Monsanto May Have To Repay 10 Years of GM Soya Royalties In Brazil

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Monsanto May Have To Repay 10 Years of GM Soya Royalties In Brazil

Posted by Soulskill on Friday June 15, 2012 @05:53AM from the bean-counters dept.

scibri writes "Biotech giant Monsanto is one step closer to losing billions of dollars in revenues from its genetically-modified Roundup Ready soya beans, after the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled the company must repay royalties collected over the past decade. Since GM crops were legalized in 2005, Monsanto has charged Brazilian farmers royalties of 2% on their sales of Roundup Ready soya beans. The company also tests Brazilian soya beans that are sold as non-GM — if they turn out to be Roundup Ready, the company charges the farmers 3%. Farmers challenged this as an unjust tax on their business. In April a regional court ruled against Monsanto, though that ruling has been put on hold pending an appeal. The Supreme Court, meanwhile has said that whatever the final ruling is, it will apply throughout the whole country."

45 of 377 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Gr33nJ3ll0 · 2012-06-15 05:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

It's nice to see somebody standing up to Monsanto. Never has one company been so close to totally controlling the food supply for the entire planet. Their abusive practices with farmers both home and abroad have been well documented, and yet our elected leaders turn a blind eye.
1. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by cpu6502 · 2012-06-15 06:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Patents are the real problem. Monsanto designed these seeds to be sterile, so you have to keep rebuying the same product year-after-year (instead of just reusing last year's seeds for the new crop). Also the seeds cross-polinate to non-Monsanto seeds, polluting nature's generic seeds with Monsanto genes. And worst of all:
  Monsanto has a nasty habit of suing innocent farmers who have decided to continue using the "generic" seeds provided by nature. They send-round lawyers to harass the farmers, issue threatening letters, and file court cases. Oftentimes these lawsuits bankrupt the farmer, which was Monsanto's original intent: To eliminate people who are not using their products. Their tactics are very similar to how the bastards at the RIAA and MPAA act, but very much more destructive.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
2. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Picass0 · 2012-06-15 06:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  It's not every day you see someone make the RIAA and MPAA look like amateurs.
3. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Jeng · 2012-06-15 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And how do those genes get in the seed?
  Are you seriously suggesting that there are illegal seed factories out there making generic versions of Monsanto's seeds?
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
4. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by h4rr4r · 2012-06-15 06:15 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Why should the farmers pay for seed that Monsanto freely pollinated? No one forced Monsanto to let their plants spread that genetic material. They could require their growers to keep their plants only indoors.
  Farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for contaminating their fields if anything.
5. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by cpu6502 · 2012-06-15 06:20 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  >>>They sue farmers who knowingly use seeds with the Monsanto gene in them without paying. People on the internet seem to think if they keep repeating a lie, it'll become true.
  >>>
  TRUTH not lies. They sue people they SUSPECT are using the gene, based upon flimsy evidence like, "Farmer John Does uses a shaking machine to extract seeds from his crop, and saves the seeds for next year." Then they send-round the lawyers to *invade* the man's property, confirm such a machine exists, and start issuing cease-and-desist letters (presumption of guilt just because he saves his seed). If the farmer continues using the machine, the lawyers sue the man. They act VERY much like how RIAA and the MPAA act when they send extortionate letters & file lawsuits against "John Does" who are entirely innocent of any crime (except they used bittorrent).
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
6. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Mindcontrolled · 2012-06-15 06:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I don't often agree with you, cpu6502, actually close to never. But when it comes to Monsanto, I wholeheartedly do. And I happen to be a biochemist working in a patent law firm....
  
  --
  Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
7. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by chichilalescu · 2012-06-15 06:25 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  this is not funny.
  
  --
  new sig
8. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-15 06:28 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  They're called bees.
9. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2012-06-15 06:35 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Monsanto has a nasty habit of suing innocent farmers who have decided to continue using the "generic" seeds provided by nature. They send-round lawyers to harass the farmers, issue threatening letters, and file court cases. /p>
  
  So the plants make the farmers Roundup Ready as well?
  
