]

edit:
its hard to tell what the lawsuit is even about...

here ya go:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01185716104/monsanto-wins-patent-dispute-against-farmer-who-bought-legal-seeds.shtml

excerpt:


The details of this story are really quite incredible. The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).

[specsaregood]

you know Thomas has ties to mosanto, right?
like he used to be a lawyer for them....

And further on this topic: He hasn't worked for monsanto since 1976. that is longer than the majority on this board have even been alive. he was in his 20's, most likely not a lead attorney or corporate strategist.

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm going to go-ahead and say that there's more to the story than those who wish to demagogue Monsanto lead us to believe and that, like always, more nuance than ZOMG THOSE PEOPLE ARE PURE EVIL is required.

It never ceases to amaze me how the most obviously anti-liberty people will jump at the chance to soften the blow to something that is clearly wrong. What's more, they don't need any EVIDENCE. They just SAY it and that makes it true. Just say there's more to the story and bam, they're innocent little angels. Everytime something comes out about Monsanto or the cops doing something wrong, the apologists just explain it away by saying "there's more to the story". Oh yeah? Show us.

Show us how Mitt Romney defended them after the agent orange fiasco. Show us how they can sue small farmers if THEIR seeds are accidentally blown onto that farmer's property. Show me, for fuck's sake, how they are still in fucking business with all the controversy. They are the most untouchable bio-engineering company in the world, and it's because of their connections with government, their favored status in court, and their federal aid.

If you have some "nuance" that justifies all the shit that's been going on with Monsanto, then be my guest. You make me sick, KingNothing. You are pawn and you don't even know it. You just seem to have this impulse to defend the most heinous state evils just by telling us we're all paranoid and you're the voice of reason. Stop the bullshit.

[jbauer]

No, most likely the round-up ready seeds were purchased by a neighbor and birds/wind caused cross-pollination and Monsanto is claiming ownership of their entire seed stock because they got their seeds cross-pollinated.

No if you actually read the article it clearly says he purchased them at the grain elevator to replant.

[jbauer]

what in the world are you talking about?
every pack of seeds i have ever bought have never mentioned i can not collect the seeds and reuse them?

How many purchases of a couple tons of corn/soybean/alfalfa seed have you done? Heck how many 50 pound seed purchases have you done?

[jbauer]

It never ceases to amaze me how the most obviously anti-liberty people will jump at the chance to soften the blow to something that is clearly wrong. What's more, they don't need any EVIDENCE. They just SAY it and that makes it true. Just say there's more to the story and bam, they're innocent little angels. Everytime something comes out about Monsanto or the cops doing something wrong, the apologists just explain it away by saying "there's more to the story". Oh yeah? Show us.

Show us how Mitt Romney defended them after the agent orange fiasco. Show us how they can sue small farmers if THEIR seeds are accidentally blown onto that farmer's property. Show me, for fuck's sake, how they are still in fucking business with all the controversy. They are the most untouchable bio-engineering company in the world, and it's because of their connections with government, their favored status in court, and their federal aid.

If you have some "nuance" that justifies all the shit that's been going on with Monsanto, then be my guest. You make me sick, KingNothing. You are pawn and you don't even know it. You just seem to have this impulse to defend the most heinous state evils just by telling us we're all paranoid and you're the voice of reason. Stop the bullshit.

If this guy is a real grain farmer he knows darn well what the rules are and aren't regarding the re-planting of roundup ready/gmo seeds. Its something as simple as asking a RPF member who the GOP nominee is for 2012. Monsanto's plenty evil all on their own. No need to throw them under several more buses just because their name is akin to the devil here. But hey if you disagree with someone thats fine. Call em out, call em names. It shows you are most certainly the bigger and better person.

[Kelly.]

How many purchases of a couple tons of corn/soybean/alfalfa seed have you done? Heck how many 50 pound seed purchases have you done?

the last time a bought bulk seed (over 50 lbs) was earlier this year when we replanted one of our pastures.
the seeds i bought this year, (including alfalfa seeds) did not require me to sign anything saying i couldnt reuse the seeds. none of the seeds were transgenetic.

i have no need to buy the standard transgenetic seeds, as i am not an industrial farmer.

so again, i ask, should i have signed something saying i cant/wont reuse the seeds?

[Kelly.]

