Slashdot Mirror
The Supreme Court To Rule On Monsanto Seed Patents
Fluffeh writes "Can a farmer commit patent infringement just by planting soybeans he bought on the open market? This week, the Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to weigh in on the question. The Court is pondering an appeals court decision saying that such planting can, in fact, infringe patents. Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled, as it had on several previous occasions, that patent exhaustion did not cover second-generation seeds. The Supreme Court has now asked the Solicitor General, the official in charge of representing the Obama administration before the Court, to weigh in on the case."
Monsanto is about to realize a dream: The absolute ownership of the food supply.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Now, the Supreme Court has invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in the case.
Supreme court already panders to the government quite a bit (e.g., commerce clause). Now they are going to reach out and ask what ruling the government wants?
...should sue for child support.
It's possible that this could be the concrete example of the brokenness of the patent system required to instigate reform. In this case, outlawing this type of genetic patent.
From TFA:
Monsanto has a point. Taking Bowman's argument to its logical conclusion would imply that anyone could buy a single batch of commodity (but still Roundup Ready) soybeans and use it to sell an unlimited number of copies. This would effectively eviscerate Monsanto's patent protection.
Yet Monsanto's position—that planting Monsanto-derived soybeans always requires Monsanto's permission—could also have troubling consequences. In a world where 94 percent of soybeans in circulation are descended from Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds, it might be hard for farmers who didn't want Monsanto's seeds even to buy seeds that were not patent encumbered. Monsanto's position would effectively place the burden on farmers to test seeds they hope to plant in order to ensure they are not covered by any patents.
If the product works as advertised then natural selection will ensure it comes to dominate the population.. how can you litigate against evolution? Surely the only winning move here is not to play?
If you funded the invention of a new crop version and wanted to recoup your hundreds of millions of development costs, you would not want the court to eliminate patent rights for 2nd generation crops.
If on the other hand, you are a farmer, and nearly all beans in your area are patented and then you buying commodity beans from a "feed and seed" place & it means you get mostly patented beans and you plant them, you would not expect to pay a royalty on a "commodity" that you didn't want or order.
This is a tough one. I see the issues on one side and the other.
I see it more that the farmer should sue Monsanto for contaminating the seeds he buys - he expects to get regualr bean seeds instead through no fault of his own, the seeds have been contaminated with genetically modified components.
Ruling that any farmer got it (contaminated agriculture) through natural processes as "infringing" is ludicrous.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
Not going to hope for much here, seeing as Monsanto already owns the government.
I'm looking forward to a day when living things cannot be patented - especially things which can self-proliferate in a natural setting. I might need to go to another planet to achieve this, unfortunately.
Even if upheld, they are still beholden to the government. The reason is that patents are something the government is given the power to issue, and thus also something they have the power to take away. There are various reasons they can do so, and they can alter the law to give themselves other reasons they can do so. There is no question they have power over patents, the Constitution gives it to them explicitly.
You'd better believe that trying to cut off food would be something they'd get slapped down for, patents or not. Heck if you want to see control, look at Sysco. They own every grain silo in America more or less. They have all the cereal before it is processed. Yet I'm not worried, it has been that way for a long time. They can't just suddenly say "Guess what? You pay 100x as much or starve." They tried something like that, they'd probably see National Guard units visit their silos to ensure shipments went out as scheduled and the FBI visit their corporate offices.
I'm not saying I think Monsanto's argument is a good one or anything or that they should win, please don't misunderstand. I'm saying this doesn't put them in some position where all of a sudden they control all food and nobody can do anything.
Hell they could easily win, then lose. The Court says "The patent is valid, even for many generations," the the government then says "Because of that, we have to take away the patent."
SCOTUS has taken the unusual step of asking the administration to provide them with an interpretation. This does not necessarily mean SCOTUS will hear the case; they can still reject the petition.
To be more precise, this move indicates that the court has a strong interest in the case. It's still possible that they'll let the circuit decisions stand, if they basically agree with everything they can get their hands on.
That said, I really hope they hear it, and separate patents from seeds. Fuck you for this case, Monsanto.
The Supreme Court recently invalidated patents on natural things. All Monsanto has done so far, is move various natural genes around, from one life-form to another. That is, there are no synthetic genes in the seeds that were patented. I'm aware that the result is new in the sense that the combination didn't exist before, but no part of it is actually new.