  --
  I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
10. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Bigby · 2012-06-15 06:41 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Mod parent up! A farmer can't help it if his field is being polluted by Monsanto's seed...even if it might be financially beneficial. If a coal mine created a pile of coal and the pile started spilling over into my property, then there are 3 options:
  1. The coal mining company sues me for having their coal on my property (at no fault of my own)
  2. I sue the coal mining company for putting their coal on my property
  3. We call it a truce, and I just keep and sell the coal on my property
11. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by PopeRatzo · 2012-06-15 06:45 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Monsanto designed these seeds to be sterile
  IMO, that qualifies as a crime against humanity.
  This one example should end forever any discussion of the benefit from an unregulated free market. And no, regulations that are written by the companies being regulated do not qualify.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
12. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Jeng · 2012-06-15 06:59 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Wow talk about splitting hairs, the person I replied to said that this was not the result of cross pollination due to wind blown pollen, but now you are saying well they weren't windblown, they were carried by bees.
  Why in the fuck does it matter how the cross pollination happened, whether bee or blown, it has the same result.
  
  --
  Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
13. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Iceykitsune · 2012-06-15 06:59 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  the seed is sterile the pollen is not
  
  --
  GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
14. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Golddess · 2012-06-15 07:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  So let me get this straight.
  
  If the uncontrollable wind blows some Monsanto pollen on your field, you are innocent.
  
  But if uncontrollable bees transfer pollen from a Monsanto field to your field, then you are "knowingly [using] seeds with the Monsanto gene in them without paying"?
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
15. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Blahah · 2012-06-15 07:09 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This is one of the most misinformed comments I have ever seen on /.
  You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever about the Indian farmer suicide problem, which began years before Monsanto started selling GM seed in India, and is absolutely nothing to do with the company. The suicides are, according to most analyses I've seen, usually linked closely with widespread crop failures which follow monsoon drought seasons. It's a climate problem, not a Monsanto problem.
  And farmer suicide being the #2 killer in India? That's so stupid it hurts to read. If you check the WHO mortality data, you'll find non-communicable diseases and infectious diseases account for 9/10 of the top ten causes of death, with accidental injury being the 10th.
  Finally, patents do last for 20 years in the USA! Not 100 years.
  Please, in future, try not to comment until you have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
16. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by asvravi · 2012-06-15 07:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wrong on the India farmers bit. Here is an extract from a Wikipedia article -
  
  There have been claims of genetically-modified (GM) seeds (such as Bt cotton) being responsible for the farmer suicides.[25][26][27][28] A short documentary by Frontline (U.S. TV series) suggested that farmers using GM seeds promoted by Cargill and Monsanto have led to rising debts and forced some into the equivalent of indentured servitude to the moneylenders.[29]
  A report released by the International Food Policy Research Institute in October 2008 provided evidence that the introduction of Bt cotton was not a major factor in farmer suicides in India.[30] It argues that the suicides predate the introduction of the cotton in 2002 and has been fairly consistent since 1997.[30][31] Other studies also suggest the increase in farmer suicides is due to a combination of various socio-economic factors.[32] These include debt, the difficulty of farming semi-arid regions, poor agricultural income, absence of alternative income opportunities, the downturn in the urban economy forcing non-farmers into farming, and the absence of suitable counseling services.[32][33]
17. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by sarysa · 2012-06-15 07:24 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I think AC's do. You guys must just be pretty damn underbudgeted to botch the job this badly.
  
