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.'"
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. And since capitalism essentially equates morality with legality and profitability, who will really argue with them? People really, really need to watch The Corporation. I'm all about making a buck, but we really, really need re re-evaluate what we let corporations get away with. Do even the most materialistic among us really want a private corporation owning not only the food, but the capacity of the plants to reproduce?
It always bothers me when I see a patriotic rallying cry that points out the pain to "Americans". Are you saying it wouldn't be so bad/unethical if the companies were harming non-Americans?
Here are the two current options for an inventor. The first is to keep the process secret, and try to sell enough product before it is reversed engineered. Such an approach not only wastes a societies resources by shifted creative power from new problems to problems that have already been solved, but provides little predictability for business.
The second option is the patent. Put the details of the product out in the public. Accept the protection of the government for 10 years. This gives a predictable interval in which to market the product. It also gives a predictable interval in which to improve the product so it can compete with any copies that might eventually be placed on the market. In exchange for such protection, other can use the ideas to develop new non-competing products immediately, and eventually develop copies of the product for wider consumption. This is a win/win for everyone as the inventor has time to exploit the product commercially, especially in today's mass produced market, and society is allowed to exploit the idea intellectually.
Here is why I disagree with protecting the little guy, or anyone for that matter. First, it is difficult to define. A patent may be granted to a little guy, who may grow into a big guy or sell to a big guy. Is the patent to depend on this? Second, such reasoning lends itself to extend the period of patents, and even copyright for that matter. I would argue that given the reduction in production times, the patent and copyright time should be reduced, or altered based on production dates. For instance a drug might take 5-10 years to enter mass production, and therefore might need a longer patent, but one can imagine all sorts of other products that might only require a five year patent. Likewise, it is inconceivable that Disney has not already exploited the derivitive characters fully, and those characters should be put back in the public domain.
By focusing on return on investment, rather than encouraging innovation in society, one gets into the situation where IP does in fact halt innovation, especially where a five year product cycle seems long.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Let me just tell you about some problems in Brazil. There is a state, Parana that was trying to stay GM free. Federal justice said that a state can not rule on that and they had to open up to GM soy bean. Non GM grain has a higher value (europe doesn't buy GM grain). Taxes are paid when the grain arrives on the port. If you declare that you are producing GM grain, you will pay 2% taxes. If you don't declare that, the government will test your production for GM grain. If the government finds more than 1% of GM grain, your crop is considered GM and the taxes rise to 3% and you have to pay for the tests, which is quite expensive (I don't know how much). 1% GM limit is easily reached through cross-pollination. They still have to pay royalties to Monsanto.
Since these costs are fairly high, many producers are choosing to declare their crops GM. Overall effects: basically, you can not choose to grow non GM crops.
Um I have heard of ONE case where Monsanto was unsuccessful and that farmer still lost 50 years of selective breeding work since he was ordered to destroy all his own seed crop. (http://commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeise r.shtml) That means he was required to plant new seed which will probably be GM encumbered. Also his neighbors still grow Monsanto crop so he won't be able to save seeds then either. Essentially he has to now buy seed every year after 50 years of planting his own.
He also spent years in court losing lots of time and money.
Several people responded to you and your responders with no clue on this subject. Yes he was sued for have 90% contamination (numbers supplied by Monsanto testing) A round of testing by the University of Manitoba at the farmers request found that two of his fields had no contamination. Others had one percent, some had two percent and one had eight percent. In the ditch along the fields where we first noticed it, contamination was around 60 percent.
The GM crop is designed to resist being poisoned by roundup. He didn't use roundup so there was no benefit to him having the seeds. To the ignoramus that spouted "he had like 90% of course he was buying seed", well the RCIA says that disk you own is worth 150,000 they must be right, huh? It isn't in their interest to lie in their favor in the court is it?
Gah, I just re-read the judgment and it does sound like the the original court judge found him as having deliberately planted Monsanto seed. (He had a field he tested for resistance (usign roundup to kill all non-resistant plants), 60 percent survived. He kept this seed seperate, but he later had the seed treated and reseeded. I believe the seed from this field was what was tested and found to have the high levels of contamination. So at least one of the other links under you was well informed. There was more to the case than I remembered.