U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Backs Monsanto's Seed Patents

[Lucille]

But of course. It's how this filthy, fascist state rolls.

U.S. Supreme Court Unanimously Backs Monsanto's Seed Patents
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/13/us-supreme-court-unanimously-backs-monsa


Back in March, I reported on the U.S. Supreme Court case Bowman v. Monsanto in which an Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman claimed that he had the right to save and plant herbicide resistant soy bean seeds invented, patented, and produced by Monsanto without paying the company royalties. The Court issued its unanimous ruling against Bowman today:


Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article.

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404550-Seed-Giants-Sue-U-S-Farmers-Over-Genetically-Modified-Seed-Patents-In-Shocking-Numbers

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?392033-Supreme-Court-To-Hear-Monsanto-Seed-Dispute

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?410604-Should-Monsanto-or-any-corporation-have-rights-to-a-self-replicating-natural-product

www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?370742-The-Supreme-Court-To-Rule-On-Monsanto-Seed-Patents

[sailingaway]

'solely to create replicas' is the very best pro Monsanto fact situation. Why didn't they take the case where the poor farmer only took seed from non Monsanto crops but because they had reproduced with Monsanto crops his seed had the 'patented dna' in it?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

how can you patent nature

[Acala]

how can you patent nature

It isn't nature. It is technologically modified.

edit: this assumes that by "nature" you mean not the work of man. Arguably since man is a work of nature, all of HIS works are also works of nature. But that defines the word "nature" right out of useful meaning.

[pcosmar]

It isn't nature. It is technologically modified.

edit: this assumes that by "nature" you mean not the work of man. Arguably since man is a work of nature, all of HIS works are also works of nature. But that defines the word "nature" right out of useful meaning.

regardless of modification.. plants grow from seeds..( whatsoever a man sows, that shall he also reap.)
Once you have bought the seeds,, the plants and all products from those plant are yours.
seeds produced from those plants are your to do with as you wish.
Unless you were to resell those seeds under your own name/brand. Which was not what he did.


This is completely wrong. :(

and as to Monsanto seed,, this seems to apply,


But you have planted wickedness, you have reaped evil, you have eaten the fruit of deception.

[wizardwatson]

how can you patent nature

All patents and forms of intellectual property have no basis for existing except to take away the rights of others to do what they want with their own property.

A patent or a copyright is nothing but the government telling you that you can't do that with your property. It is naked aggression.

[awake]

Here is the "business" end of IP and the absurdity of patents. IP defenders are forced to support this in silence lest they slay their golden goose.

If a few things can be patent why not all things eh?

[sailingaway]

how can you patent nature

that. Patents exist to permit recompense for research. Patenting something that naturally reproduces should not be permitted.

[pcosmar]

Next up.

Monsanto sues Soy Product manufacturers for using their product without a license.
Anything and everything made from soybeans is their property.

[Acala]

Here is the "business end of IP and the absurdity of patents. IP defenders are forced to support this in silence lest they slay their golden goose.

If a few things can be patent why not all things eh?

Patents must be novel and non-obvious. A genetic code that has never existed before is novel. It may also be non-obvious. "All things" are not novel.

[wizardwatson]

that. Patents exist to permit recompense for research. Patenting something that naturally reproduces should not be permitted.


Patents must be novel and non-obvious. A genetic code that has never existed before is novel. It may also be non-obvious. "All things" are not novel.

I really don't even see the point of debating this with RPF'ers who have 8 and 70 thousand post counts who still believe in intellectual property rights. It's depressing.

[Acala]

I really don't even see the point of debating this with RPF'ers who have 8 and 70 thousand post counts who still believe in intellectual property rights. It's depressing.

I didn't take a position one way or the other on IP. Just explaining the law as it exists and why "all things" cannot be patented under existing law. If you are not interested, that's cool by me. But the more you know, the better you can argue your position.

[pcosmar]

Patents must be novel and non-obvious. A genetic code that has never existed before is novel. It may also be non-obvious. "All things" are not novel.

I have no issue with patents,, as such.

