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.

14 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. So you're saying, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    they'll be back

    1. Re:So you're saying, by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well DUH! Whenever some CEO says "We won't do it" as soon as something they planned (read: quietly announced to test the waters) caused a public outcry, it only means "we're waiting for you to be occupied with something else".

      They invested money inventing it, it benefits them, they won't just "forget" about it. They wait for YOU to forget about it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  2. I Can't Believe This by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:I Can't Believe This by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Except no one in that chain did anything wrong.

      1) Farmer A buys seed from Monsanto
      2) Farmer A grows crop, harvests and sells the result as feed (which they are allowed to do under their license agreement)
      3) Farmer B buys feed from the silo (which is legal for both farmer B and the silo)

      All of that is legal, and no one, not even Monsanto argues against it. Where it gets (a tiny bit) murkier is:

      4) Farmer B realizes that most of his feed is round up ready, plants it
      5) Farmer B sprays the field with round up
      6) Farmer B harvests the result, 100% (or near enough) round up ready seed obtained without signing any agreements with Monsanto

      Monsanto's argument will be that by spraying the field with round up, farmer B was deliberately selecting for the gene that Monsanto has patented. It's a grey area in the law, which is why it's gone to the supreme court. And the annoying thing is, even after the case is decided there's going to be all kinds of wiggle room for both sides of the argument to continue litigating to their heart's content.

    2. Re:I Can't Believe This by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Monsanto's argument will be that by spraying the field with round up, farmer B was deliberately selecting for the gene that Monsanto has patented.

      Saving the best of a crop for next year's planting is also a time honored farming method. Selecting for some quality that is already present in your crop is perfectly normal. It was how crops were improved over centuries. One could probably get by using round up every other year, then Monsanto would be going after grandchild crops.

      Because Monsanto can tweak this crop annually (on once every 17 years, or never, and just pretend they did), this is a patent that will never expire. There has to be some limits, and now is a good time to set them.

      Lets just imagine this same technique is applied to controlling human genetics. Imagine parents paying for a in vitro genetic treatment that prevents cancer (or something) forever. Then the company come's after the children, demanding payment before the are allowed to procreate. This is a dangerous precedent to set.

      So is terminator seed. Big fire at Monsanto, and the world starves because no seed grows? Stupid.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:I Can't Believe This by budgenator · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually it does work that way, under the uniform commercial code if you buy something that was stolen, from a business that normally sells those good, the seller is liable not the purchaser. I learned that by watching a case being argued in court; a marina traded a boat to a sign company in exchange for services rendered, the marina failed to inform the bank of the sale of the boat to have it removed from their floor-plan loan, the bank then sued the sign company for the boat and lost because the sign company had no reason to believe that a profession boat seller was selling stolen boats.
      Likewise why would a farmer assume that an elevator whose business is selling seeds and feed be seller stolen seed?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  3. Why should they be? by davidwr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Been Raped By Companies Too Many Times to Count by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm all ears!

      So is the corn.

  5. Good only for Monsanto. by holmstar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Good only for Monsanto. by crath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      This is exactly what will happen, and so Monsanto will put and end to many farmers' current practice of saving part of this years crop as next year's seed--since their seed yield will be reduced they negatively impact their future yield due to a percentage of the seed being sterile.

  6. Re:Sounds like a good idea to me by ArhcAngel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    First define "unwanted" and then tell me how you determine them without them actually happening? Let's say for instance they cross pollinate with another crop and sterilize that crop as well. Which in turn cross pollinates ad nauseum until there are no fertile seeds. Far fetched perhaps but not unthinkable.

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  7. Time to start some serious seed banks by twistofsin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To repopulate all the crops after their doomsday crops pollinate every other farmers fields and causes famine.

  8. Hybrid seeds already aren't good for replanting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.