Since I'm quite aware that new combinations of other things are quite often patentable, I won't say that gene-manipulated seeds don't automatically deserve to be patented. But it might be reasonable to limit the scope of the patent. Because, historically, most patented things need to be manufactured to exist in quantity; they don't go out and automatically make copies of themselves as seeds can do.
So, my opinion on this matter is that the patents should not be allowed to cover any "copies" of the seed-genes that Naturally "get away" from Monsanto's (and most any other industry's) normal control-of-supply. If Monsanto can lock down cross-pollination of its patented gene combinations, fine (and good luck!). If Monsanto can produce seeds that grow plants that produce nonviable seeds, fine (also, good luck!). Because either of those would be reasonable ways to keep its patented gene-combinations under control. But trying to claim ownership of the results of perfectly Natural gene-spreading processes, NO.
the 5-4 split decision along party lines in favour of Monsanto.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
As I understand it, the issue with the replanted/cleaned seeds is a matter of intentional breach of contract rather than one of patent infringement. When you purchase their seeds, you purchase a license with them that prohibits the replanting/cleaning of the seeds. So whether or not IP was infringed is essentially irrelevant to the stipulations of the contract itself.
Monsanto discusses the topic on their FAQ concerning Food Inc. http://www.monsanto.com/food-inc/Pages/default.aspx
There's also a practical reason behind preventing the cleaning and replanting of seed. Since these seeds contain a pesticide (Bt derivative), a necessary step to maintaining the efficacy of the pesticide is planting a refuge (non-GM section) as part of the crop. If the whole crop expressed the pesticide genes, we could expect resistance to develop very quickly, but by adding in refuge areas the selective pressure decreases. The size of the refuge varies depending on the mix of proteins being expressed, and is determined by the EPA. These non-GM refuge seeds are sometimes mixed in with the GM ones at specific ratios. By cleaning/replanting the seeds, the ratio of GM to non-GM seeds changes, and the size of the refuge is no longer controlled. This creates a situation similar to the over-prescription of antibiotics that we're all familiar with; resistant pest strains will appear much more frequently. So there are reasons other than simple greed behind these contracts.
Disclaimer: I'm currently employed at Monsanto, but contracted through a third party. I am not authorized to speak on behalf of the company, and my comments should not be interpreted as such.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
I thought we just invalidated those...
Monsanto is so vigorous about defending its Roundup Ready seed patents because they are in a panic about what's happening in plant biology. Here's why.
Once you reach a point that farm weeds are starting to show resistance to Roundup, the game's up for Roundup. Most crops are grown in areas where 95% of the land is under cultivation. So you have virtually all Monsanto's seed sown in large areas that are pretty uniform breeding grounds for weeds. For years, Roundup Ready was a big advantage, because there were just a few kinds of weeds that could survive Roundup spraying. But now we've reached a point where 94% of the farmland is under cultivation with Roundup Ready and it's getting sprayed every year at the weeds' peak vulnerability times with Roundup, putting massive selection pressure on the weeds.
Once you reach a level where 1% of the weeds are resistant, and 94% of them get sprayed with something like 90% mortality, you get a next generation of weed seeds that's about 5% resistant. They year after that it's about 20% resistant. At this point farmers still see some value in Roundup. It still gives them an 80% reduction in weeds. But next year it's about 57% resistant. Now the farmer is frustrated. He sprays and sprays again and curses Monsanto. His crops are OK, but he's not doing as well as the guy down the road who doesn't spray at all but uses other methods for weed reduction.
But Roundup has been his method for 15 years and he's reluctant to try something new.
The next year, 87% of the weeds are resistant to Roundup. He sprays and only a handful of weeds die. He knows he sprayed at the right time. His neighbors are all bemoaning the same problem. "It ain't the Roundup. It's the weeds," one buddy says. "I got some on my grass and it was dead as fuckall the next morning. The weeds have adapted."
Roundup sales plummet mid-year. The company rep calls the feed store. "Farmers ain't buying it no more.," the manager tells him. "They say it don't work no more." It makes headlines across the country.
The next year, Roundup sales are zero, and there's no market for Roundup Ready seeds. Farmers are looking for other seeds that give the best yield on their soil type and moisture level.