So they developed a seed that would survive the poison that they created (in the first place).
And they charge an high price for those seeds,, which is their compensation. Period.

They have no legitimate claim on any product from that plant (including seeds(Soy Beans) produced), They have already been compensated.

[wizardwatson]

I didn't take a position one way or the other on IP. Just explaining the law as it exists and why "all things" cannot be patented under existing law. If you are not interested, that's cool by me. But the more you know, the better you can argue your position.

You are right. Neither of you took a position. I simply assumed. I am absolutely opposed to IP. But I've argued on those threads in the past and it seems pretty cut and dry to me.

[Tod]

Was Bowman forced to use seed that was patented? Monsanto did put a lot of work into creating the benefits that Bowman is taking advantage of; isn't it right that he should compensate them for their labor? If Bowman doesn't think their labor is of value, why did he choose their seed?

[Tod]

I have no issue with patents,, as such.

So they developed a seed that would survive the poison that they created (in the first place).
And they charge an high price for those seeds,, which is their compensation. Period.

They have no legitimate claim on any product from that plant (including seeds(Soy Beans) produced), They have already been compensated.

That suggests that if Monsanto wishes to be repeatedly compensated, they need to sell seeds that produce infertile offspring (terminator seeds) so that people like Bowman cannot save seed (and have it grow).

[pcosmar]

Was Bowman forced to use seed that was patented? Monsanto did put a lot of work into creating the benefits that Bowman is taking advantage of; isn't it right that he should compensate them for their labor? If Bowman doesn't think their labor is of value, why did he choose their seed?

Because he had already BOUGHT the seeds (at a 400% markup over natural seeds). These were seeds that were that were the product of growing expensive seeds.

That is why this is wrong.

They are saying that because he used seeds from harvest,, he is stealing from them.

He bought seed and now they are saying they own his harvest.

[pcosmar]

That suggests that if Monsanto wishes to be repeatedly compensated, they need to sell seeds that produce infertile offspring (terminator seeds) so that people like Bowman cannot save seed (and have it grow).

They tried that. And were sued when their Frankenstein terminator plants destroyed other crops.
And they need to be sued.. continually till they get out of the business,, or forget their dream of monopolizing the world food supply.

[Matthew5]

As much as I believe Monsanto is evil, they have a valid point:


Bowman also reasoned that he wouldn’t have to pay Monsanto, which requires its farmer customers to agree in writing to not save seeds from the crop they produce—effectively agreeing to purchase the company’s seed each year.

The farmer signed a contract and violated it. He doesn't have to use Monsanto seeds but voluntarily chose to play by their rules.

Now the BS crossbreeding lawsuits is a whole 'nother story.

[Lucille]

As much as I believe Monsanto is evil, they have a valid point:

The farmer signed a contract and violated it. He doesn't have to use Monsanto seeds but voluntarily chose to play by their rules.

He didn't do either.


Bowman went to a grain elevator, purchased Monsanto’s genetically modified soybeans, and planted them in his fields. Bowman was not under any contractual obligation to Monsanto; he did not sign a technology licensing agreement when he purchased the soybeans (http://www.newswise.com/articles/supreme-court-s-decision-closes-loophole-in-monsanto-s-business-model). He therefore argued that he had the right to re-plant the soybeans he purchased and to grow a new crop. This is the potential loophole in Monsanto’s ability to prevent the saving and replanting of its patented soybeans that the Supreme Court closed in Bowman v. Monsanto.

[Matthew5]

Some reactions from farmers:

http://modernfarmer.com/2013/05/farmers-react-to-monsanto-seed-ruling/

[BAllen]

Wonder how much they bribed the courts?

[ClydeCoulter]

Monsanto did not create "plant reproductive organs".

[LibForestPaul]

Next up.

Monsanto sues Soy Product manufacturers for using their product without a license.
Anything and everything made from soybeans is their property.

Easy to see this as both a jest and as possible reality. What were to happen if a specific patented crop became the only economic viable strain (due to any number of reason, some of them man made, of course)?

[awake]

Patents must be novel and non-obvious. A genetic code that has never existed before is novel. It may also be non-obvious. "All things" are not novel.

