Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto's 'Terminator' Seeds Set To Make a Comeback
ananyo writes "Monsanto and other biotechnology firms could be looking to bring back 'terminator' seed technology. The seeds are genetically engineered so that crops grown from them produce sterile seed. They prompted such an outcry that, as Slashdot noted, Monsanto's chief executive pledged not to commercialize them. But a case in the U.S. Supreme Court could allow farmers to plant the progeny of GM seeds rather than buying new seeds from Monsanto, making the technology attractive to biotech companies again. Some environmentalists also see 'terminator' seeds as a way of avoiding GM crops contaminating organic/non-GM crops."
Reader 9gezegen adds that Monsanto is getting support, oddly, from parts of the software industry. From the NY Times: "BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might 'facilitate software piracy on a broad scale' because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file." The case was heard today; here is a transcript (PDF), and a clear explanation of what the case is about.
they'll be back
Monsanto’s reaction is that Bowman’s use of the commodity seeds plainly violates its patent. From its vantage point, Bowman might have been free to use the seeds he bought from Monsanto (on the theory that Monsanto’s patent rights for those seeds were exhausted by its sale of them), but Monsanto has never sold the seeds that Bowman bought and planted; Monsanto does not, for example, sell seeds to grain elevators. Because Monsanto has never sold those particular seeds, Bowman’s use of them to create new seeds infringes its patent as clearly as if Bowman had made a new light bulb copying Edison’s light-bulb patent.
So it has come to this: they are equivocating planting seeds with reverse engineering a light bulb.
For another thing, Monsanto’s technology agreement (signed by all farmers who purchase Roundup Ready seeds) includes provisions that prohibit Bowman’s activities. Among other things, those agreements prohibit any planting of progeny seed; the only permitted use of soybean seeds grown from Roundup Ready seeds is sale for food and the like. If the Court rules against Monsanto on the basic exhaustion question, it then must confront the controversial question (crucial to, among others, the software industry) of the enforceability of license agreements that govern the rights of users of IP-infused products. On that question, the United States (which firmly supports Monsanto on the central exhaustion question) argues that the conceded sale makes any subsequent licensing restrictions invalid as to those seeds and their progeny; not surprisingly, amici like the Business Software Alliance contest that idea.
Great, you're free to have those agreements but Bowman didn't sign it. Chase down the guy(s) that put your grain into that elevator and sue the living shit out of them. Then make sure all your current customers know that they're legally culpable for what a grain elevator does with your intellectual property. I'll be sure to remind everyone that Monsanto seed can result in ruination if they find their way back into the soil. Then we'll see how your sales do, mmkay?
My work here is dung.
Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects, then I don't see a problem with it. This is the same standard I apply to other genetically modified living things.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
What laws have they, as individuals (vs. as a corporation) broken, specifically? Exclude laws that typically do not result in prison time.
If the answer is something other than "none," then you need to ask the relevant prosecutors, not Slashdot. If the answer is "none" then there's your answer.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Assuming that the particular terminator gene doesn't have unwanted side-effects, then I don't see a problem with it. This is the same standard I apply to other genetically modified living things.
Can you tell me how much testing is done to verify these things are safe? How long and how numerous are the human trials? I mean, I've seen the tobacco industry burn people on this exact same thing before by avoiding rigorous studies. Is this stuff treated just like the FDA treats any sort of medicine that we put into our bodies or does it just get rubber stamped through like a natural food? I would be suspicious that anything developed in the past ten years or less is completely guaranteed to be safe for the duration of a human life. Also, I am rather afraid if we get to a point where symptoms develop but we can't pin down which genetically modified food is doing it because everything's genetically modified and even growing things organically doesn't mean anything because of cross pollination. If you can convince me not to worry about that, I'm all ears! For instance, increases of lead in our body looked safe cosmetically and look at all the studies coming out about that.
My work here is dung.
If this works:
Positive: Monsanto would no longer be able to sue farmers claiming that they are using Monsanto seed to produce a seed crop to use for planting the next year.
Negative: If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.
Wouldn't it be even better if they just didn't produce seeds at all?
Because if they produce seeds, even sterile ones, there's still the possibility of accidental contamination. While this might not pose any great threat to Monsanto, because of the seeds' strerility, the outcome could well be a potentially highly *reduced* crop count for places that were not ever intending to use Monsanto's seeds, spelling disaster on a global scale that could well result in the deaths of thousands, if not millions.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
To repopulate all the crops after their doomsday crops pollinate every other farmers fields and causes famine.
