Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court To Decide If Monsanto GMO Patents Are Valid

Posted by timothy on from the he-said-kill-it-before-it-grows dept.

tomhath writes with this exerpt from a Reuters story: "The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear an Indiana farmer's appeal that challenges the scope of Monsanto Co.'s patent rights on its Roundup Ready seeds. Mr. Bowman bought and planted 'commodity seeds' from a grain elevator. Those soybean seeds were a mix and included some that contained Monsanto's technology. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case over the objections of the Obama administration, which had urged the justices to leave the lower court rulings in place."

12 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. If you thought the utility monopolies were bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait for the food monopolies... oh wait, they're already here.

  2. I still think this guy should countersue . . . by mmell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After all, the manufacture, distribution and use of Monsanto's GM product is presumably regulated by some governmental agency? I tend to think that FDA is involved, at least? Monsanto's seed got onto that farmer's land without his knowledge or consent, and the potential damages he could suffer as a result of Monsanto's technology being inadvertently deployed on his land are demonstrably quite large. The ultimate fault is Monsanto's, for failing to adequately control their genetically modified produce's growth and proliferation.

    1. Re:I still think this guy should countersue . . . by terminal.dk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      He can probably not sell his seeds to Europe, we do not like genetically modified foods here. We let the americans be the Guinea Pigs of their own products.
      It seems like the US Government has the same slogan like "The Body Shop" when it comes to food: "Product not tested on animals". There is enough humans to test on.

    2. Re:I still think this guy should countersue . . . by mindwhip · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't that like blaming the copyright holder for not controlling distribution?

      It's more like a record company breaking into your home and replacing half your CDs with their own, then demanding 100x the value of the CD from everyone that complained to the police about the break in.

      --
      [The Universe] has gone offline.
    3. Re:I still think this guy should countersue . . . by Warhawke · · Score: 5, Informative

      Incorrect. Monsanto seed did NOT drift onto Bowman's land without his knowledge or consent. Thus far, no such case has been litigated where seed drift or cross-pollination has occurred. Obviously that is a very big question that will come out of this ruling, should the court find for Monsanto, as it will arguably put the onus of burden on farmers to test for and destroy infringing crops caused by cross pollination. That issue, however, is not in debate here.

      Bowman realized that a staggering percentage of soybean seeds on the commodity market were Roundup-Ready GM seeds. Normally a farmer has to sign a contract that he will not replant any additional seeds and will buy future generations of seeds from Monsanto. Replanting seeds for these farmers has not been considered a patent infringement but instead a contract violation. The patent infringement idea was unprecedented until this case. Bowman, who had not signed a Monsanto contract, simply decided to buy contract-free seeds on the commodity market, as Monsanto-contracted growers can sell the seeds they are not allowed to replant for general purposes such as food production. Bowman had the novel idea to take these seeds and plant them, spray the seeds with Roundup (thus killing off all the non-Roundup-Ready seeds), and have contract-free Roundup-ready seeds that he could replant at will. Monsanto, which monitors the purchase of Roundup to Roundup-ready seeds under contract, determined Bowman had purchased enough Roundup to be running an un-contracted operation. Unable to ping him on the contract issue, they requested him to stop. He refused, and they sued under the patent infringement theory.

      The question that will be debated here is whether or not subsequent generations of Roundup-Ready crops, by the act of growing them, independently constitute patent infringement. Normally for infringement to occur there has to be some performative action. Monsanto is arguing (and the lower court agreed) that the performative act of planting the seeds in the first place is sufficient to transfer infringement to subsequent generations, and therefore the plants can essentially infringe upon each new growth without Bowman's performative action on subsequent growings.

      It may seem pretty dumb, but it has the potential to majorly impact the food industry. If the court finds for Monsanto, the "auto-infringing crop" theory would make accidental infringers of any farmer who encountered cross-pollination or seed drift. Although no such cross-pollination has been successfully argued -- in all cases where farmers have brought this defense, it has been very well proven that they were lying through their teeth and had planted Monsanto crops in violation of their contract. Conversely, if the court finds for Bowman, this would in effect nullify Monsanto's patent protection on their seeds, as no farmer would buy from the developer, bound to a contract, where they could just go out and buy commodity seed at a fraction of the cost.