  Here's the REAL way to do the PR game:
  1. Each shill makes about 20 accounts or so at the same time. It takes awhile -- you'll have to source accounts from multiple sources most likely. Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail...though at least you only need to make those once. Since our account IDs here are numerical, maybe each person makes their accounts a couple days apart from each other.
  2. Whenever a shill topic comes up, use one -- maybe two of those accounts at most. Think of them as disposable -- obviously we can see your history.
  3. Don't come on so strong for your cause. You have to see the overwhelmingly prevailing point of view and even fire a couple rounds against your side before you can be trusted. It's kind of like deep undercover cops who infiltrate the mafia -- they have to straddle the line for awhile.
  4. Once you've done this, SLOWLY bring the conversation in a direction that is more favorable for your organization. Don't be all "you're all wrong, FU." That won't work.
  
  That's all there is to it. Good luck and happy shilling.
  
  p.s. Where y'all went wrong is that most people here essentially think patenting our food supply that is so easily distributed by accident and enforcing it the way Monsanto does is inherently evil. It's essentially a "gotcha" for a CRITICAL and underpaid sector of society. We don't give a flying fuck what the legal argument is -- we want to fix the law.
  
  --
  Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
18. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by sjames · 2012-06-15 07:24 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The thing is, we now know for a fact that plants can be bread for roundup readiness without 'stealing' Monsanto's gene (because it's been done), using only more conventional breeding and selection techniques. We also know that there are weeds growing wild that have the necessary resistance to roundup and that they are close enough to canola to breed with it. We know this because now that fields are being drenched in roundup routinely, we have weeds that are resistant to it.
  Further, until Monsanto started it's war on everything not Monsanto, it was understood that the proprietary nature of a trait in a plant died once it crossed with someone else's plants. That is, you have some very special variety of corn. I am free to plant my perfectly ordinary corn on my adjoining property AND select for the amazing traits of your corn in the resulting future generations. I can even do so until I fully recreate your very special corn down to the last gene (but in practice I would stop once I had the desirable traits and had bread out undesirable ones, I wouldn't need or want a perfect copy).
  Actual ownership of the gene itself is quite new and on somewhat shaky ground, especially since the gene was NOT created by designing a sequence of amino acids necessary to create the wanted trait, it was found and inserted into the genome.
  A wrinkle you're missing is that Monsanto's traits actually contaminated the line of canola that Schmeiser had been developing using conventional breeding techniques for his own use for many years. He was faced with a choice of destroying years of his own work or just pretending the Monsanto gene didn't exist.
  And that's the big issue. Monsanto crops contaminate the genome of non-Monsanto crops, then Monsanto sues the victim.
19. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Barefoot+Monkey · 2012-06-15 07:28 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It wouldn't be a problem if the Roundup-Ready crops didn't produce pollen which would fertilise non-sterile seeds.
20. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by quarkscat · 2012-06-15 07:34 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Stop bitching about Monsanto and fix the law.
  Even better solution is to "fix" the Monsanto corporate board, permanently, like a gelding.
  Were you aware that the lunchrooms of Monsanto facilities explicitly prohibit GMO foods for their employees, and at the insistence of those employees? Why are Monsanto employees treated better than USA citizens? Could it be that if USA citizens were informed of the GMO origins of many of their foodstuffs, that they would knowingly & willfully boycott those products?
21. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Solandri · 2012-06-15 07:40 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  What needs to happen is for someone to patent some innocuous plant gene, let it spread throughout the world, then sue everyone. The sheer stupidity of suing people for nature running its course will then become apparent, and we'll get some court precedents established which lay waste to Monsanto's patent licensing model.
22. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by tlhIngan · 2012-06-15 07:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Why should the farmers pay for seed that Monsanto freely pollinated? No one forced Monsanto to let their plants spread that genetic material. They could require their growers to keep their plants only indoors.
  Farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for contaminating their fields if anything.
  Easy, patent law. Anyone who uses a similar implementation as a patent holder is liable, even if the two came up with it via independent means. So when the Monsanto plants pollinate yours and infect your seeds, Montsanto calls it a patent violation even though Mother Nature did it.
  That's the problem.
  And that's the issue with GMO food - a lot of it derives from Monsanto's behavior on the market - basically bullying their way into complete control of the food we eat.
  Hell, you've effectively signed the Monsanto license agreement even if someone else planted the seeds on your field.
  And really, I'm guessing that's where most of the GMO opposition is coming from - forget Apple v. Samsung, it's really Monsanto v. food supply.
23. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by X0563511 · 2012-06-15 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yep. Just because the plant can't produce a seed (pollen or no) they call it sterile.
  That's like calling a man sterile because he can't give birth.
  
