Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue [Archive]

angelatc

01-14-2014, 01:06 AM

Those of us with eyes to see and ears to hear know exactly what Monsanto's agenda is. If they never thought of suing people, why bother to patent their seeds of deception?

Last time I checked, it was not illegal to think about suing people. Most of us don't think it should be illegal to think about doing anything, but I digress.

Nobody said Monsanto did or didn't think about suing people. Heck, nobody even said that Monsanto didn't sue people. The court said that the Organic Farmers (aka "the competition) had no evidence that Monsanto was suing people whose fields were cross contaminated, and in fact, considered the average of 13 patent infringement suits a year to be very reasonable.

You really want the government to put Monsanto out of business so badly that you'd be thrilled if they did it without any evidence of the alleged wrong doing?

As previously pointed out , seed patents have been around for almost a hundred years (http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/PlantPatent_Act/82JPatTrademarkOffSocy621.pdf)- it isn't something Monsanto invented. It is not a new concept just because most of us did not know about it.

And their "agenda" does not matter in a court of law, unless you think stripping assets away from their owners at gunpoint based on conspiracy theories is a proper function of government, which I pretty much don't.

What I said is absolutely true. The defendants simply could not produce any evidence that their claims were true. None of them had been sued by Monsanto.

This decision did not take away the right of the farmers to defend themselves if and when Monsanto started engaging in the behaviors your clairvoyance has shown to you.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 01:43 AM

Quotes from the lower court opinion:

No plaintiffs claim that contamination has yet occurred in
any crops they have grown or seed they have sold.

Defendants, moreover, have never filed a patent-
infringement suit against a certified organic farm or handling
operation over the presence of patented traits in its
operations, and they stated at oral argument that they have
never sued a party who did not “want to make use of the traits
that are manifested in [defendants’] transgenic products.”

Nevertheless, plaintiffs allege without specification that defendants have accused
certain non-intentional users of Monsanto’s seed of patent
infringement and threatened them with litigation. No plaintiffs
claim to have been so threatened.

Plaintiffs do not allege that defendants have ever demanded royalty payments from plaintiffs, identified any of plaintiffs’
conduct as potentially infringing, or even initiated any contact

with plaintiffs whatsoever.

Plaintiffs, however,
overstate the magnitude of defendants’ patent enforcement. This
average of roughly thirteen lawsuits per year is hardly
significant when compared to the number of farms in the United
States, approximately two million

The suits against dissimilar defendants are
insufficient on their own to satisfy the affirmative acts
element, and, at best, are only minimal evidence of any
objective threat of injury to plaintiffs.

In their April 18, 2011 letter to defendants, plaintiffs
asked defendants to “expressly waive any claim for patent
infringement [they] may ever have against [plaintiffs] and
memorialize that waiver by providing a written covenant not to
sue.” (FAC, Ex. 3.) Defendants, rather unsurprisingly, declined
to provide plaintiffs with the requested “blanket” waiver

Indeed, plaintiffs’ letter to defendants seems to have been
nothing more than an attempt to create a controversy where none
exists. This effort to convert a statement that defendants have
no intention of bringing suit into grounds for maintaining a
case, if accepted, would disincentivize patentees from ever
attempting to provide comfort to those whom they do not intend
to sue, behavior which should be countenanced and encouraged. In
contrast, plaintiffs’ argument is baseless and their tactics not
to be tolerated

The fact that
defendants declined to provide plaintiffs with a written
covenant not to bring any claims they might ever have does not
meaningfully add to plaintiffs’ case.

In short,
plaintiffs’ letter was clearly intended to be used as a prop in
this litigation, and the failure to sign a covenant not to sue
borders on the wholly irrelevant.

Taken together, it is clear that these circumstances do not
amount to a substantial controversy and that there has been no
injury traceable to defendants. We therefore do not have subject
matter jurisdiction over this action, and it is, accordingly,
dismissed

Natural Citizen

01-14-2014, 02:41 AM

I forgot to add the report in the op. What was in the op was the history.

Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/)

The high court left intact Monday a federal appeals court decision (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-lawsuit-supreme-court-487/) that threw out a 2011 lawsuit from the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and over 80 other plaintiffs against Monsanto that sought to challenge the agrochemical company’s aggressive claims on patents of genetically-modified seeds. The suit also aimed to curb Monsanto from suing anyone whose field is contaminated by such seeds.

The group of plaintiffs, which included many individual American and Canadian family farmers, independent seed companies and agricultural organizations, were seeking preemptive protections against Monsanto’s patents. The biotech leviathan has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for planting the company’s genetically-engineered seeds without permission, while settling around 700 other cases without suing.

None of the plaintiffs are customers of Monsanto and none have licensing agreements with the company. The group argued that they do not want Monsanto’s genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and want legal protection in case of inadvertent contact with the company’s products.

The appeals court decision was based on Monsanto’s supposed promise not to sue farmers whose crops - including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others - contained traces of the company’s biotechnology products.

In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

The panel’s reference to “traces” of Monsanto’s patented genes means farms that are affected by less than 1 percent.

The plaintiffs asked Monsanto to pledge not to sue, but the company rebuffed the request, saying, "A blanket covenant not to sue any present or future member of petitioners' organizations would enable virtually anyone to commit intentional infringement."

Monsanto’s GMO seeds are designed to withstand the company’s own ubiquitous herbicide, Roundup. Recently, questions have begun to arise from the bioengineered seed’s resistance to pestilence, which has caused some farmers to increase their use of traditional pesticides.

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.

"The lower courts agreed there was no controversy between the parties," McClain added, "and the Supreme Court's decision not to review the case brings closure on this matter."

Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association President Jim Gerritsen expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court reaffirmed the previous ruling, refusing to hear the case.

"The Supreme Court failed to grasp the extreme predicament family farmers find themselves in," said Gerritsen, an organic seed farmer in Maine. "The Court of Appeals agreed our case had merit. However ... safeguards they ordered are insufficient to protect our farms and our families."

In addition to Monday’s news and the appeals court decision against them, the plaintiffs - many of them non-GMO farmers and who make up over 25 percent of North America’s certified organic farmers - also lost a district court case.

“If Monsanto can patent seeds for financial gain, they should be forced to pay for contaminating a farmer’s field, not be allowed to sue them,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, in a statement “Once again, America’s farmers have been denied justice, while Monsanto’s reign of intimidation is allowed to continue in rural America.”

Here's the rest of the report.... http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/

Danke

01-14-2014, 03:11 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

angelatc

01-14-2014, 09:29 AM

I forgot to add the report in the op. What was in the op was the history.

Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/)

-547/ (http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/)

You guys really have absolutely no critical thinking skills.

It is a violation of the forum guidelines to post the entire article. I challenge you to show me anywhere that the ability of plaintiffs to sue in the future was changed.

The suit also aimed to curb Monsanto from suing anyone whose field is contaminated by such seeds. Not true.

Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

Look - Monsanto has pledged not to sue.

The plaintiffs asked Monsanto to pledge not to sue, which is again not true. They sent a letter to Monsanto asking that the plaintiffs never get sued no matter how many Monsanto products might ever be found on their farm. Only an idiot would agree to that. Even the judge thought it was an absurd request.

This is sleaze. It is socialist propaganda from people who want to control your food supply disguised as news.

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 09:40 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/usa-court-monsanto-idUSL2N0KN1CA20140113

SCOTUS did no such thing. They simply refused to hear the appeal, which means that they agreed with the lower courts decision that since none of the plaintiffs represented by the Organic Lobbying firm had been sued by Monsanto, nor could they produce any evidence that Monsanto was even suing excessively (13 lawsuits a year seems reasonable), they didn't have any grounds to sue.

You liberal leaning people are here upset that the government did not force Monsanto to stop doing something they aren't doing, and to take away their property rights and put them in the public domain. A move that would have given their product to their competitors in the market, as well as the organic industry.

Seriously? Socialize Monsanto!!!!

Thank you angelatc.

The false propaganda growing here on RPFs is getting out of control.

PaulConventionWV

01-14-2014, 10:43 AM

You guys really have absolutely no critical thinking skills.

It is a violation of the forum guidelines to post the entire article. I challenge you to show me anywhere that the ability of plaintiffs to sue in the future was changed.

Not true.

Look - Monsanto has pledged not to sue.

which is again not true. They sent a letter to Monsanto asking that the plaintiffs never get sued no matter how many Monsanto products might ever be found on their farm. Only an idiot would agree to that. Even the judge thought it was an absurd request.

This is sleaze. It is socialist propaganda from people who want to control your food supply disguised as news.

Where did you get the idea that the little guys are the ones who want to control the food supply? You cast a blind eye toward Monsanto, who, for the most part, already does.

That's right, Monsanto is the innocent victim while the little farmers aim to take over the world. What hogwash.

Monsanto was designed with people like you in mind, who cling to the idea that they are just a private company who happened to be successful. Never mind the long history of government protection and corruption.

Thor

01-14-2014, 10:50 AM

This is sleaze. It is socialist propaganda from people who want to control your food supply disguised as news.

Who wants to control the food supply? Wow... what an ass backwards comment.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 11:01 AM

Who wants to control the food supply? Wow... what an ass backwards comment.

How so? Monsanto makes products that their customers want to buy even though they cost more. They're certainly not the WalMart of farming.

They have products that are in common use daily, across the entire globe by millions and millions of people, with absolutely no evidence of harm as a result of those products when used as designed and directed.

And yet, here I am...associating with people clamoring for the government to shutter their operations. Why would someone want that, if not to assume control of their market share?

You can't honestly believe that only honest people that care about you are behind the manufacturing of this hysteria, can you? Do some homework - it comes straight from the progressive left. They want to socialize the food supply.

Thor

01-14-2014, 11:10 AM

How so? Monsanto makes products that their customers want to buy even though they cost more. They're certainly not the WalMart of farming.

By "consumers", you mean farmers, or actual consumers who eat the food? Ones who do not know it is GMO....

They have products that are in common use daily, across the entire globe by millions and millions of people, with absolutely no evidence of harm as a result of those products when used as designed and directed.

Proof there is no harm? I have seen lots of experiments showing harm.

And yet, here I am...associating with people clamoring for the government to shutter their operations. Why would someone want that, if not to assume control of their market share?

Safety and freedom of the human species maybe.... Rise of the Organic non-GMO food "monopoly"... LOL....

You can't honestly believe that only honest people that care about you are behind the manufacturing of this hysteria, can you? Do some homework - it comes straight from the progressive left. They want to socialize the food supply.

Wow... hook, line, sinker....

angelatc

01-14-2014, 11:15 AM

Where did you get the idea that the little guys are the ones who want to control the food supply? You cast a blind eye toward Monsanto, who, for the most part, already does. That's right, Monsanto is the innocent victim while the little farmers aim to take over the world. What hogwash. Monsanto was designed with people like you in mind, who cling to the idea that they are just a private company who happened to be successful. Never mind the long history of government protection and corruption.

This is exactly what I am talking about. They are not "small farmers." They are organic farmers who combined generate billions in dollars every year, joined by huge conventional farmers who buy seeds from Monsanto's competitors.

Also laughing at the "Monsanto controls the food supply!" propaganda. Monsanto does not control the food supply, It is easy to prove that merely with the existence of multiple biotech companies and of course the entire hybrids market. Not to mention the aforementioned billions of dollars in organics.

I never meant to imply that I don't think that Monsanto didn't and doesn't employ aggressive business tactics to gain market share. It's a big boy world out there. I just think that using the government to try to destroy the competition is as much bullshit as using the government to protect it.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 11:19 AM

By "consumers", you mean farmers, or actual consumers who eat the food? Ones who do not know it is GMO....

Farmers want to grow products that they can sell to people who make food that people want. Farmers would not grow crops if the peope who ate them did not eat them

Proof there is no harm? I have seen lots of experiments showing harm.

No, you have not.

You're proving my point. We started out talking about a specific lawsuit, and instead of addressing that specifically, now we're talking about how evil Monsanto is. Yet nobody can point to a single reason why this particular suit should have been decided differently.

Except, of course, MONSANTO!!!!!

PaulConventionWV

01-14-2014, 11:21 AM

This is exactly what I am talking about. They are not "small farmers." They are organic farmers who combined generate billions in dollars every year, joined by huge conventional farmers who buy seeds from Monsanto's competitors.

Also laughing at the "Monsanto controls the food supply!" propaganda. Monsanto does not control the food supply, It is easy to prove that merely with the existence of multiple biotech companies and of course the entire hybrids market. Not to mention the aforementioned billions of dollars in organics.

I never meant to imply that I don't think that Monsanto didn't and doesn't employ aggressive business tactics to gain market share. It's a big boy world out there. I just think that using the government to try to destroy the competition is as much bullshit as using the government to protect it.

What I found particularly egregious was the fact that you accused the little farmers of wanting to control the food supply when they are the farthest away from reaching that goal. How can you cast a blind eye toward Monsanto when talking about people who want to control the food supply?