No if you actually read the article it clearly says he purchased them at the grain elevator to replant.

the article also says there are no restriction on commodity seeds, which is what were bought/planted.

from the article:
The details of this story are really quite incredible. The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).

so:
buy GM seeds, grow crop.
sell seed to grain elevator (as "commodity seeds")
later that week, go to grain elevator and buy commodity seeds (not gm seeds from monsanto, those require you to sign an agreement)
plant seeds
spray round up, determine which seeds are round up ready,
save seeds from that plant for next year.

in this scenario, the buyer of the seeds did not violate any agreement with monsanto.
if monsanto doesnt like this loophole, they can just pay off the govt to get the loophole closed.

[jbauer]

Since you purchased seeds that are out of their patent date and didn't sign any growers agreement plant, collect & plant away. Now if you go do what this guy did and aquire seed that is covered under a user agreement/patent then you get what you get.

Its not just monsanto that has these grower agreements. Pretty much every new plant variety out there has these types of things whether they're GMO or not. Fruit and nut trees, berries bushes, corn, beans etc etc etc. Quite a few of the patents are held by universities/extention offices.

[specsaregood]

in this scenario, the buyer of the seeds did not violate any agreement with monsanto.
if monsanto doesnt like this loophole, they can just pay off the govt to get the loophole closed.

It isn't a loophole, monsanto didn't put any restrictions on resale of the seeds because they don't have to. The seeds' dna is already patented. It is a case of buyer-beware. it is a patent-violation case.

[jbauer]

the article also says there are no restriction on commodity seeds, which is what were bought/planted.

from the article:
The details of this story are really quite incredible. The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).

so:
buy GM seeds, grow crop.
sell seed to grain elevator (as "commodity seeds")
later that week, go to grain elevator and buy commodity seeds (not gm seeds from monsanto, those require you to sign an agreement)
plant seeds
spray round up, determine which seeds are round up ready,
save seeds from that plant for next year.

in this scenario, the buyer of the seeds did not violate any agreement with monsanto.
if monsanto doesnt like this loophole, they can just pay off the govt to get the loophole closed.

All I can say is the court ruled that he broke the patent laws by replanting the genetic traits developed by monsanto. This same case would have held true had any other producer of any other patented plant been broken. I didn't write the laws so you're arguing with the wrong person for how they were written. If you were developing new breeds of pasture freindly plants at your cost you'd ask for the exact same protection.

[Kelly.]

Since you purchased seeds that are out of their patent date and didn't sign any growers agreement plant, collect & plant away. Now if you go do what this guy did and aquire seed that is covered under a user agreement/patent then you get what you get.

Its not just monsanto that has these grower agreements. Pretty much every new plant variety out there has these types of things whether they're GMO or not. Fruit and nut trees, berries bushes, corn, beans etc etc etc. Quite a few of the patents are held by universities/extention offices.

i guess i am not doing it on a large enough scale to get noticed then, because as we are getting ready to put in an orchard, we havent ran into any agreements there either.

@ specs - i see what you are saying, but i disagree with the patent monsanto has, thus its enforcement.

edit: im also obviously bias. i do not think monsantos patents on life should be legal, therefore a lot of what it does directly related to enforcing those patents i find illegal. i believe it to be a violation of my property rights to have my field contaminated with GM pollen.

[Beorn]

All I can say is the court ruled that he broke the patent laws by replanting the genetic traits developed by monsanto. This same case would have held true had any other producer of any other patented plant been broken. I didn't write the laws so you're arguing with the wrong person for how they were written. If you were developing new breeds of pasture freindly plants at your cost you'd ask for the exact same protection.

The mistake was letting them get patent protection in the first place. Life is uniquely different from inanimate objects. My patented better mouse trap can't walk over to acme mouse traps and make the factory start producing my better mouse trap.

[jbauer]

i guess i am not doing it on a large enough scale to get noticed then, because as we are getting ready to put in an orchard, we havent ran into any agreements there either.

@ specs - i see what you are saying, but i disagree with the patent monsanto has, thus its enforcement.

edit: im also obviously bias. i do not think monsantos patents on life should be legal, therefore a lot of what it does directly related to enforcing those patents i find illegal. i believe it to be a violation of my property rights to have my field contaminated with GM pollen.

If you plant trees that are still under patent you'll have to pay a user fee based on how long the patent has left. Look up honeycrips apples. Its the last one we ran into.