  --
  For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
24. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-06-15 07:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Then they send-round the lawyers to *invade* the man's property, confirm such a machine exists, and start issuing cease-and-desist letters (presumption of guilt just because he saves his seed).
  How does that even work? I recently moved from a farming state, and I say with very little exaggeration: a corporate employee found invading a farmer's privacy like that would likely never be seen again. If parts of them were later recovered, it would almost certainly be chalked up to 1) a farming accident, 2) wildlife attack, or 3) self-defense as circumstances direct.
  I'm not talking about the stereotypical backwoods hillbillies who are protectin' their still from the revenuers, either. I know a guy who's in the process of rolling out GPS-enabled, self-driving tractors that can automatically adjust the amount of fertilizer they spray depending on what the latest satellite pictures show that a particular patch of field needs. One of my coworkers would routinely call me on his cell phone from the cab of his air-conditioned tractor when he got bored with watching TV. A modern farm is a surprisingly high-tech operation, often steered by college graduates who work other highly technical jobs during the winter months. With all that said, though, these guys are extremely protective of their farms, their families, and their livelihoods. I'll be damned if I'd want to get caught sneaking around on their property. How do Monsanto employees manage to do stuff like that without dying of acute lead poisoning?
  
  --
  Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
25. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by hairyfeet · 2012-06-15 08:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Which is why these patents scare the fuck out of me. Am I the only one that is more than a little worried that these GMOs are basically handing over control of the food supply to a single corporation? its bad enough when patents stifle innovations but we are talking about the fricking food supply folks, its not like you can just eat dirt. Since its already been proven that GMOs can contaminate nearby crops this lets them have a nice racket, where you either pay them to use their "product" or your field gets contaminated by theirs...and you pay them MORE. Does anybody else find that more than a little fucking disturbing? I mean if I dump shit in my neighbor's yard I can't force them to pay me for the privilege, so why can Monsanto do the same thing by patenting the shit?
  Finally a little weird possibly but...does anyone else look at the nasty shit Monsanto pulls and gets reminded of that scene in "Damien: Omen II" where the head of genetics at Thorn is bragging about how with control of the food supply thanks to GMOs they can pretty much call the shots? Not saying Monsanto is the debil but the way they've got GMOs rolling it does strike me that they are climbing past Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, and Blackwater on the "Holy shit, that's fucked up" scale of corporate nastiness. I mean its pretty bad when a lot of your current gameplan seems like its nicked from a movie about the rise of the fricking antichrist.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
26. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by ChromeAeonium · 2012-06-15 08:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Maybe I'm just misreading your comment, but are you implying GE crops do not produce seed? You do realize that the thing in corn, canola, cotton, and soy (four of the big GE crops) that you use is the seed? It would be news to, well, everyone if those crops did not produce seed. Learn some basic crop physiology before making obviously baseless accusations.
27. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by akboss · 2012-06-15 09:03 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  How about the court case?? http://scc.lexum.org/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.pdf (yes I know more reading)
  
  Accordingly, the cultivation of plants containing the patented gene and cell does not constitute an infringement. The plants containing the patented gene can have no stand-by value. To conclude otherwise would, in effect, confer patent protection on the plant. Since there is no claim for a “glyphosate-resistant” plant and all its offspring, saving, planting, or selling seed from glyphosate-resistant plants does not constitute an infringing use. As was done here, the respondents can still license the sale of seeds that they produce from their patented invention and can impose contractual obligations, such as prohibition on saving seeds, on the licensee.
  