Thor

01-14-2014, 11:24 AM

Farmers want to grow products that they can sell to people who make food that people want. Farmers would not grow crops if the peope who ate them did not eat them

Bingo... that is why the labeling arguments. They want to hide it because people don't want to knowingly eat that shit..

No, you have not.

Thanks for telling me what I have and haven't seen. Pompous much?

angelatc

01-14-2014, 11:33 AM

Bingo... that is why the labeling arguments. They want to hide it because people don't want to knowingly eat that shit..

There is certainly some truth to that. My point elevates the issue, which is that the people have been intentionally brainwashed into believing that GMO means harmful, when it is simply not true.

Thanks for telling me what I have and haven't seen.

. If the FDA were to mandate that foods made from GMO stock were to be labeled with a skull and crossbones, what evidence would you present to justify that decision?

angelatc

01-14-2014, 11:36 AM

What I found particularly egregious was the fact that you accused the little farmers of wanting to control the food supply when they are the farthest away from reaching that goal. How can you cast a blind eye toward Monsanto when talking about people who want to control the food supply?

I am not casting a blind eye towards Monsanto. I just don't think they're nearly as dangerous as the people behind the anti-GMO movement, and that's just an opinion that I reached when I started fact-checking and realized tat the anti-GMO people are not grounded in fact. They play to emotion, of which I apparently have none.

Travlyr

01-14-2014, 11:44 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6_DbVdVo-k
Good video. Well worth watching. Government in bed with big business.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 11:55 AM

Good video. Well worth watching. Government in bed with big business.

Video is for idiots, and I would imagine there is nothing in that video that talks about this case. DonnaY, you like to plus rep people for logical fallacies - that right there is classic "poisoning the well."

There is no doubt that government and business work together. But looking at the case that this thread is about, why do you think that court should have found for the plaintiffs, rather than Monsanto? What did Monsanto do to these peope that would justify stripping away their patent rights to products they spent decades and billions developing?

Ender

01-14-2014, 12:01 PM

Farmers want to grow products that they can sell to people who make food that people want. Farmers would not grow crops if the peope who ate them did not eat them

No, you have not.

You're proving my point. We started out talking about a specific lawsuit, and instead of addressing that specifically, now we're talking about how evil Monsanto is. Yet nobody can point to a single reason why this particular suit should have been decided differently.

Except, of course, MONSANTO!!!!!

It doesn't matter how many studies you are referred to- if it is not your favored MSM site and your favorite "scientific" studies, you discount it.

Have you ever actually grown anything, angelic?

For 1000s of years, farmers have been able to save their seeds and to build bigger crops from this process. Now, with Monsanto close by, a farmer can be sued for patent infringement if the seeds naturally blow into his fields.

Patenting seeds is like patenting Blood Types. I figure out a way to process Blood Types that alter them and then you dare to bleed around me, I can then sue you for trying to steal my Blood Type patent. If you give blood, I can sue you if you get any blood close to my patents.

THIS is how unethical and stupid Monsanto is.

I should have the right to eat what I want, whether YOU agree or not- AND as a farmer, I should have the right to any seeds blown on to my fields, with or without my knowledge whether they are Monsanto or not..

Thor

01-14-2014, 12:08 PM

Video is for idiots, and I would imagine there is nothing in that video that talks about this case.

Another keen observation by AngelaTC....

There is no doubt that government and business work together. But looking at the case that this thread is about, why do you think that court should have found for the plaintiffs, rather than Monsanto? What did Monsanto do to these peope that would justify stripping away their patent rights to products they spent decades and billions developing?

If they have patents they want to protect, they should keep their shit on their own damn property, not viruliferous infect their neighbors with their protected crap.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 12:25 PM

If they have patents they want to protect, they should keep their shit on their own damn property, not viruliferous infect their neighbors with their protected crap.

So again, looking at the facts in this particular suit, why should the plaintiffs have won? You realize that none of the plaintiffs claimed that their crops had been contaminated, right? Does that not matter? Should pre-crime be grounds for settlement?

If those seeds contaminate another farm, shouldn't the farmer who bought the seeds and owns the farmland be responsible? IMHO, that's like saying Smith & Wesson are responsible for the actions of people that buy firearms.

But that's actually a moot point. Monsanto doesn't even go that far. They already pay for seed drift clean up costs. There is no documented case of them ever suing someone who did not intentionally plant their seeds.

So again, why should Monsanto have won this case? What "victory" did the SCOTUS hand to Monsanto here when it upheld the dismissal?

angelatc

01-14-2014, 12:30 PM

It doesn't matter how many studies you are referred to- if it is not your favored MSM site and your favorite "scientific" studies, you discount it.

Have you ever actually grown anything, angelic?

For 1000s of years, farmers have been able to save their seeds and to build bigger crops from this process. Now, with Monsanto close by, a farmer can be sued for patent infringement if the seeds naturally blow into his fields.

Patenting seeds is like patenting Blood Types. I figure out a way to process Blood Types that alter them and then you dare to bleed around me, I can then sue you for trying to steal my Blood Type patent. If you give blood, I can sue you if you get any blood close to my patents.

THIS is how unethical and stupid Monsanto is.

I should have the right to eat what I want, whether YOU agree or not- AND as a farmer, I should have the right to any seeds blown on to my fields, with or without my knowledge whether they are Monsanto or not..

Seeds patents date back to the 1930's. Farmers have always had and still have the right to save seeds from all crops that were either never patented or that have expired patents.

But as to the topic at hand, and addressing only the case in the original post, why did Monsanto deserve to lose this case? Again, the plaintiffs did not claim Monsanto had ever harmed them. They were unable to produce even a single case of Monsanto suing someone who did not intentionally plant the protected seeds.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 12:43 PM

Monsanto is creating a monopoly. The question is: what is the best way to stop them from doing that?

angelatc

01-14-2014, 12:46 PM

Monsanto is creating a monopoly.

How so? They are not the only seed producer. They are not the only biotech firm. They are not lobbying to outlaw organic food.

And please relate your assertion to the specific case we are discussing.

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 12:49 PM

For 1000s of years, farmers have been able to save their seeds and to build bigger crops from this process. Now, with Monsanto close by, a farmer can be sued for patent infringement if the seeds naturally blow into his fields.

I can't tell if your actually fooled by this false propaganda or if your intentionally trying to spread false propaganda.

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 12:53 PM

Monsanto is creating a monopoly. The question is: what is the best way to stop them from doing that?