[specsaregood]

@ specs - i see what you are saying, but i disagree with the patent monsanto has, thus its enforcement.

edit: im also obviously bias. i do not think monsantos patents on life should be legal, therefore a lot of what it does directly related to enforcing those patents i find illegal. i believe it to be a violation of my property rights to have my field contaminated with GM pollen.

I'm not sure I have a real problem with them getting the patent as it is original/new work they created from scratch.

I do have a real problem when their patented product infects non-patented plants and then deems their offspring as patented. That is as you say a violation of property rights. I wish this case being heard was actually about that issue (cross polination), rather than somebody that bought the seeds. As the cross pollination issue is much more important. ie: if one farmer not using monsanto products could successfully sue a neighboring farmer or monsanto for ruining their crop via cross-pollination then you would see use of these products come to a halt.

[jbauer]

The mistake was letting them get patent protection in the first place. Life is uniquely different from inanimate objects. My patented better mouse trap can't walk over to acme mouse traps and make the factory start producing my better mouse trap.

Ok so you've got the latest and greatest mouse trap that took millions/billions of dollars and several decades of your life. Should Acme be able to buy one for $25 and reproduce it for free (even though you can't make "free" mouse traps) Then resell it to the public for $0.25 even thought hey put no time or effort into the creation of this better mouse trap thus sticking you with the entire bill for the invention and creation of this new and improved mouse trap?

Seems like a recipie for crapy mouse traps because it would discourage any type of investment into new ones.

[jbauer]

I'm not sure I have a real problem with them getting the patent as it is original/new work they created from scratch.

I do have a real problem when their patented product infects non-patented plants and then deems their offspring as patented. That is as you say a violation of property rights. I wish this case being heard was actually about that issue (cross polination), rather than somebody that bought the seeds. As the cross pollination issue is much more important. ie: if one farmer not using monsanto products could successfully sue a neighboring farmer or monsanto for ruining their crop via cross-pollination then you would see use of these products come to a halt.

Agree, under those circumstances you'd have to look into intent. If a completley unrelated farmer planted next to his neighbor then SCREW monsanto.

[Kelly.]

Agree, under those circumstances you'd have to look into intent. If a completley unrelated farmer planted next to his neighbor then SCREW monsanto.
this happens A LOT more then people know. you dont hear about them because most the farmers whose field was contaminated likely settled out of court, to include a gag order.
imo, it will only get worse with perennial crops like gm alfalfa, as those will pollute neighboring fields year after year, as opposed to corn/soy that are annuals.
gm alfalfa will ultimately kill the organic dairy industry, imo.

[specsaregood]

this happens A LOT more then people know. you dont hear about them because most the farmers whose field was contaminated likely settled out of court, to include a gag order.
imo, it will only get worse with perennial crops like gm alfalfa, as those will pollute neighboring fields year after year, as opposed to corn/soy that are annuals.
gm alfalfa will ultimately kill the organic dairy industry, imo.

I think perhaps the best solution (as of now) is to make like the handful of counties that have completely banned the growing of GMO crops.

[Beorn]

Ok so you've got the latest and greatest mouse trap that took millions/billions of dollars and several decades of your life. Should Acme be able to buy one for $25 and reproduce it for free (even though you can't make "free" mouse traps) Then resell it to the public for $0.25 even thought hey put no time or effort into the creation of this better mouse trap thus sticking you with the entire bill for the invention and creation of this new and improved mouse trap?

Seems like a recipie for crapy mouse traps because it would discourage any type of investment into new ones.

You're ignoring my argument.

Patent protection is typically strictly enforced. However, life is not completely controllable. So it's extremely easy for people to unintentionally use.

I think if you want to spend millions of dollars developing something that can just stand up on it's own two legs and walk away then you're stupid. If you then want to get the government to punish other people for you're uncontrollable creation then you're evil.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

so don't take the case because the decision might affect things?


Pretty much. Either that, or you could view it as him telling them the decision he expects to get.

[specsaregood]

Pretty much. Either that, or you could view it as him telling them the decision he expects to get.
Can you imagine the cries from the left if Bush had made that same request?

[dannno]

If you were developing new breeds of pasture freindly plants at your cost you'd ask for the exact same protection.