The only way Monsanto keeps a money stream on the Roundup product is selling it to city dwellers to kill dandelions and crabgrass. But by now it's adapting in the city as well.
So they either introduce a new plant killer and have a giant campaign to get farmers on board -- farmers who feel screwed by paying for two years of overpriced seeds and worthless chemicals -- or they get out of the seed business.
Unless they can enforce a patent right on every seed that has their gene in it no matter how many generations removed from their production. Because you can no longer find a pure source of seed uncontaminated by their gene. Too many farmers have grown it and it has cross-pollinated into everybody's crop.
And it all sounds richly deserved, but then you realize that the same thing is happening with bacteria that attack our bodies. Only slower, because the breeding ground for those germs isn't under as heavy a pressure.
So there are reasons other than simple greed behind these contracts.
That reason being the potential mass destruction of staple food crops due to pesticide resistance. Bought about by a corporate effort to monopolise seed. Allow me this; Monsanto, their board, their employees (including yourself) and anybody who provides research, funds, or in any way supports this concept of patented genes in the crop cycle is doing it only out of selfish greed, and should be tried for crimes against humanity.
....but you Americans really are approaching fascism
That is insulting. Everyone knows that we achieved fascism under Pres. Bush. We're just not sure which one.
but there never were a contract..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Can Monsanto proof without a reasonable doubt that the seeds in question did not come from two "natural" parents and that their precious patented genes don't already exist in nature, or just happened to spontaneously mutate? It will be very hard for them and the burden of proof still says with them.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
The guy who bought the seed from a third-party was not party to ANY contract.
The guy who sold them, and the company that produced them - possibly they DID have a contract. Possibly that contract IS breached. But that's a *contract* dispute between those two parties. You can try to sue that seller for the perceived loss of value of Monsanto assets due to their breach of contract, if you like.
But trying to sue the guy who bought them (who at worst has been conned into buying something "illegal") is like trying to sue the guy who bought your TV from a pawn shop, not knowing it was stolen. Except there is no theft, in this instance, only an "unauthorised copy", so no intention to permanently deprive, and no case of handling stolen goods either.
What you're trying to say is that you own ANY plant that, by natural process, has acquired genes that were originally obtained from a Monsanto plant. That's like suing because your dog has acquired a specific colour because his parents had bred with a dog that come from a "company-owned" stock. It's like suing because someone's horse has acquired Red Rum's genes from somewhere. And just as fecking ludicrous to try to defend.
Still, regardless of how they vote it all comes down to who has power in Congress. They can fix the problem or make it worse. Considering how much money goes into farm subsidies I betcha it won't be beneficial for the little guy.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Now Monsanto is suing organic farmers for 'using' plants with 'monsanto's genes' in them. The thing is that: organic farmers can't make use of the 'patented' genes because they can't use herbicides. In other words, Monsanto is suing them -- not because they're using Monsanto's patented capability, but rather just because they're (re)planting seeds that happen to be contaminated with Monsanto DNA.
Then the farmers, not having billions of dollars of patent income an a pack of on-salary lawyers to back them up, sell their Farms to Monsanto (at a loss?) rather than pay hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars to defend themselves.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Later: If you have eaten food grown with Monsanto seeds, your body is the intellectual property of Monsanto. Monsanto's property must be in there somewhere, right?
At one time, the U.S. was a nation of which citizens could be proud.
I would challenge "supremacy of the military" on the grounds that our Commander in Chief is, and always has been, a civilian. A veteran, perhaps, but never an active-duty soldier. And the second-in-command since 1949, the Secretary of Defense, is also a civilian
The actual criteria, as explained on the web page, isn't how high active military are in the political chain, but rather how much a country spends on military and how often it uses its army as a solution to the problems.
Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
And as seen from outside (from the other side of the atlantic pond), the USA seem to fund disproportionately a lot their armed forces, and seem to think that fighting wars (Irak, Afghanistan) is the best solution. Active soldiers are seen as doing something patriotic. These wars have cost unbelievible amounts of money, yet the country still hesitate to spend money on public health (the whole debate about medicare/medicaid).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
but its not the farmer who is infringing on the patent! The plant is alive, its doing it on its own. The plant, itself, is guilty. However, since it has no free will, and has no concept of right and wrong, its mentally incompetent to stand trial for its crime.