Monsanto has a product that farmers want. There is no monopoly.

No, Deborah K, big government is Not the answer.

Ender

01-14-2014, 01:13 PM

Seeds patents date back to the 1930's. Farmers have always had and still have the right to save seeds from all crops that were either never patented or that have expired patents.

But as to the topic at hand, and addressing only the case in the original post, why did Monsanto deserve to lose this case? Again, the plaintiffs did not claim Monsanto had ever harmed them. They were unable to produce even a single case of Monsanto suing someone who did not intentionally plant the protected seeds.

Link?

The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto’s claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company’s ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.

Inadvertently= unintentionally

Travlyr

01-14-2014, 01:17 PM

The whole idea of genetically modifying seeds so that pesticides and herbicides can be sprayed on them may not be all that smart of an idea. The honey bee population has been in decline recently and there is strong evidence that the bees are dying off due to widespread pesticide spraying.

Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0070182#authco ntrib)

Recent declines in honey bee populations and increasing demand for insect-pollinated crops raise concerns about pollinator shortages. Pesticide exposure and pathogens may interact to have strong negative effects on managed honey bee colonies. Such findings are of great concern given the large numbers and high levels of pesticides found in honey bee colonies.

More at link.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 01:17 PM

Link?

You didn't read the first part of the thread? I linked the decision and quoted it extensively earlier in the thread.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 01:18 PM

The whole idea of genetically modifying seeds so that pesticides and herbicides can be sprayed on them may not be all that smart of an idea. The honey bee population has been in decline recently and there is strong evidence that the bees are dying off due to widespread pesticide spraying.

Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides Which Alters Their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0070182#authco ntrib)

More at link.

More poisoning the well from the radical left? This is off topic. It has nothing to do with the SCOTUS case we are discussing. I have requested that it be moved to a new thread.

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 01:19 PM

Link?

Inadvertently= unintentionally

UPDATE 2-Top U.S. court refuses to hear appeal of Monsanto seed case
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL2N0KN1CA20140113?irpc=932

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the company's chief litigation counsel.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 01:49 PM

How so? They are not the only seed producer. They are not the only biotech firm. They are not lobbying to outlaw organic food.

And please relate your assertion to the specific case we are discussing.

This lawsuit is the result of a series of intimidations by way of invasion of privacy, lawsuits, harassment, and on and on by Monsanto. I don't have the time to write a dissertation about it, but the cases are extensive and the evidence is clear as to the intentions of Monsanto.

An example of their intention to monopolize is the fact that farmers who purchase Monsanto’s patented seeds are required to sign a contract that promises they won’t save seeds from the crop they get. That means they have to purchase new seeds every year. The seeds are valuable to the company, as well as farmers, because they are resistant to Roundup, which is also produced by Monsanto. We're obviously talking about GMO farmers who are victims here too.

Farmer Herman Bowman lost his battle with Monsanto when after purchasing soybean seeds from Monsanto, he then decided to look for something less expensive for a more risky, late-season soybean planting. So what he did was purchase seeds from a grain elevator that typically sells the soybeans for feed, milling, and other uses. He reasoned that the majority of the soybeans would also be resistant to weed killers, since they came from herbicide-resistant seeds as well. And he was right. He used the second generation soybeans for eight years. But when Monsanto found out, they sued him in 2007 and won an $84,456 judgment in the case.

And maybe now they (Monsanto) have a blurb on their website that satisfies the courts that they won't sue for inadvertent contamination of crops with their seeds, but that wasn't always the case. Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser lost to Monsanto in court for failing to pay royalties on GM canola seed that had contaminated his non-GM canola crop. They sued him for patent infringement in 1998. But yeah, every farmer is supposed to just accept a blurb on a website as assurance that they won't sue.

Monsanto filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers between 1997 and April 2010, and won judgments against farmers it said made use of its seed without paying required royalties, oftentimes when it was inadvertent contamination. Monsanto has developed a reputation for zealously defending patents on its genetically altered crops, even though it has proven difficult to keep the genetic alteration from contaminating non-biotech crops, as recently occurred in a wheat field in the U.S. state of Oregon. The Center for Food Safety estimates that Monsanto has been awarded over $15 million for judgments granted in their favor. The largest recorded single payment received from one farmer was $3,052,800.00 (Farmer Anderson, Case no. 4:01: CV-01 749).

Please tell me what other company has this kind of unprecedented control and sale of the use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed. Another way they control patented genes is through what is called "terminator technology", aka suicide seeds, where the seed becomes infertile after one life cycle.

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn’t actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers. Farmers are under pressure to confirm their identity as modern agriculturalists, particularly in developing countries.

But replacing the traditional strategy of saving and replanting seeds from diverse varieties by a patented seed, with all its restrictions, threatens food security at household and global levels.

I also showed in your thread on GMO labeling the revolving door between Monsanto execs and the federal gov't, which makes getting shit passed in their favor a lot easier.

There's so much more, but if this doesn't smell like an intended monopoly I don't know what does.

P.S. I plagiarized the shit out of a couple of articles while researching this. Not sure what the forum guidelines or interwebz rulz are on that. I'll look them up and list them if necessary.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 02:01 PM

Monsanto has a product that farmers want. There is no monopoly.

No, Deborah K, big government is Not the answer.

Please feel free to show me where in the hell I ever stated that big government was the answer???

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 02:13 PM

Please feel free to show me where in the hell I ever stated that big government was the answer???

The obvious answer is to not buy Monsanto seeds, but you're accusing Monsanto of being a monopoly and the common answer to break up a monopoly is through government action. Examples being Standard Oil and Ma Bell.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 02:51 PM

This lawsuit is the result of a series of intimidations by way of invasion of privacy, lawsuits, harassment, and on and on by Monsanto. I don't have the time to write a dissertation about it, but the cases are extensive and the evidence is clear as to the intentions of Monsanto.

The intentions of Monsanto are clearly to protect their patent rights and the royalties they are entitled to.

The plaintiffs were not able to produce a single example of Monsanto suing farmers over crops that were incidentally contaminated.

An example of their intention to monopolize is the fact that farmers who purchase Monsanto’s patented seeds are required to sign a contract that promises they won’t save seeds from the crop they get. That means they have to purchase new seeds every year. The seeds are valuable to the company, as well as farmers, because they are resistant to Roundup, which is also produced by Monsanto.

Monsanto spends $2 million in research every day. How would you suggest they recover those costs?

