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.'"

22 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. Finally by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's about time - but attacking the patents one by one is not a real long term solution, changes to legislation is the only thing that can fix the problem of frivolous patents.

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  2. A great step, but only a small battle won.... by Bananatree3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Monopolies are at best bad for the market, and at worst bad for Humanity. In this case, Monsanto's monopolizing has caused a lot of grief for many traditional farmers who save the previous year's crop seeds. This kind of thing really makes me sick.

    1. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, and it's clearly the responsibility of those who DO sell and grow GM food to prevent it from spreading. If they can't do that, why then they should not be allowed to grow it.

      (Allowing sexually reproductive GM life in the first place seems to me to be a Very Bad Idea.)

    2. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by logicnazi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Really? Why?

      Why isn't it the responsibility of the non-GM crops to prevent their pollen from fertilizing the GM farmers crops? If I breed a new strain of corn using traditional techniques is it my responsibility to make sure that doesn't fertilize anyone else's corn as well?

      Don't get me wrong I agree that GM crops should require more extensive testing before they are declared safe but the idea that they can never be declared safe is just absurd. Of course we can't ever know something won't hurt us but that doesn't stop us from making reasonable calculations about risk. Of course biotech companies shouldn't be allowed to shut down a farmer just because his crops happened to get pollinated by GM material (I have no idea if this really happens) but that's just saying that we should treat GM crops sanely.

      Any chance from the past is a risk whether it is faster computers (they might take over!!) or a new variety of crops. Dogmatically insisting that no type of GM crop could ever be safe enough to be worth the risk of letting it's pollen out into the wild is just silly.

      In other words what's wrong with just deciding about each GM crop on a case by case basis using the best available science at the time (including the certainty we have in that science)?

      --

      If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:

    3. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by kestasjk · · Score: 5, Insightful

      frankenfood Frankenfood? You mean food that doesn't need to be sprayed with (as much) pesticide because it's biologically resistant to insects?

      Genetic engineers notice an organism that does something that would be useful in another organism. If possible they isolate the protein(s) that create the useful effect. They then isolate the DNA that expresses that protein. They then insert that DNA into the other organism, and the protein is subsequently produced in the other organism.

      Genetic engineering is just a way of putting useful proteins from one organism into another. Agriculture on a modern scale doesn't stand a chance without either genetic engineering or massive amounts of fertilizer and pesticide.

      Genetic engineering isn't "natural", but then again agriculture itself isn't "natural". If you consider genetic engineering a "frankenfood" what about the walking udders, walking fur coats, unnaturally sized fruits, bizarre inbred wolves, etc, etc. Just because that genetic engineering was done with artificial selection doesn't make it any less natural.

      If you want natural; starve, along with the billions of others that this planet couldn't naturally support. I have no idea what people have against genetic engineering. (Though I completely understand anti-Monsanto sentiment of course)
      --
      // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
    4. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by jimicus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Monopolies are at best bad for the market

      The whole point of a patents system is limited monopolies to help the market. Without such a system, there's nothing stopping me from spending 10 years in a shed developing a revolutionary new vacuum cleaner, bringing it to market - and then you waltzing into a shop, buying one, copying it and selling it for half the price I do.

      The point of a capitalist society is that the "10 years in a shed" bit gets rewarded with a time-limited monopoly, so instead of simply putting up with the status quo and accepting that all vacuum cleaners suck (if you'll pardon the pun), I have an incentive to do something about it above and beyond "making my house 4% cleaner".

      Where monopolies do harm the market is where the system is abused. The obvious solution to that is a system which isn't terribly open to abuse. Many of today's patent laws were put together at a time when nobody imagined that a company might patent a genetically modified seed and then sue farmers for saving some from last years' crop for this year, or that a huge economy around software (which changes far faster than many other fields of innovation, and is thus not well served by 15-20 year monopolies) would develop.

    5. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The output of the GM crops are that much better. Thats why. When you spend X dollars to plant on the finite amounts of land you have control over and can plant the GM crops that not only increase yields by 30+ percent but cut cost on the X figures by needing less chemicals or pesticides the amount of monetary advantage they present is almost insane.

      The people who are using the regular crops are traditionalist or people who see a use/market for the crops. Most of the people I know who are against the GM crops and are actually farmers are in that position because of the contracts and not any perceived threats from the genetic managment of the seeds. They don't like the idea of having to pay extra for seeds if they have a bad year.

    6. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by ray-auch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I breed a new strain of corn using traditional techniques is it my responsibility to make sure that doesn't fertilize anyone else's corn as well?

      Not normally - but then you aren't suing those others for having corn fertilized by your corn are you ?

      If you use a water sprayer to irrigate your land, is it your responsibility to make sure the water doesn't go onto my land ? Probably not. However, if you spray onto my land and then sue me for using your water, I ought to be within my rights to tell you it _is_ your responsibility to keep your water on your land.

