Slashdot Mirror
PubPat Kills Four Key Monsanto Patents
IP Ergo Sum writes "PubPat's request for reexamination resulted in the rejection of four key Monsanto patents. According to PubPat, those particular patents were being used to 'harass, intimidate, sue — and in many cases bankrupt — American farmers.'"
5164316: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5196525: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5322938: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5352605: Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters
Yes, the first three have the same title. I haven't read any of them yet. You can find the full text on the USPTO web site. Search by patent number here.
Here is another article to tide you over until the tech details are available again. It seems that they are centered around the roundup ready seeds.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Sorry. Missed a paragraph when pasting. Here's the relevant text:
The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as
a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments
granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have
paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments.
Startling though these numbers are, they do not begin to tell the whole
story. Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are
sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating
them. Final monetary awards are not available for a majority of the 90 lawsuits
CFS researched due to the confidential nature of many of the settlements.
No farmer is safe from the long reach of Monsanto. Farmers have
been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone
else's genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a
previous year's crop has sprouted, or "volunteered," in fields planted with
non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they
never signed Monsanto's technology agreement but still planted the patented
crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been
applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use
was unwitting or a contract was never signed.
Sorry dude, but Mosanto's crops don't work like that. Instead they made their crops resistant to a certain herbicide. Farmers who use their crops can use that herbicide (called roundup, also owned by Mosanto) without hurting their own crops.
It has been proven scientifically that genes can spread across species (doesn't happen often but does), so who's going to be responsible if bad herbs become resistant and would have to be weeded out manually ? You think the world can't support its populace (which is definitely not true. Starving is not causes by drought or poor harvest, it's caused by war and corrupt politicians in the countries affected). But we definitely will have a problem if decades of herbicide research go to waste because one greedy irresponsible company releases random genes out into our environment.
If Mosanto and their brethen cared about world hunger they wouldn't sue farmers for using grain that happened to have been fertilized with their GM pollen. At the moment it appears that GM is not bad by itself but it is unprofitable unless you employ highly questionable business tactics.
For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, gene patenting, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
... and don't get me started on the "terminator gene".
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
IMDB link. [imdb.com]
-Sin Maíz no hay País-
I hate to be a jerk, but I have to question why the farmers just don't stick to their traditional crops (versus the GM versions) if Monsanto is so horrible. Not one is forcing them to buy GM seeds (they could have kept saving and resuing their old seeds forever, without having to buy anything from Monsanto). So either buying Monsanto seeds isn't a losing deal (i.e. the farmers still make more money than they would have otherwise) or the farmers have poor judgement. Am I missing something?
It seems to me that a lot of them are pretty much suckered into it. They are made to think that this is the latest thing in modern agriculture and that it will benefit them with higher crop yields and thus higher profit margins. To people who are often already having trouble turning a profit this is hard to refuse. Not that is easy to get your hands on unmodified seed stock any more. To add insult to injury even if you inadvertently planted GM seeds you are also fucked. To quote TFA:
American farmers are hard pushed to find high quality, conventional varieties of corn, soy and cottonseed. Anecdotal evidence supports this. Troy Roush, an Indiana soybean farmer says, "You can't even purchase them in this market. They are not available." Similar reports come from the corn and cotton farmers who say, "There are not too many seeds available that are not genetically altered in some way.".....
.....A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.
.....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......
Here's another choice quote:
Researchers at the University of Manitoba, Canada tested 33 samples of certified canola (oilseed rape) seed stock and 32 were contaminated with GM. The Union of Concerned Scientists tested traditional US seed stocks of corn, soy and canola and found 50% corn, 50% soy and 83% canola contaminated by GM.
.....Outcomes of lawsuits brought by Monsanto against farmers are mostly kept under wraps. If farmers are tempted to breach confidentiality they can face fines greater than the settlements. But where judgments have been publicly recorded, sizeable payments benefit not only Monsanto, but also partner companies.
One hundred percent purity is no longer achievable, and even if non-contaminated seed could be purchased, some contamination can take place in the field either by transfer of seed by wind, animals or via farm equipment.