There, problem solved....in a much more sane way than it was created.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This pack - especially Scalia and his shadow - are shaping up to be the worst lot since the Dred Scott decision. The absolutley worst part is that, like DICK Cheney, modern medicine will keep these bad guys living far longer than the jackals of the past. Everywhere you look, depressing signs of the death of true democracy and freedom.
I read this as "Insider Traders are about to make fortune from Monsanto"
This was covered in Daniel Suarez' book series, Daemon and Freedom. If farmers decided to put serious conditions and stipulations, along with super-high prices on growing corn or soybeans, they'd OWN us. Corn and soy are in everything. They could fashion themselves a Big Oil-esque persona. Of course, that's if the government didn't send snipers and tanks to their property to make damned sure they didn't pull that shit.
You want to know how to help your kids? LEAVE THEM THE F*&K ALONE. --George Carlin
The left has been extremely critical of the Obama administration. The left has been consistently critical of his attacks on civil liberties, his wars, his attacks on medical marijuana producers, his deportations, his attacks on whistle blowers, and his obsequiousness to corporate power and the security state. Everyone has heard of the Occupy Movement. The left has challenged Obama's power and leadership on a scale unimaginable of the right-wing during Bush's term.
The guy who sold them, and the company that produced them - possibly they DID have a contract. Possibly that contract IS breached. But that's a *contract* dispute between those two parties. You can try to sue that seller for the perceived loss of value of Monsanto assets due to their breach of contract, if you like.
Yes but the seller is most likely a third party as well. The only contract exists between Monsanto and farmers. Farmers may sell the soybeans to a variety of different middlemen as not all of them sell directly to food manufacturers. Some of the middlemen resell, store, whatever. In this case Mr. Brown bought the seeds from a grain elevator who was most likely storing and drying the seeds for later resale.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Hopefully a few weeks isn't too long to forget their previous ruling.
The summary uses the term "patent exhaustion", which some people might not be familiar with. This is the doctrine of first sale for patents. Patents don't just cover the manufacture, sale, or distribution of protected devices/etc, they also cover the use, private, commercial, or any other kind of use. The law as written would therefore mean that you can patent your device, sell it, and then sue your customers for using it. So the courts have decided that OBVIOUSLY they can't do that, so the first time you sell a device, your patent interests are "exhausted" and can no longer be used to prevent the use of that particular device.
This is a complicated court case because patent exhaustion is not written down anywhere, it's a wibbly wobbly thing. But as usually stated, it covers the one device. You cannot buy one patent device, and then make your own copies and sell them, because only the one device is "exhausted", and the patent is not nullified. On the other hand, patent law says that if you buy a patented device that can make things, then patent exhaustion also allows you to sell the things made by that device, if they are not covered by patents. That is to say, although things made by a patented process are protected by patent law, if you can legally use such a process (whether by license or patent exhaustion) the patent rights no longer extend to the product. So the court here must decide if that includes self-replication.
On the one hand, the idea behind the Doctrine of Exhaustion is that its pretty obscene to sell somebody something and put the burden on THEM to research all of the currently valid patents to make sure they're allowed to use the damn thing. So that should imply that Exhaustion applies to all intended uses of the patented product. So if a seed is intended to be grown, patent exhaustion would apply to all uses of the final plant. Since for thousands of years farmers have replanted crops using seeds from the last generation, that should be an inalienable intended use of a plant. On the other hand, if you have a Star Trek Replicator which you have rightly patented, its intended use is to make things. So if it can make patented parts of itself, that is part of its intended use? (Other posters here have suggested such a thing). I'm not sure of that. I think for that to apply its intended use would have to be self-replication specifically. That is to say, its purpose is not to make itself specifically, but to make whatever pattern you give it. So patent exhaustion on the replicator would not extend to pattern files you feed it. Besides which, the Doctrine of Exhaustion only applies to unencumbered sales, not to licensed sales or leases or anything else. So if it was truly a concern, they could make you sign a license when you buy the replicator, which explicitly enumerates how you may use the patented device.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
You sure use that "acme of" phrase a lot. Remember that article on identifying anonymous posters based on their verbiage?