  --
  "Remember, politicians and diapers should be changed often and for the same reason."
28. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by sjames · 2012-06-15 09:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Here we have some successes at UC Davis breeding resistant lettuce..
  Bolivian Cocoa farmers also managed. As a result, the DEA accidentally helped improve their yield with free roundup.
  Here we have weeds developing the trait. Certainly they didn't even have the minimal help of conventional breeding. They most certainly weren't created by GM techniques. If it can happen by accident, it can be made to happen.
29. Re:Remove the yoke of Monsanto! by kenrblan · 2012-06-15 09:54 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The better plan would be to patent a gene on a specific crop that Monsanto also produces. Buy land adjacent to one of their production farms and grow your GM version of the plant. When your modified gene shows up in the seed sold by Monsanto, you sue them extra hard.
  
  --
  Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein
Too much control by Midnight+Thunder · 2012-06-15 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

To have one company have total control over a food source is disturbing. They essentially have a monopoly and have risked destroying non GM crops through cross-contamination and I think it should be Monsanto that should be paying damages to farmers who do not want to deal with GM crops.

--
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
1. Re:Too much control by Sentrion · 2012-06-15 07:57 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If we can't feed the world's populations without genetically modifying crops and spraying all arable land with poison then maybe we should do something to curb population growth. The danger with companies like Monsanto is that rather than having a choice to use GM or conventional crops, in time GM will be the only choice and the companies will be able to dictate the price they choose rather than having fair competition and reasonably priced alternatives - if it's not too late already. It's similar to the way that medical providers in the USA dictate their prices to their patients, and the reason why medical bills are the leading cause of personal bankruptcies in the USA today. Physicians groups and hospitals blame technology for higher costs, but much of the care provided today isn't substantially better than what was offered 20 years ago, especially considering that today a large number of patients cannot continue or complete their treatment because they first run out of money.
  Free markets are great for consumer choices, like listen to radio with commercials or buy CDs without commercials. "Free markets" are not so great for "your money or your life" types of choices. Physicians, pharmaceutical sales reps, and hospital administrators don't necessarily have more education or qualifications than physicists, car salespeople, and school administrators, but the first class earns substantially higher incomes. Children need to go to school on a daily basis but only a small number will require a hospital, yet just one trip to a hospital can cost more than a year of school. The "cost" of healthcare in America is directly proportional to the lifestyles of those who control the healthcare industry. Current laws allow them to charge whatever fee they choose AFTER services are rendered while patients rarely have the ability to shop and compare providers by price, especially in emergency situations. Medical treatment is often literally not a choice - many states mandate that people provide and pay for the medically necessary care of their spouses and children, and even if you are unconscious you are liable for the cost of care you receive during your "implied consent", regardless of how many tens of thousands of dollars that may be. The only reason many ER visits can be invoiced an exact amount is because legally the hospitals cannot sue for "everything you have or ever will have" so they make up a price that closely approximates what they think this figure might be.
  Monsanto wants to have the same kind of power. To take everything you have or ever will have (or you don't get to eat). Every person NEEDS to eat every day while most people can go years without devastating medical bills just by good luck and healthy living (which, by the way, is the only reason the GOP can drum up so much anti-Obamacare sentiment - most people haven't been screwed by the system yet so Obamacare seems unnecessary in their eyes).
  Giving Monsanto or an Oligarchy of mega-corporations this kind of power will have natural consequences for all of us. I'm not saying the Monsanto or any other GM crop related company is inherently evil. It's just that the structure of our economic system leads large publicly listed companies to behave this way. Hence the universal and timeless need for regulation and oversight. Allowing companies to possess too much power or to be "too big to fail" is a failure of corporate sponsored representative democracy.
Broken business model. by RightSaidFred99 · 2012-06-15 05:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