Seed patents are not new. And even in unpatented seeds, most farmers buy new seeds every year regardless, partly because it's more economical for them to sell their seeds as opposed to cleaning, prepping and storing their seeds every year. Crop rotation also plays a role in that too, I would assume.

Seed patents generally last 20 years. The Round Up ready soy patent expires this year. Farmers will be able to save their seeds and replant them, and other biotech firms will be able to copy the seed and sell it.

Round Up itself has been off patent for more than 10 years. There are lots of generic versions available that work just as well. There is no clause that says the farmers have to use the RoundUp brand.

All of the cases you listed were mentioned in the original suit, but the courts held that because none of them actually involved a lawsuit over seeds that were unintentionally in the fields, they did not provide proof that Monsanto was being overly aggressive.

Farmer Herman Bowman lost his battle with Monsanto when after purchasing soybean seeds from Monsanto, he then decided to look for something less expensive for a more risky, late-season soybean planting. So what he did was purchase seeds from a grain elevator that typically sells the soybeans for feed, milling, and other uses.

After harvesting his crop, Bowman sold his RoundUpReady seeds to the grain elevator, then in essence bought them right back. He was trying to find a loophole (his words). He planted the seeds, then sprayed his crops with RoundUp to kill off the non-patented varieties. The courts only agreed with him in that they said he was trying to defraud Monsanto out of the royalties they were entitled to.

Canadian farmer Percy Schmeiser lost to Monsanto in court for failing to pay royalties on GM canola seed that had contaminated his non-GM canola crop. They sued him for patent infringement in 1998.

Schmeiser intentionally sprayed his crops to kill his non-GM crop. Then the following season, he replanted the seeds from those plants .(Finders keepers has never been a bona fide legal position.) If the crops were :contaminated, why would he kill them off, replanting only the seeds that he claimed did the contaminating?

The next time his crops were contaminated, he asked Monsanto to clean it up. They asked him to sign a waiver of some sort. He refused, and then sued Monsanto for the $68 costs involved. They paid immediately.

Monsanto filed 144 patent-infringement lawsuits against farmers between 1997 and April 2010, and won judgments against farmers it said made use of its seed without paying required royalties.

There are over 2 million farmers in America alone. That's 13 lawsuits a year, and absolutely none of those people had crops that were contaminated . They were all people who intentionally planted the protected seeds.

Please tell me what other company has this kind of unprecedented control and sale of the use of crop seed.

All of the other seed companies have this same level of patent protection. Seed patents have been around since the '30's.

Another way they control patented genes is through what is called "terminator technology", aka suicide seeds, where the seed becomes infertile after one life cycle.

That technology exists, but all the seed manufacturers have decided against using it for ethical reasons.

If it were true that Monsanto was overly aggressive in suing people for crops that were innocently contaminated by seeds from neighboring farms, don't you think that the plaintiffs should have to actually prove that allegation before getting a court to rule against them?

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 02:58 PM

The obvious answer is to not buy Monsanto seeds, but you're accusing Monsanto of being a monopoly and the common answer to break up a monopoly is through government action. Examples being Standard Oil and Ma Bell.

I never suggested government action in this thread. So give it up, Frank. The obvious answer CAN'T be to not buy their seeds. Did you even read what I wrote? It's well beyond that at this point. They already have too much control over seed purchases.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 03:07 PM

I never suggested government action in this thread. So give it up, Frank. The obvious answer CAN'T be to not buy their seeds. Did you even read what I wrote? It's well beyond that at this point. They already have too much control over seed purchases.

All seed producers have the same protections.

PaulConventionWV

01-14-2014, 03:08 PM

I am not casting a blind eye towards Monsanto. I just don't think they're nearly as dangerous as the people behind the anti-GMO movement, and that's just an opinion that I reached when I started fact-checking and realized tat the anti-GMO people are not grounded in fact. They play to emotion, of which I apparently have none.

Everybody appeals to pathos once in a while. It doesn't mean they don't have arguments of the logos and ethos variety.

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 03:10 PM

dillo

01-14-2014, 03:13 PM

Monsanto has a product that farmers want. There is no monopoly.

No, Deborah K, big government is Not the answer.

having a monopoly has nothing to do with the demand side of the market. The higher the demand the higher the power of the monopoly

Tod

01-14-2014, 03:13 PM

Anyone know how much it would cost to take a sample of food from a grocery store and have it tested for genetic modification?

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 03:18 PM

The intentions of Monsanto are clearly to protect their patent rights and the royalties they are entitled to.

The plaintiffs were not able to produce a single example of Monsanto suing farmers over crops that were incidentally contaminated.

Monsanto spends $2 million in research every day. How would you suggest they recover those costs?

Seed patents are not new. And even in unpatented seeds, most farmers buy new seeds every year regardless, partly because it's more economical for them to sell their seeds as opposed to cleaning, prepping and storing their seeds every year. Crop rotation also plays a role in that too, I would assume.

Seed patents generally last 20 years. The Round Up ready soy patent expires this year. Farmers will be able to save their seeds and replant them, and other biotech firms will be able to copy the seed and sell it.

Round Up itself has been off patent for more than 10 years. There are lots of generic versions available that work just as well. There is no clause that says the farmers have to use the RoundUp brand.

All of the cases you listed were mentioned in the original suit, but the courts held that because none of them actually involved a lawsuit over seeds that were unintentionally in the fields, they did not provide proof that Monsanto was being overly aggressive.

After harvesting his crop, Bowman sold his RoundUpReady seeds to the grain elevator, then in essence bought them right back. He was trying to find a loophole (his words). He planted the seeds, then sprayed his crops with RoundUp to kill off the non-patented varieties. The courts only agreed with him in that they said he was trying to defraud Monsanto out of the royalties they were entitled to.

Schmeiser intentionally sprayed his crops to kill his non-GM crop. Then the following season, he replanted the seeds from those plants .(Finders keepers has never been a bona fide legal position.) If the crops were :contaminated, why would he kill them off, replanting only the seeds that he claimed did the contaminating?

The next time his crops were contaminated, he asked Monsanto to clean it up. They asked him to sign a waiver of some sort. He refused, and then sued Monsanto for the $68 costs involved. They paid immediately.

There are over 2 million farmers in America alone. That's 13 lawsuits a year, and absolutely none of those people had crops that were contaminated . They were all people who intentionally planted the protected seeds.

All of the other seed companies have this same level of patent protection. Seed patents have been around since the '30's.

That technology exists, but all the seed manufacturers have decided against using it for ethical reasons.

If it were true that Monsanto was overly aggressive in suing people for crops that were innocently contaminated by seeds from neighboring farms, don't you think that the plaintiffs should have to actually prove that allegation before getting a court to rule against them?