Except the DRM can infect other plants.
This is the problem. If Monsanto would have developed sterile or seedless plants then I don't think anyone would have been complaining. It was the fact that they developed fertile plants which then sterilize themselves (and any other non-Monsanto plants nearby) through the process of fertilization, that made it a horrible, horrible idea.
The patent infringement would not extend - the user did not knowingly infringe the patent - you can't infringe as a software USER (otherwise I'd be personally responsible for every patent that MS, Linux, whatever, infringes).
The person responsible (and whom the legal system WOULD crush instead of RandomJoe), is the copyright (and thus knowing patent too) infringement made by CrackerB in in stripping the EULA.
Now, if you'd picked PURELY copyright infringement, you'd have had a more convincing example (i.e. just because I get the White Album from a friend that took off the EULA does not mean I can distribute it willy-nilly).
Okay, I really need to start reading TFAs and stop posting during the hours when I should already be asleep.
So as some have pointed out, there was no contract between Monsanto and the farmer in question. So this does go back to an IP infringement case, contrary to my previous post. However, I do stand by my previous statements regarding the need for refuge areas, and the need to monitor GM crops to ensure they are in compliance with refuge requirements. Consequently, the farmer in question is potentially dealing a regulated crop while flouting the associated regulations. But then again, I'm not privy to every detail of the case, and may as well be talking out of my ass.
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
Good. I hope no one can ever use 1st, 2nd, 3rd .... n generation of there GM franken-soybeans. Leave my food alone, thank you very much.
The answer to the question is an emphatic NO. And with all the damage Monsanto has done to destroy people's lives and their livelihoods, I second that. They've even gone across the fence to ruin people's farms based on accusations that resulted from accidental cross-pollination by bees. Seriously?? The list goes on and on.
Monsanto is evil and they deserve to go down in smoke. In my humble opinion :-)
But if YOU continue to elect the same worthless meatsacks every 2, 4 and 6 years (or even worse, don't even bother to vote), then you have only yourself to blame.
The problem is that no matter which meatsack I pick, the news media still control who gets name recognition. And the major news media are owned by movie studios, no matter which meatsack I pick, I'll still be voting for a party that supported the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.
Monsanto is the classic poster child of an evil corporation.
If the wind, blowing pollen from a Monsanto field causes the crop of an independent farmer to be pollinated by Monsanto's pollen, and the farmer is found guilty of theft, then why isn't Monsanto guilty of trespass for not confining its pollen? If a Monsanto bull left its property and fertilized the cow of another farmer then Monsanto would the court then rule the farmer guilty of theft of sperm?
Corporations have bought off all three branches of our government, which is now nothing more than a Cabal.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Well, if you have a plant and take a seed from it, is not the seed part a part of that plant?... If that part then continues to grow to create new parts that could grow is that not also part of the original plant??
I'm allow to take apart my phone i bought and sell the parts to other people... If the other person then uses that part to repair another phone and then sell it, would he be in violation of a patent?...
The same should go for any type of living organism.. If it can self-replicate you should be allowed to sell the replicas since the replication was in the actual product you bought...
potential mass destruction of staple food crops due to pesticide resistance
[...]
or in any way supports this concept of patented genes in the crop cycle
I think it's important to point out that a crop monoculture that encourages overuse of pesticides and patenting crops are two independent issues. The former is a serious problem, the latter is just a complicated legal issue.
Personally, I think the law should equate the issue of patented plants contaminating "natural" plants as being like a music label uploading songs on TBP- it was an authorized source (in this case, a liscensed Monsanto plant) that made the copy and distributed it, making the copy legal (although unlike a song on TPB, the new seed comes with a liscense to copy it further). Most people don't dispute the artist's or label's right to copyright a song, the concerns are over their enforcement practices, the same should apply for plant patents. That said, I would agree that no plant patents is likely better than the current, unworkable enforcement we are seeing.
My webcomic
doesn't like the truth being presented to themselves. too bad having a temper-tantrum doesn't change reality.
I've read they will also sue you if pollen from plants grown with their seeds makes its way from a neighbor's field onto yours via the wind or bees. Crazy!
>>Monsanto's property must be in there somewhere, right? There somewhere and then some flushed down the pipes ...