Monsanto dominates the sale of seed stocks yet puts the onus of finding markets for crops on the farmer. Within their contract is the "Technology Use Guide" which gives directions on how to find grain handlers willing to accept crops not approved for use in the EU. While Monsanto acknowledges that pollen flow and seed movement are sufficient to contaminate neighbouring non-GM fields their implicit rule is that "the growers of the non-GM crops must assume responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crops meet specifications for purity.".....
Combined financial penalties have forced many farmers into bankruptcy and off their land. Agriculture is suffering losses all around because of the disappearance of foreign markets. The US Farm Bureau estimates that farmers lose over $300 million a year because European markets refuse GM corn. The US State Department says that as much as $4 billion could be lost in agricultural exports due to EU labelling and traceability requirements. Organic and conventional farmers
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Until recently, that hasn't been successful. You really haven't been following this tragic, unreported story-line. See, their [Monsanto] lawyers are bigger than the farmers' lawyers and that's who has historically won. So on one hand, when they sue for their accidental contamination, they use various arguments such as "it can't be helped, it's nature and nature's function" or "these GM seeds had made your crops better and we counter-sue" or "no, you must have stolen it! and we counter-sue" and on and on.
It goes on to say that because of cross-contamination 'organic' crops often aren't organic any more.
In all the cases that are cited in the PubPat press release [prnewswire.com] the acts are intentional. No one is claiming accidental contamination.
In the wikipedia article you cited, the sequence of events in Schmeiser case is as follows:
1. Schmeiser field was contaminated by Roundup Ready gene.
2. Schmeiser discovered this and decided to harvest, save seeds and plant them next year.
3. He has not used Roundup at all, so his decision in 2 was not because he wanted a free benefit, but just because he did not want to burn contaminated crop.
4. Appelate courts split 5:4. 5 for "use" means "any use", 4 for "use" means "for profit use".
Should he have burnt his contaminated harvest? Why? He was not under contract with Monsanto.
At the moment, I have to call total BS. What you're saying is non factual and irresponsbile alarmist talk.
c u.html] These were done by giving adult bees and larvae Bt pollen at 100x normal concentrations.
There's little to no evidence whatsoever that GMO's are killing bees. Some scientists are worried about a link, but it's highly unlikely. Bt insect resistance doesn't even target bee species; it targets lepidoptera, diptera and coleoptera. In otherwords, butterflys/moths, flys, and beetles. What order are honey bees in? Hymenoptera.
Furthermore, resistant plants target the larvae of susceptible insects; these bugs ingest the Bt protein, which is only toxic in basic insect midguts, and forms pores and destroys their gut. Do honey bee larvae grow on plants? No, I didn't think so. And while they do ingest pollen that worker bees bring back to hives, tests have shown that pollen with Bt is not toxic at all. [http://www.gmo-safety.eu/en/safety_science/68.do
To sum it up, honey bees are fine after contact with Bt crops. Even larvae, which are Bt corn targets in susceptible species, were fine. Long story short, we're going to have to keep looking for a cause for CCD, and people need to stop screaming, "OMFGIT'SGMOS!" at the first sign of trouble. It's completely irresponsible, especially when there are more likely reasons for CCD, such as pathogens with extremely deleterious effects to colony health.
I am not against patents on an innovate breed of crop manufactured through genetic engineering per se. But the way Monsanto is pursuing farmers right now would be like if the RIAA demanded you pay for a copy of a CD whenever someone listening to a song simply drove by you in his car with his windows open. If Monsanto wants the benefit of patent-backed monopoly pricing on their product, then the onus should be on them to insure that people wishing to opt out of that monopoly have a clear means to do so.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/
Harvest of Fear is a documentary on GMOs as well, produced by PBS. If anyone watches Future of Food, they should watch Harvest of Fear. This is primarily because I thought Future of Food (as another reply to this parent pointed out) seems to have been designed to scare the viewer shitless. Harvest of Fear, on the other hand, provides arguments and counter arguments for nearly every topic brought up, without the dramatics and theatrics featured in the Future of Food. You might find yourself agreeing with one viewpoint, and another take on that viewpoint will be brought up, and it gets you thinking.
In any case, it's good to watch the 2 and compare/contrast the views.