It appears you are getting your information from Monsanto advocacy sites, as well as the Monsanto site. The victor always writes history, and clearly you have chosen to believe the victor. I love you dearly, Angie, but I completely disagree with your stance on this issue. It's too time consuming to try and refute misinformation and clarify points.

I stand by my assertion that Monsanto is bad for the nation and the world. Soon, they will have complete control over seeds and will continue to work to outlaw seeds they can't get control over. They must be stopped. The question is: what is the best way to do it?

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 03:19 PM

having a monopoly has nothing to do with the demand side of the market. The higher the demand the higher the power of the monopoly

Monsanto seeds are in high demand. Good for them for creating a wanted product.

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 03:26 PM

It appears you are getting your information from Monsanto advocacy sites, as well as the Monsanto site. The victor always writes history, and clearly you have chosen to believe the victor. I love you dearly, Angie, but I completely disagree with your stance on this issue. It's too time consuming to try and refute misinformation and clarify points.

I stand by my assertion that Monsanto is bad for the nation and the world. Soon, they will have complete control over seeds and will continue to work to outlaw seeds they can't get control over. They must be stopped. The question is: what is the best way to do it?

The anti-Monsanto sites you visit are biased as well.

Farmers need to stop buying Monsanto seeds, problem solved.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 03:31 PM

Two seconds on Google.

Sources for Buying Non-GMO Seeds
http://www.urbanorganicgardener.com/2011/03/buying-non-gmo-seeds/

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto’s the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn’t actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 03:31 PM

Two seconds on Google.

Sources for Buying Non-GMO Seeds
http://www.urbanorganicgardener.com/2011/03/buying-non-gmo-seeds/

Here in my neck of the woods, Pioneer seeds are the norm.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 03:31 PM

The anti-Monsanto sites you visit are biased as well.

Farmers need to stop buying Monsanto seeds, problem solved.

Easier said than done.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 03:33 PM

Over the last 10 000 years, diverse genetic pools have been created and preserved by plant breeders. Monsanto has put these diverse gene pools at risk by contaminating certified and traditional seed stocks, and by not permitting farmers to save seeds. A feudal system of seed ownership destroys perhaps the key privilege of a farmer as the guardian of societies’ crop heritage. And it has turned agriculture into an industry where the corporations consolidate their hold over costly seeds and chemicals that increase farmers spending on inputs. Meanwhile monopolies are created in corporate manipulated markets that include fewer buyers who demand the lowest possible prices for the outputs produced by farmers, forcing them into a debt spiral. In 2003 Monsanto made $3.1 billion in pesticide sales and $1.6 billion in seed sales.

from here: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.php

sorry...my dumb ass keeps forgetting to quote and cite.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 03:35 PM

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto’s the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn’t actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

I want to zero in for a second on the soy. Monsanto RuR soy seed costs 3 to 4 times as much as regular ol' soy seed. Why would farmers pay that much more if it wasn't more profitable for them?

And the patent on RuR soy expires this year. Farmers will be able to save seeds, and Monsantos competition will be allowed to sell generic versions of it.

How is that monopolistic? Hollywood literally has far more protection than Monsanto.

I don't understand this next statement:

And if Monsanto doesn’t actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

Who are they imposing that condition on?

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 03:37 PM

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto’s the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn’t actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

So 10%?

Farmers have widely adopted GM technology. Between 1996 and 2011, the total surface area of land cultivated with GM crops had increased by a factor of 94, from 17,000 square kilometers (4,200,000 acres) to 1,600,000 km2 (395 million acres). 10% of the world's crop lands were planted with GM crops in 2010. As of 2011, 11 different transgenic crops were grown commercially on 395 million acres (160 million hectares) in 29 countries.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_crops

Natural Citizen

01-14-2014, 03:38 PM

It is a violation of the forum guidelines to post the entire article.

I got to chuckling when I posted those excerpts last night. As soon as I posted it I thought "watch, angelatc will be crying about the forum guidlines because of the amount pasted". You're so predictable. :rolleyes:

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 03:39 PM

angelatc

01-14-2014, 03:49 PM

from here: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.php

sorry...my dumb ass keeps forgetting to quote and cite.

Monsanto has put these diverse gene pools at risk by contaminating certified and traditional seed stocks, and by not permitting farmers to save seeds.

People who specialize in certified traditional stocks have been keeping hybrids out of their fields for 200 years. If they can't keep their product clean now, then they never were.

There is no law that says farmers can't save seeds. There are laws that say farmers can't replant patented seeds they saved without paying for royalties. There are endless strains of seeds that farmers can save.

And again, seed patents have been around since the 1930's. Despite the talking points, this really isn't all that new.

(I think that talking point comes from the same people who insist that WalMart destroyed Mom & Pop stores in rural America, without ever acknowledging those stores were often expensive, dirty, offered low wages and out of date merchandise.)

A feudal system of seed ownership destroys perhaps the key privilege of a farmer as the guardian of societies’ crop heritage. And it has turned agriculture into an industry where the corporations consolidate their hold over costly seeds and chemicals that increase farmers spending on inputs. Meanwhile monopolies are created in corporate manipulated markets that include fewer buyers who demand the lowest possible prices for the outputs produced by farmers, forcing them into a debt spiral. In 2003 Monsanto made $3.1 billion in pesticide sales and $1.6 billion in seed sales.

Again, seed patents are not infinite, which negates the "feudal system of seed ownership" wailing. The rest of it seems to be implying that lower prices and higher profits are bad bad bad. I should hope that doesn't need refutation.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 03:51 PM

I got to chuckling when I posted those excerpts last night. As soon as I posted it I thought "watch, angelatc will be crying about the forum guidlines because of the amount pasted". You're so predictable. :rolleyes:

By ignoring anything and everything disucssed about the original article in order to take a personal shot at me, you have proved to be the same.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 03:56 PM

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 03:57 PM

Farming's new feudalism: Percy Schmeiser and other casualties of industrial agriculture's drive to own it all.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Farming's+new+feudalism%3a+Percy+Schmeiser+and+oth er+casualties+of...-a0132182965

Percy Schmeiser was busted for lying. Remember?

Canada Rules in Favor of Monsanto over Seed Saving Farmer Percy Schmeiser

Percy Schmeiser

If you’ve heard much about agricultural biotechnology, you’ve potentially heard of Percy Schmeiser. Schmeiser is a Canadian canola farmer who Monsanto successfully sued for patent violation after unlicensed Roundup Ready canola was found growing on his farm.