Every man who has thought of a new or unusual interesting way to do something can claim "novel". The first man to adopt the early methods and ways of modem agriculture could claim it. Just about any acting man can claim it...The problem with the current justification of IP is that it is simply arbitrary goobily gook that claims that the status quo of current IP laws must be right because they exist. It is a silly defense made by the conservative mind : right, wrong or indifferent, conserve it just the way it is.


If patents are just, then all new and interesting ways of doing something can be owned property and withheld from others. Even to the point of violent "defense" of stolen "ways".

[pcosmar]

Every man who has thought of a new or unusual interesting way to do something can claim "novel". The first man to adopt the early methods and ways of modem agriculture could claim it. Just about any acting man can claim it...The problem with the current justification of IP is that it is simply arbitrary goobily gook that claims that the status quo of current IP laws must be right cause they exist. It is a silly defense made by the conservative mind : right, wrong or indifferent, conserve it just the way it is.


If Patents are just, then all new and interesting ways of doing something can be owned property and withheld from others. Even to the point of violent defense of stolen "ways".

It is not even a patent issue. (or Intellectual Property)
It is a Property Rights issue. Who owns those seeds.

Not the seeds that were purchased from Monsanto. (at a rate approx 4 times market)( Regardless of any agreement with that grower).

But the soy beans that were sold by the farmer on the market.(which were then bought and sold unknown times) and finally purchased by someone else without any agreement at all with Monsanto.

Who's seed are those? Who's property.

[ClydeCoulter]

It is not even a patent issue. (or Intellectual Property)
It is a Property Rights issue. Who owns those seeds.

Not the seeds that were purchased from Monsanto. (at a rate approx 4 times market)( Regardless of any agreement with that grower).

But the soy beans that were sold by the farmer on the market.(which were then bought and sold unknown times) and finally purchased by someone else without any agreement at all with Monsanto.

Who's seed are those? Who's property.


Exactly and they (Monsanto) don't own reproductive rights.

[Ignostic?]

It isn't nature. It is technologically modified.

edit: this assumes that by "nature" you mean not the work of man. Arguably since man is a work of nature, all of HIS works are also works of nature. But that defines the word "nature" right out of useful meaning.

It's still nature. They are creating no original code. Monsanto is just using a combination of selective breeding and gene splicing from other organisms. It would be like if I installed a piece of software that I didn't create on a computer that I also didn't create and then saying that I invented something new. I'm sure I can install a combination of software on my computer that makes it completely unique among computers, but that doesn't mean that I invented anything, even if I put a lot of work into it.

[awake]

It is not even a patent issue. (or Intellectual Property)
It is a Property Rights issue. Who owns those seeds.

Not the seeds that were purchased from Monsanto. (at a rate approx 4 times market)( Regardless of any agreement with that grower).

But the soy beans that were sold by the farmer on the market.(which were then bought and sold unknown times) and finally purchased by someone else without any agreement at all with Monsanto.

Who's seed are those? Who's property.

They are using the force of patent to dissolve real property rights. What people are up and arms about is the audacity to take patent to its logical end by pushing the IP envelope. IP is just another front on the continuous war to destroy property right.

If every farmer gets Monsanto seeds by want or accident, Monsanto is claiming to own the farmers actions in perpetuity. They have acted this way in the past.

[pcosmar]

They are using the force of patent to dissolve real property rights. What people are up and arms about is the audacity to take patent to its logical end by pushing the IP envelope. IP is just another front on the continuous war to destroy property right.

If every farmer gets Monsanto seeds by want or accident, Monsanto is claiming to own the farmers actions in perpetuity. They have acted this way in the past.

By this logic they also own all or part of your Tofu or soy milk or any other product of those seeds.

and that ain't right. The court got it wrong.

[Grubb556]

In capitalism you can make profits, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to profits, and certainly doesn't mean creating IP to support unprofitable business models.

[jmdrake]

If congress had any integrity they would ban gene patents outright.

[nobody's_hero]

What if everyone got together and boycotted Monsanto products?