No, no, I wouldn't. I would never DREAM of patenting a living organism. The entire notion of using government force to protect that kind of bullshit is absolutely ridiculous. It is not their job, period. The government protects us from financial fraud, real property theft, injury, etc.. We don't need the government getting into the finer details of DNA analysis, musical theory and other advanced topics unless we are talking about a violent crime or theft where that DNA evidence may provide proof that a person injured or stole somebody's real property and suffered a real loss.

In a real free market, Monsanto would buy up a bunch of industrial farms and use their seeds on their farms, produce a product that is, at least, perceived as superior and sell it on the market and increase their marketshare.

If the product was in fact superior, then they could use the profits to buy up more industrial farms and become a dominant market player. At some point, other farms might come to Monsanto asking to buy seeds. There are several ways of dealing with these seed sales in the free market that doesn't require government to step in and control what happens to the seeds after they are sold.

1) Sell farmers a minimum of X million or billion seeds, perhaps under a FINANCIAL contract that extends out for several years. Let them do whatever they want with the seeds, but require and up-front financial contract promising to buy their minimum quantity. That is something the state can more easily identify and mediate.

2) Sell farmers a much smaller minimum than above for a similar price, then add on a licensing/research fee. Allow them to do whatever they want with the seeds after purchase.

[jbauer]

You're ignoring my argument.

Patent protection is typically strictly enforced. However, life is not completely controllable. So it's extremely easy for people to unintentionally use.

I think if you want to spend millions of dollars developing something that can just stand up on it's own two legs and walk away then you're stupid. If you then want to get the government to punish other people for you're uncontrollable creation then you're evil.

I'm sure that there is some extreme case that this has happened in. There's all kinds of infowar articles out there about conspiracy this and that.

This case is quite a bit more cut and dry. The guy knew what he was doing. He was doing it on purpuos. They caught him. Game over

[jbauer]

The government allows a patent. Monsanto for better or worse got that patent. They then used the governing body of this country to enforce that patent. We can debate the legitimacy of patents all day long but you can't fault a company for protecting what is theirs. Its no different then going after someone who stole one of their company vehicles other than if they don't "stop" it this time the next time someone will make off with their entire fleet.

I also disagree, I think this is about as free market as it gets. Companies that design things should have protection of those things to pay back their costs of creating those things. Monsanto "created" a GMO crop that is significantly better then its counterparts (otherwise such a significant portion of the crops grown wouldn't be theirs) they licensed them out to growers. The growers signed on the dotted line to the rules which say if you're going to use this crop you can't replant them. The growers had every oppertunity to use a different varriety. This grower in particular knew exactly what he was doing when he used roundup to "weed out" the non roundup ready soybeans. He then harvested those beans and used them for his weed control then following year.

Wiki says: A market economy (or free-market economy) is an economy in which decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are based on supply and demand[1] and the prices of goods and services are determined in a free price system.

This farmer could have chosen to grow his own variety of beans, used them, and done it over and over again. He however, sought out and exploited a potential loophole in the system. The evil company who's name should not be spoken sought to protect what they have a right to protect.

Again, you can disagree with the laws or the use of them but getting upset at a particular company (because it makes headlines) over using the laws set up and used by every company out there isn't correct either.





No, no, I wouldn't. I would never DREAM of patenting a living organism. The entire notion of using government force to protect that kind of bullshit is absolutely ridiculous. It is not their job, period. The government protects us from financial fraud, real property theft, injury, etc.. We don't need the government getting into the finer details of DNA analysis, musical theory and other advanced topics unless we are talking about a violent crime or theft where that DNA evidence may provide proof that a person injured or stole somebody's real property and suffered a real loss.

In a real free market, Monsanto would buy up a bunch of industrial farms and use their seeds on their farms, produce a product that is, at least, perceived as superior and sell it on the market and increase their marketshare.

If the product was in fact superior, then they could use the profits to buy up more industrial farms and become a dominant market player. At some point, other farms might come to Monsanto asking to buy seeds. There are several ways of dealing with these seed sales in the free market that doesn't require government to step in and control what happens to the seeds after they are sold.

1) Sell farmers a minimum of X million or billion seeds, perhaps under a FINANCIAL contract that extends out for several years. Let them do whatever they want with the seeds, but require and up-front financial contract promising to buy their minimum quantity. That is something the state can more easily identify and mediate.

2) Sell farmers a much smaller minimum than above for a similar price, then add on a licensing/research fee. Allow them to do whatever they want with the seeds after purchase.