Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PubPat Kills Four Key Monsanto Patents

Posted by kdawson on from the going-to-seed dept.

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.'"

8 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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);
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.