Starting from when we began our efforts to settle the matter out-of-court, Schmeiser claimed the biotech plants in his fields got there by accident and were not planted by him. It’s a claim he continues to make to this day. He’s become something of a folk hero in some circles, playing the role of David to Monsanto’s Goliath. He’s often quoted in the press and is a frequent speaker around the world at events hosted by groups opposed to agricultural biotechnology.

The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He’s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story. Unlike his neighbors, and the vast majority of farmers who plant patented seeds, Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto’s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn’t spontaneously appear. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license. By doing so, he used Monsanto’s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions.

Consider just a few of the facts.
...

Full article:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

Natural Citizen

01-14-2014, 04:00 PM

By ignoring anything and everything disucssed about the original article in order to take a personal shot at me, you have proved to be the same.

Oh, puleeez. That was hardly a personal shot at you, ya big old crybaby.

And there are hundreds of papers around here regarding the issue in scope. I know because I've shared most of them.

And I'm not ignoring anything. I think it's more practical to observe differing positions on these very fragmented aspects of the issue than to nit pick and argue back and forth with people about them when they share ther positions or offer material that would support them.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:05 PM

It appears you are getting your information from Monsanto advocacy sites,

I got my information from the actual lawsuit via a link posted in the Plantiff's site. Other stuff came from a couple of lawyer blogs and Wikipedia. Oh - Yahoo Answers is where I found out how long seed patents were good for, and the New York Times is my source for the fact that the soy patent will expire this year.

I had no idea there were Monsanto advocacy sites. But even if there are - why are they any less credible than the anti-Monsanto sites? If we can't sort through the noise and look at the facts then what's the point?

I am not denying that Monsanto ever uses some bully tactics, but I'm convinced that the anti-Monsanto movement is part of the libera left's plan to assume total control of the food supply.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:06 PM

Oh, puleeez. That was hardly a personal shot at you, ya big old crybaby.

And there are hundreds of papers around here regarding the issue in scope. I know because I've shared most of them.

There are hundreds of papers explaining why this court decision was wrong, even though it was handed down yesterday?

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:07 PM

Percy Schmeiser was busted for lying. Remember?

By doing so, he used Monsanto’s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions.

Consider just a few of the facts.
...

Full article:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

I did not know he lost 3 times.

Ender

01-14-2014, 04:09 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-12-2013/monsanto---seed-patent-laws

Gotta love The Daily Show.

Natural Citizen

01-14-2014, 04:09 PM

There are hundreds of papers explaining why this court decision was wrong, even though it was handed down yesterday?

I said the issue in scope, angelatc. Where did I say that there were hundreds of articles about this particular court decision? I didn't. Surely,developments with that case (and cases like it) will be a subject for future discussion and I'll certainly share the timeline as it develops.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:10 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-12-2013/monsanto---seed-patent-laws

Gotta love The Daily Show.

Liberals love TDS. I hate it, because liberals love it.

Seed patent laws have been around since the 1930's. But by all means, let's let the progressives convince us that patent protections are bad.

ANd by all means, let's mock people for trying to protect their patented property. It's what all the cool kids are doing.

NOt a one of you have managed to explain why the courts should have decided in favor of the plaintiffs. but yet here you are, resorting to accusing us of spreading pro-monsanto propaganda while posting a video full of half-truths and clever editing from the nation's official court jester.

if this is what America considers educated and informed opinion, we are so seriously fucked it isn't funny.

Ender

01-14-2014, 04:12 PM

You hated it when Jon Stewart supported Ron Paul?

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 04:16 PM

Schmeiser intentionally killed his own crops and cultivated the patented seeds from the plants that survived. He then planted those seeds the following year in an attempt to grow RuR crops without paying royalties.

Unless you believe that "finders keepers" as a valid legal defense (it isn't), the court ruling was correct.

This is a complete twist on the story that Schmeiser tells. Other farmers have experienced the problem of crop contamination as well. And it's more than just property rights, it's a philosophical issue. Do we have the right to patent life forms? Because patenting seed is patenting life. It's a slippery slope. And I don't really care how long we've been doing it. Is it right?

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:22 PM

I said the issue in scope, angelatc. Where did I say that there were hundreds of articles about this particular court decision? I didn't. Surely,developments with that case (and cases like it) will be a subject for future discussion and I'll certainly share the timeline as it develops.

Future discussion? I'm still waiting for you to explain why you think that this lawsuit handed Monsanto the ability to keep farmers from suing them? That's what your headline and the article assert.

Natural Citizen

01-14-2014, 04:23 PM

FrankRep

01-14-2014, 04:26 PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-12-2013/monsanto---seed-patent-laws

Gotta love The Daily Show.

Full of disinformation. They left out the critical details about the Percy Schmeiser case that made him guilty.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 04:27 PM

Absolutely. Too often this issue is reframed into a left-right paradigm of sorts and the human aspect of it is never considered. The most important thing to consider here is if our grandchildren and their children to follow will be forced to pay these biotech companies royalties to justify their very existence. Their very eistence relegated to the intellectual property of these muti-national corporations.

And that's exactly where it's headed.

Very good point, deborah. One that I've brought up a few times but has remained ignored.

Don't feel bad. I'm mostly ignored too. LOL.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 04:31 PM

Percy Schmeiser was busted for lying. Remember?

Canada Rules in Favor of Monsanto over Seed Saving Farmer Percy Schmeiser

Percy Schmeiser

If you’ve heard much about agricultural biotechnology, you’ve potentially heard of Percy Schmeiser. Schmeiser is a Canadian canola farmer who Monsanto successfully sued for patent violation after unlicensed Roundup Ready canola was found growing on his farm.

Starting from when we began our efforts to settle the matter out-of-court, Schmeiser claimed the biotech plants in his fields got there by accident and were not planted by him. It’s a claim he continues to make to this day. He’s become something of a folk hero in some circles, playing the role of David to Monsanto’s Goliath. He’s often quoted in the press and is a frequent speaker around the world at events hosted by groups opposed to agricultural biotechnology.

The truth is Percy Schmeiser is not a hero. He’s simply a patent infringer who knows how to tell a good story. Unlike his neighbors, and the vast majority of farmers who plant patented seeds, Schmeiser saved seed that contained Monsanto’s patented technology without a license. As indicated by the trial court in Canada, the seed was not blown in on the wind nor carried in by birds, and it didn’t spontaneously appear. Schmeiser knowingly planted this seed in his field without permission or license. By doing so, he used Monsanto’s patented technology without permission. In fact, the courts determined this in three separate decisions.