      I've researched GMO patent intensively, written articles, and have followed the case for a while now. I think the one constant among GMO patent cases is that both sides -- Monsanto and farmers alike -- have done nothing but provide a tremendous amount of misinformation about the other side. No party line can be trusted. Monsanto argues that they're just trying to make a living and don't gouge anyone, being a humble food producer. Farmers argue that they're being put upon by the big corporate food monopoly and haven't done anything inappropriate other than try to grow organic foods. Both sides are lying and are trying to wage war to maximize their profits. Being as rabidly anti-DRM as we are, I suppose Slashdot readers will support the farmers. Either way, this issue is pretty big for determining whether the judiciary is embracing the pendulum swinging back to more restrictive patents or is continuing the trend of expansive patent protections.

      Also worth noting, Monsanto's patents on Roundup-Ready soybeans are set to expire in the next few years, IIRC. The question is going to be entirely academic and legal and will likely have no effect on Roundup-ready crops at all after the patent expires.

    4. Re:I still think this guy should countersue . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This Venn diagram might be handy for ya...
      http://geke.us/MonsantoVenn.html

      Shows just how many foxes we have guarding the so-called henhouse without much oversight. Definitely a problem when people who are trusted to make public decisions are too heavily weighed by their own personal economic interests. (If it makes their stock shares go up, what the fuck do they care about the rest of us?) Revolving door policy is worse than insider trading in some regards.

      At least that diagram will give you names to start with, the rest would still be up to you to research.

  3. Why is the Obama administration objecting ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case over the objections of the Obama administration ...

    Why is the Obama administration trying so hard to stop the Supreme Court from hearing this case?
     
    Can someone fill me in, please?
     
     
     
     
     
     

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Why is the Obama administration objecting ? by Mathinker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      since there was an article recently showing that both the GMO strain and roundup itself cause cancer.

      The research methods used in that article have been criticised by a lot of people. Not all published scientific articles are correct.

    2. Re:Why is the Obama administration objecting ? by pseudofrog · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't base your opposition to GMO on that study:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/
      http://www.geekosystem.com/no-corn-data-for-esfa/
      ...and many, many more.

    3. Re:Why is the Obama administration objecting ? by Alarash · · Score: 5, Interesting
      To be precise, the criticism was based on the fact that the authors of the study didn't release all of their findings because they want to point out that the European Union didn't publish all the findings of the studies allowing GMO on the market.

      And the author claims that a lot of the feedback is lobbying from Monsanto and others, but I can't objectively decide if that's true or not.

    4. Re:Why is the Obama administration objecting ? by pseudofrog · · Score: 5, Informative

      There were many, many criticisms, including:
      1) The fact that the control group contained 10 mice. That's right. 10 mice.
      2) Risk didn't scale with dose
      3) One of the authors is a homeopath, and both have a long history of making dubious (at best) claims about GMO
      4) The rats who were given water laced with Round-Up lived longer than the control group. If you believe GMO causes cancer based on this study, you should also be trumpeting the fact that Round-Up seems to prevent cancer
      5) The rats used develop tumors at a very high rate

      The study is beyond flawed or problematic. It's worthless, and it should be disregarded entirely by serious scientists and policy-makers.

  4. Truthout lies about Monsanto v. Geertson by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Informative

    Elena Kagan was Solicitor General in 2009 when, according to Truthout.org, "the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the previous ruling and placed a nationwide ban on Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa." Again from Truthout.org, "In March 2010, a month before the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case, the solicitor general's office released a legal brief despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case." This brief argued that "The judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed, and the case should be remanded with instructions to vacate the permanent injunction entered by the district court." However, as far as I can determine, Kagan never worked for Monsanto.

    Its also worth noting that the Truthout.org claim that the Solicitor General "released a legal brief despite the fact that the US government was not a defendant in the case" is a bald-faced lie. The US government was the original defendant in the case at the trial level, which was a challenge that various government entities, particularly the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, had violated the federal law in the process of approving Round-Up Ready Alfalfa without an Environmental Impact Statement. Monsanto was not an original party to the case at trial level, but was an intervenor at trial after the decision and in the remedy phase. The U.S. briefs at the Supreme Court were not non-party amicus briefs, they were briefs "for federal respondents". Documents relating to the case are available at SCOTUSblog.