It's a useful technology. It can be used to prevent volunteer glyphosate-resistant corn from infesting a following glyphosate-resistant soybean crop. It can also be used to prevent the spread of "engineered" genes to wild plants and crops in nearby fields, and it can eliminate many plant-patent lawsuits.
It will have no negative impact on most farmers because most of those who plant commercial seed understand that bin-run seed does not reproduce itself well, has poor germination, and often contains weeds. There are many vendors of traditional/open-pollinating/heritage seeds out there. Buy from them if you like that sort of thing. You will then be able to replant your own seed to your heart's content.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Many crops, like corn, commonly use hybrid varieties. These varieties exhibit 'hybrid vigor', which is a result of being heterozygous - they have one set of chromosomes from parent A and the other from parent B, so for all traits they have both an A and a B gene (AB). Replanting hybrid seeds would result in plants of three types (AA, AB, BB), unfortunately the AA and BB plants are usually very inbred and have low crop yields. You can do even better yields with a double-cross, which further decreases the effectiveness of replanting.
So conventional corn farmers haven't been saving seeds to replant since the the 1930's. 'Terminator' corn therefore wouldn't be much of a change.
I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:
BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.
Software isn't self replicating, a human you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate. That's completely different than seeds that naturally replicate themselves and that replication is why you plant them in the first place. Someone could take one copy of software and install it on multiple computers, but it's not the software that's doing the replicating, it's the human.
And even if they stretch and claim that installing a program multiple times is the same as a growing plant self-replicating the seed it grew from, then there's no reason a decision against Monsanto couldn't be made narrow enough to apply only to living plants.
"that allowed Bowman to use Roundup indiscriminately to kill weeds without any risk of harming the soybean crop. "
Oh great.. what about the risk to humans who eat this shit? Are people round-up ready?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weed-whacking-herbicide-p
I keep thinking the answer to this is not biotech but robotech...how hard can it be to create an army of roombas that kill weeds? Some hyperspectral cameras, pattern recognition and burners or pullers. It has got to be possible to engineer something workable and cost effective.
Anyway here is my delimma... if Monsanto wins they will be happy which will mean I will be sad.
If the farmers win they will be happy which means we all get to eat even more shit "indiscriminately" laced with roundup.
It seems I loose either way.
I don't see how they can equate biological replication with software:
BSA/The Software Alliance, which represents companies like Apple and Microsoft, said in a brief that a decision against Monsanto might “facilitate software piracy on a broad scale” because software can be easily replicated. But it also said that a decision that goes too far the other way could make nuisance software patent infringement lawsuits too easy to file.
Software isn't self replicating, you have to explicitly make a copy of it to get it to replicate itself. That's completely different from seeds that naturally replicate themselves and which is why you plant them in the first place. You could take one copy of a program and install it on multiple computers, but the human is doing the replicating, not the software itself.
So you could perhaps expect Microsoft to release a version of Word which is compiled for 1 computer, and if it finds itself running on a different computer, it promptly deletes itself.
Doesn't MS already do that? If you install Word on another computer without a valid license key, it will either refuse to start or start a limited number of times with a nag screen warning you that it's not registered and will quit working.
If you drop a CD into the soil, it won't do anything except break down over a few million years. If you drop a CD into a computer, it still won't do anything without user intervention. It might start an auto-run routine, but it won't fully install. (Unless it's a virus or trojan, but that's another kettle of fish.)
However, if you drop a seed...well...pretty much anywhere that doesn't immediately kill it, and it gets wet? It's going to self-replicate. It will complete it's life-cycle and produce more seeds, no human intervention required.
So from a software company, this case has already been decided?
Nature has prior art. The BSA's arguments are invalid.
[End Of Line]
BSA is in the legal assault industry.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
If the gene causing infertility is transmitted via pollen, then farmers that try to produce an heirloom seed crop near a field planted with a Monsanto variety would be screwed since their seed crop could end up infertile.
This is exactly why GM seeds are illegal here in Europe (Except Spain who allow them for some reason): Fields near fields with GM crops get polluted. Sometimes people buy seeds they think are not GM but turn out to be GM and farmers are in those cases ordered to destroy their entire fields (and sometimes nearby fields) just to make sure we keep GM-genes away. Look to Europe, we have a very simple solution to this mess: Just outlaw GM and you're done.
I suspect that the US will be forced to import natural seeds from Europe if they want/need them in the near future, everything in North-America will be infected with GM seeds pretty soon if you irresponsible people in the USA keep this up.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Is it sterile? If so, what stops the owner of that plant from suing the company that made the other plant that now ruined his future livelihood by sterilizing his plants?
This is probably what would happen here in the EU, but we avoid that altogether by having laws again GMO seeds.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
Because of the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rule.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.