Consider just a few of the facts.
...

Full article:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/percy-schmeiser.aspx

Monsanto site......

Funny how it doesn't mention that the Supreme court ruled that though he lost the case, he didn't have to pay. Nor does the article mention that the Ontario gov't intervened when he lost in '03.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:31 PM

This is a complete twist on the story that Schmeiser tells. Other farmers have experienced the problem of crop contamination as well. And it's more than just property rights, it's a philosophical issue. Do we have the right to patent life forms? Because patenting seed is patenting life. It's a slippery slope. And I don't really care how long we've been doing it. Is it right?

I think it's pretty easy to assume that Schmeiser would tell a rather embellished version of his story. But here is a link to the court's decision (http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do). He testified that he sprayed Round Up on his crops. He testified that he intentionally saved and planted those seeds the following year.

I wasn't in court, so I can't say that I heard him say that, but there does not seem to be any claims that the Court documents are wrong in that regard.

There are still no documented cases of Monsanto actually suing farmers whose crops were contaminated through seed spread. Every farmer that Monsanto has sued has either settled or testified that they intentionally planted the seeds.

I do not equate patenting seeds and plants to patenting human life. Do I think seeds can be patented? Sure. Do I think dogs can be patented? Sure. Do I think humans can be patented? No.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:32 PM

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 04:36 PM

I think it's pretty easy to assume that Schmeiser would tell a rather embellished version of his story. But here is a link to the court's decision (http://scc-csc.lexum.com/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2147/index.do). He testified that he sprayed Round Up on his crops. He testified that he intentionally saved and planted those seeds the following year.

Or maybe he was telling the truth since the only way he could get the seed otherwise, is if he bought it. How did it get on his land?

There are still no documented cases of Monsanto actually suing farmers whose crops were contaminated through seed spread. Every farmer that Monsanto has sued has either settled or testified that they intentionally planted the seeds.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx

I do not equate patenting seeds and plants to patenting human life. Do I think seeds can be patented? Sure. Do I think dogs can be patented? Sure. Do I think humans can be patented? No

The camel's nose is already under the tent.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:38 PM

Monsanto site......

Funny how it doesn't mention that the Supreme court ruled that though he lost the case, he didn't have to pay. Nor does the article mention that the Ontario gov't intervened when he lost in '03.

They ruled he did not have to forfeit his profits since Monsanto did not prove that the profit came from the added advantages of planting RuR seeds. They also did him a favor, because if they had ruled in his favor Monsanto could have asked him for their legal costs.

Funny how none of your sites mention that he didn't use crop contamination as any part of his defense.

Deborah K

01-14-2014, 04:41 PM

Funny how none of your sites mention that he didn't use crop contamination as any part of his defense.

say wut? :confused: I think I've only posted one site, and there are plenty of sites that mention he used crop contamination. How ELSE did he get the seed???

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:42 PM

Or maybe he was telling the truth since the only way he could get the seed otherwise, is if he bought it. How did it get on his land?.

I have no idea, but that was never discussed in court, as it was deemed to be irrelevant. That's pretty consistent with property rights - if you find someone else's property on your property, you don't automatically gain title.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:45 PM

say wut? :confused: I think I've only posted one site, and there are plenty of sites that mention he used crop contamination. How ELSE did he get the seed???

Forget those sites. Read the testimony. He never argued that because he found the seed he had a right to grow it.

angelatc

01-14-2014, 04:52 PM

say wut? :confused: I think I've only posted one site, and there are plenty of sites that mention he used crop contamination. How ELSE did he get the seed???

This is what I was talking about when you asked me why my position had changed. This is the kind of stuff that made me start to question the honesty of the whole anti-Monsanto movement. There are indeed lots and lots of sites that say that. Repeating a lie does not make it true.

Read what the court said here;
While intention is generally irrelevant to determining whether there has been “use” and hence infringement, the absence of intention to employ or gain any advantage from the invention may be relevant to rebutting the presumption of use raised by possession.

I am no lawyer but it seems like they are saying that if he had indeed harvested a crop that contained some Monsanto plants, he likely would have been fine. But because he specifically and intentionally sought them out to profit from them, he was infringing on their patent.

Natural Citizen

11-13-2014, 12:48 PM

Monsanto to pay $2.4mn to farmers over 2013 GMO-wheat scare...

http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/32/11/70/00/monsanto-pays-wheat-farmers.si.jpg
Reuters/Benoit Tessier

GMO giant Monsanto will have to fork out $2.4 million to settle a lawsuit with US wheat farmers after its genetically engineered strain, supposedly banned and scrapped a decade ago, was found alive and well in Oregon in 2013.

$2.15 million will go towards a settlement fund for farmers in Oregon, Idaho and Washington, who all sold the wheat between May 30 and November 30, 2013.

A further $250,000 will go to wheat grower’s associations, including $100,000 to the National Wheat Foundation, and $50,000 each to the wheat and grain growers associations in the above states.

Out-of-pocket costs by the plaintiffs’ council will also be reimbursed.

‘Roundup Ready’, as the wheat strain is amicably known, was supposed to be either destroyed or stored 10 years ago when it was outlawed. The miracle strain was resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, and was one of a number in a whole range of Roundup Ready products.

Alarms were raised in 2013 when an Oregon farmer noticed that wheat plants on his property were still growing after the field had been doused with pesticide. He promptly alerted the USDA, which got involved.

The ensuing federal investigation spanned several states in the Pacific Northwest. The incident put the entire American wheat export industry at risk.
The discovery quickly prompted Japan and South Korea to pause imports, causing disruption in the market. It was feared that the imports were contaminated with wheat capable of withstanding herbicides – an identical strain to one that led to the original ban 10 years ago.

At that time, the European Union also called for more thorough testing of US imports.
Several EU countries ended up banning GMO crops entirely.

All of this was accompanied by millions of people worldwide voicing their protest over Monsanto’s questionable practices.
On November 12, Monsanto continued to deny their culpability, but decided to pay up.

By settling with the growers’ associations, Monsanto gets to avoid at least three more class action lawsuits, but the company apparently only resolves pending claims that are solely associated with the white wheat variety.

The biotech giant is still not in the clear though. The US Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service made a second discovery of the prohibited strain back in September. It was found growing at a Montana State University research facility – the place where field trials of the strain were carried out in the early 2000s.

Continued - Monsanto to pay $2.4mn to farmers over 2013 GMO-wheat scare (http://rt.com/usa/205079-monsanto-pays-wheat-farmers/)