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.'"

18 of 436 comments (clear)

  1. victory! by The+Clockwork+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

    VICTORY IS (nutra)SWEET.

    --

    There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
  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 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.

    5. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by Slayer · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:A great step, but only a small battle won.... by calcapt · · Score: 5, Informative

      At the moment, I have to call total BS. What you're saying is non factual and irresponsbile alarmist talk.

      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.doc u.html] These were done by giving adult bees and larvae Bt pollen at 100x normal concentrations.

      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.

  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. Second try by jeti · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  5. 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.
  6. Monsanto is not your friend by cromano · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

    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] ... and don't get me started on the "terminator gene".

    -Sin Maíz no hay País-

  7. Re:Naaaah by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative
    This article: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MonsantovsFarmers.php suggests otherwise.
     

    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.
    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.

    It goes on to say that because of cross-contamination 'organic' crops often aren't organic any more.
  8. Should he have burnt his crop? by MikePlacid · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. 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.
  10. Alternative to Future of Food Doc: Harvest of Fear by calcapt · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  11. Re:Naaaah by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Funny

    A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. -Lao Tzu It then needs to be followed by a million more. - Me
    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  12. Re:Naaaah by pjabardo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.