Or maybe, what if they didn't? If they didn't, would it imply that the majority of people have weighed the pros and cons of doing business with Monsanto, and believe that despite the silly contracts, they still wish to do business with them?

I'm not defending Monsanto, per say, but people could come up with their own seeds. However, this isn't likely to happen because when people consider the costs of R&D, distribution, etc., it becomes less surprising that a company like Monsanto would want to ensure that the first customer to get his hands on a seed wouldn't go out and give away a bunch.

The original purpose of a patent was supposed to spur growth and innovation -- so Joe Schmo could come up with an invention and have time to get his enterprise off of the ground before being crushed by well-established companies using the fruits of Joe's ingenuity. It was never intended to create monopolistic giants who could renew patent after patent, generation after generation.

The original purpose of patents has been so abused that I am now more of a fence-sitter on the issue than a steadfast supporter of IP. However, I do understand the intent, just not sure how it can be applied without creating Monsterantos.

[brooks009]

Here is the "business" end of IP and the absurdity of patents. IP defenders are forced to support this in silence lest they slay their golden goose.

If a few things can be patent why not all things eh?

Why do so many liberty folks have "all or nothing" attitudes.

[pcosmar]

Why do so many liberty folks have "all or nothing" attitudes.

Principles. An underlying foundation of principle.
And a sense of right and wrong,, as opposed to "legal and illegal".

[affa]

Monsanto is a disgusting company with disgusting business practices.
This is a sad day.

[affa]

researching this stuff is always a bit depressing, anything Monsanto related in particular, but this link is an interesting resource for discovering how many 'healthy' brands have long been bought up by the big guys.

http://occupymonsanto360.org/2013/04/12/the-grocery-store-blacklist-12-food-companies-to-avoid-and-95-sneaky-aliases/

(but there are still indies out there, just harder to find)

[Acala]

Every man who has thought of a new or unusual interesting way to do something can claim "novel". The first man to adopt the early methods and ways of modem agriculture could claim it. Just about any acting man can claim it...The problem with the current justification of IP is that it is simply arbitrary goobily gook that claims that the status quo of current IP laws must be right because they exist. It is a silly defense made by the conservative mind : right, wrong or indifferent, conserve it just the way it is.


If patents are just, then all new and interesting ways of doing something can be owned property and withheld from others. Even to the point of violent "defense" of stolen "ways".

Novelty is necessary but not sufficient. A novel device or process must also be non-obvious.

I'm not sure whose "defense" of IP you are reading, but it is certainly not all as weak as you claim. If I were to argue in favor, I would make the traditional argument that it simply grants property rights in innovation and thereby protects the investment of capital used in creating new inventions and works of art. I would go on to say that it is no more artificial or abstract a form of property than ownership of land. I would say those arguments are stronger than merely saying that the laws must be right because they exist.

Property is ALWAYS about withholding from others. IP is no different in this way.

[Acala]

It's still nature. They are creating no original code. Monsanto is just using a combination of selective breeding and gene splicing from other organisms. It would be like if I installed a piece of software that I didn't create on a computer that I also didn't create and then saying that I invented something new. I'm sure I can install a combination of software on my computer that makes it completely unique among computers, but that doesn't mean that I invented anything, even if I put a lot of work into it.

You are correct that the amount of work put into it doesn't matter.

But if you took a slice of code from a cd player and combined it with the code from a navigational instrument in a novel and non-obvious way, you very well might be able to patent it. Useful, novel, non-obvious combinations of existing art can be patented. You could, for example, combine standard sets of gears in a new way. Gears already existed but you combined them to, for example, make a new, more efficient kind of planetary gear set. Virtually ALL inventions are just novel combinations of existing parts. Nobody re-invents the wheel in order to make a better tire valve. There is even an accepted form of patent that claims outright to be merely a novel and non-obvious improvement on an existing invention.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

monsanto is destroying the planet with genetically modified crops and should be sued to oblivion

[brooks009]

Principles. An underlying foundation of principle.
And a sense of right and wrong,, as opposed to "legal and illegal".

My principles say an "all or nothing" attitude is wrong :D