    7. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by misanthrope101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if GM crops push out non-GM owned by you on your own land, you can sue the designers. If someone's non-GM crops push out your GM crops, you can sue the designer. That would be God, per the 90% of the population that believes in Him. Good luck with that. I hear the appeals process leaves a bit to be desired.

  3. Re:Naaaah by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yea, it's one step forward after the 2,401,323 steps we've taken back in the last few years!

    --
    I hate printers.
  4. Patents on life are STUPID. by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Patenting / copyright / other methods to articifially control something being copied are STUPID when applied to an entity who's sole purpose is to make copies of itself.

    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  5. The impact is much bigger in India... by jkrise · · Score: 4, Insightful

    70% of the Indian population is dependant on agriculture for their livelihood - it was closer to 80% a few decades ago. Monsanto has tied up with Indian companies, and it's business practices have driven several hundreds of farmers to debts and suicide. BT (Biologically Treated) cotton from Mahyco (if I remember right) has caused havoc in farmers' lives in several Indian states.

    Monsanto specialises in technologies that make farmers dependant on these firms every year for seeds and patented techniques. Not only should such patents be outlawed; it should be made a crime to work against nature and create genetic modifications that prevent seeds from germinating.

    --
    If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
  6. Re:Naaaah by KillerCow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The little guy who grows the same crops as his grandfather had no problem to begin with.


    You're obviously not up-to-speed with Monsanto. What happens is that a neighboring field cross-pollinates, or some seeds blow off of a passing truck, and all of a sudden, your "grandfather's strain" has been contaminated with the patented Monsanto genes. Somehow, they test your field and they sue you. You can't argue with the DNA, so you are SOL and they shut you down, even though you never wanted their genes to start with.
  7. Re:Could farmers turn the tables? by cliffski · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in theory maybe, but farmers tend not to have the kind of finances or legal muscle required to take on a corporate entity the size of monsanto.
    Really, it should be the governments job to keep an eye on situations like this, but when the political parties are allowed to take corporate donations, the whole system is b0rked before you start.

    --
    DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
  8. Re:Naaaah by MrMr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're probably both right: The EU treats unwanted GM-cross pollination as bio-terrorist rape, while the US considers anything that might reduce the profit of a paying supporter as an attempt to overthrow the best government money can buy.

  9. Re:short-sighted by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If GM crops nudge out the conventional ones, eventually we'll be in a position where a company can starve millions of people to death at will. Legally.


    That's just silly. There are lots of different kinds of seeds and lots of different kinds of crops. The patents in this case would all expire by 2011 even if they are eventually found valid.
  10. Re:Why Is There Such Opposition To Biological Pate by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do I feel the need to feed the trolls?

    Because there's a chance that you're making a sincere argument? Yeah, probably...

    If Monsanto's GM patented genes were "containable" then I would say there's good argument for your side of this. But the problem lies and always has lied in it being uncontainable. Accidents of all sorts have happened and worse. One of Monsanto's tests is to kill a section of a farmer's field. If it doesn't die, then it contains their GM patented genes. (If the witch floats...) There is pollination as a problem... the GM patented gene plants give even if they don't receive. And seeds ALSO have a way of blowing in the wind in the cases where the seed IS the product like wheat.

    But ultimately, there are far too many innocent people being harmed by this one corporation. This one corporation, by itself, has managed to harm humanity in ways that are simply unprecedented. If you truly believe that the value of money is of higher importance than that of the future of humanity, you need to rethink your position on this since the odds are good that you are also human.

    Just as patents on medicines are used to deprive people unable to pay for it from life, these patents on food are used to deprive people unable to defend themselves growing their own crops.

    There's an entire planet out here that doesn't care about "the value of a stock" and the systems of nature do no ask permission from lawyers.

  11. Re:Naaaah by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yea, it's one step forward after the 2,401,323 steps we've taken back in the last few years!
    A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. -Lao Tzu
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  12. Re:Naaaah by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In all the cases that are cited in the PubPat press release [prnewswire.com] [prnewswire.com] the acts are intentional.
    That's the problem with patenting plants. Intention is a difficult thing to prove absolutely when you're talking about pollination. As we all learned from Jurrasic Park, DNA is a hard thing to control.
    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:victory! by jank1887 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but only if you consume 50 times your body weight over a course of 2 weeks...

  14. Re:Naaaah by yoder · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "...while the US considers anything that might reduce the profit of a paying supporter as an attempt to overthrow the best government money can buy."

    Bingo!

    "All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field." ~Albert Einstein

    "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where they is no river." ~Nikita Khrushchev

    "The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." ~P.J. O'Rourke

    --
    "In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
  15. Re:Naaaah by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WHO is going to sue the biggest agro conglomerate on the planet?
    WHO is going to shell out a minimum $5000 retainer to some lawyer just to get a consult?
    WHO is going to continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at increments of $300 until the case is adjudicated in some lower court?
    WHO is going to continue to spend even more money if the first round doesn't go to the "little guy"?

    The family farmer is much like the garage inventor.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.