If Monsanto can't find a way to make money on their product without special government intervention like this, their business model is broken. The point where they make money should be (only) when they sell their product to a farmer. All this bribery and whatnot to get special laws or to abuse existing laws to prop up their business model is nonsense.
And I'm not even against GM foods, I find most of those people to be clueless Luddites. I'm just against their corrupt business model enabled by corrupt governments.
1. Re:Broken business model. by h4rr4r · 2012-06-15 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  How about not letting them patent living things?
  I think that would be enough. A farmer should be able to save seed, or benefit from cross pollination. In the later case I can't even think of a reasonable argument against it. If you don't want to give away your plants genetic material then grow it indoors.
  I think GM foods are fine, and even useful, but I don't think you should be able to make your neighbors responsible for material you are spreading freely.
2. Re:Broken business model. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-15 06:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Luddites?
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/monsanto-gm-corn-causing_n_425195.html
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html
  http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Modified-Soya-Rats10oct05.htm
  basically, no one does ANY testing, they just trust that Monsanto says that it is safe,
  http://www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/Submissions/ucm161107.htm
  And please, don't get me started about "nature does it for millennia" bullshit. Nature does not insert random genes from some weird funguses or fish into corn (or other plants).
  The natural world will have NO PROBLEMS paying the price in working around these new toxins in the plants. It will take a few years and hundreds of generations of critters, but they will adapt. Are we willing to pay the same price too? Sooner or later, we may just find our that our improved food is killing us and we don't know why.
  We have evolved to eat the food we have available, not the other way around. We are FAR away from an understanding how our body works completely. We know the big picture, but that's it. So please, don't call people that question our "perfect understanding of nature" into question. You just sound like those stupid people,
  http://science.slashdot.org/story/12/06/12/2148229/why-smart-people-are-stupid
It's their business model... by jklappenbach · 2012-06-15 06:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Monsanto needs to rethink their business model. While some may have emotionally based reactions toward GM in general, the consensus is that it's an essential tool in the effort to feed the world's growing population. In order to continue, Monsanto needs to stop thinking in terms of genetics as intellectual property, and being paid for wherever their genomes spread. Instead, they need to focus on their relationship with the farmer, and making that relationship essential enough to pay for on a yearly basis. Aside from the product of seed, there are a wide number of services that Monsanto can and should be providing to farmers to help ensure that yields remain high as well as managing business and ecological concerns. Instead of alienating, they should be making themselves as useful as possible.
Finally, sanity in the courts by gstrickler · 2012-06-15 06:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

I know patents protect against independent invention, reverse engineering, etc. but if your product produces seed that "infects" another field or wind blows those seeds to another field, you are NOT entitled to royalties on those seeds.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
1. Re:Finally, sanity in the courts by Overzeetop · 2012-06-15 06:19 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Monsanto shouldn't be allowed to assert rights on second generation seeds. If they want to protect their GM products, they need to make them sterile.
  Imagine if a company used their patented method to modify your genes to fix a genetic defect in you. For $100,000 they cured your diabetes. Then what would happen if they asserted that you owed them an additional $100,000 for every child you had, and every grandchild born within the patent term? If you didn't pay per child, and they were found to have the fixed gene, you owed them $150,000 each.
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Pros of Monsanto? by s1d3track3D · 2012-06-15 06:23 · Score: 3, Interesting

So from everything I've heard and read about Monsanto, it is the epitome of evil and functions with impunity here in the US. That Brazil would be the stand up (and win) against them is very inspiring and should set an example.

However to play devil's advocate, are there any benefits to a company such as Monsanto?
1. Re:Pros of Monsanto? by HerculesMO · 2012-06-15 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  To do the research behind GM seed/food is actually a great thing; they've proven to be safe, often more nutritious, and grow with less pesticides and run-off into the ecosystem. In short, GM foods are great.
  The problem of course is that Monsanto is almost a monopoly, and they are an egregious patent abuser. That leads people like Jeffrey Smith (the "King" of the 'natural foods' movement) to capitalize on making a patent abuser also somehow relate to making an unsafe product by using dubious "evidence" to damn them. Then a bunch of morons run into the fray saying "SEE! I told you GM foods are bad for you! I'm going FULLY organic!" which basically serves no purpose than to empty your wallet faster.
  The problem is as nerds and what I hope would be a generally more scientifically "apt" community as here on Slashdot, I'd hope that we stand up for what's right and good. And GM foods are not evil. They are actually wholly beneficial to us as both an ecosystem (the human one) and as scientists who look to gain more yields and benefits through nutrition. And the Jeffrey Smiths of the world are ruining that. They are basically the equivalent of intelligent design advocates, or anti-evolution nuts. They have no place in our scientific discourse, but due to the evil that Monsanto operates with, they are given a pass because they associate the evils of PATENT abuse, to bad science. They are not one in the same.
  
  --
  The price is always right if someone else is paying.
2. Re:Pros of Monsanto? by stan_qaz · 2012-06-15 06:38 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  They and Bill Gates play well together? Google: Monsanto "Bill Gates" - but only if you want to get really aggravated.
3. Re:Pros of Monsanto? by dkleinsc · 2012-06-15 07:16 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In short, GM foods are great.
  All general statements are false. In this case, it depends a great deal on what the modifications do.
  GM plants needing less pesticide: Good. GM plants that don't produce a viable seed for the sole purpose of increasing Monsanto's profits at the expense of poor farmers in Brazil, India, and a lot of other places: Evil. And using GM patents to force all farmers in the world to buy your product: Obviously very evil.
  In a perfect world, research on GM would have been publicly funded research with no patent protection and the option of any private seed manufacturer to get in the game of producing the seeds with these modifications. That would have given us the pesticide benefits and such that you speak of, but without all the BS from Monsanto.
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Horrible summary by Lisias · 2012-06-15 07:18 · Score: 4, Informative

the Brazilian Supreme Court ruled the company must repay royalties collected over the past decade.
What?! The linked article doesn't say anything of the sort!
From the same arcticle:
"On 12 June, the judges of the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice ruled against Monsanto, deciding unanimously that the ruling by the Justice Tribune of Rio Grande do Sul, once it is made, should apply nationwide. Monsanto has declined to comment on the case."
So, Judges of Rio Grande do Sul ruled out that Monsanto should repay back the last decade royalties. And the Brazilian Supreme Court stated that once this ruling is confirmed, will be valid for the whole country!
So, yes, it says exactly that - but not directly, as any person that is not a fool can see :-)

--
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Re:What if Monsanto is less wrong? by the+eric+conspiracy · 2012-06-15 07:55 · Score: 4, Informative

I can't believe this misinformation about the Schmeiser case is so wide spread.
The reason Schmeiser lost his case was not due to a small accidental contamination of his crops. Schmeiser noticed a an area of his land that had volunteer canola plants on it, sprayed it to select for Round-Up Ready plants, saved the seed from the surviving plants, and then replanted 1000 acres with the seed, and as well resold some of the selected seed.
The result was a crop that was some 95% RoundUp ready canola due to intentional planting of selected seed.
This was a bald-faced case of intentional patent infringement, not some accidental case of a few wind pollinated plants.
From Wikipedia:
The Canadian Court's ruling concluded: ... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffsâ(TM) Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffsâ(TM) patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffsâ(TM) patent."
What if this happened with humans? by MobyDisk · 2012-06-15 08:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Suppose a company creates a way to insert a gene into a human egg, perhaps to imbue some immunity to a disease or correct for a genetic defect. Under the current law, the company could patent their new gene. Add according to Monsanto, that person's children would be using the company's gene and would have to pay a royalty for their own existence.