Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court Rules For Monsanto In Patent Case
Pigskin-Referee writes in with news of the Supreme Court's decision in a dispute between Monsanto and an Indiana farmer over patented seeds. "The Supreme Court has sustained Monsanto Co.'s claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company's patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer. The justices, in a unanimous vote Monday, rejected the farmer's argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company's Roundup herbicide. Justice Elena Kagan says a farmer who buys patented seeds must have the patent holder's permission. More than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready' seeds, which first came on the market in 1996."
It was nice knowing you farmer dale.
How does this help anyone? A local farmer is just trying to feed mouths and make ends meet yet the Big Pharma et al get to shit all over the little man once again. What little faith I have left in humanity is quickly diminishing due to these wankers.
Remember kids: What's right isn't as important as what's profitable.
This what big money can do. Boycott all of this idiots who wants to ruin our future
The simple matter is that the farmer's recourse is to now sue the seller (operator of the grain elevator), for selling seeds he is not authorized to sell, resulting in damages xzy as stipulated in the costs of the lawsuits the farmer had to defend itself against.
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
This case will join the McDonalds' spilled coffee suit in the "spark the knee-jerking hall of fame".
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
As much as the idea of patented seeds is ridiculous and dangerous (IMO), this particular argument wasn't going to fly.
The more important part of the decision (FTA): "But Kagan said the court's holding only "addresses the situation before us."" There was no wider ruling on whether seeds are patentable as IP or anything sweeping like that.
Just imagine if someone buying a computer had to get separate permission from its hundreds of patent holders after purchasing it before being able to legally switch it on?
I think it would be fairer for the "grain elevator" in this story to be one one who had to pay Monsanto.
No sig. Move along - nothing to see here.
The organic farmer selling non-GMO crops who sues for damages 'cause his plants are cross-pollenated by a neighboring farmer using GMO seeds who doesn't follow the guidelines for planting a barrier row of non-GMO plants around the edges of his field.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
IANAL, but the way I understand it, mens rea is considered a necessary element for some crimes. I will admit I did not read the article, but it sounds like the seller was the one that had mens rea to violate the patent (the validity of such patents is irrelevant to my point). I would think Monsanto would go after the seller, because it would reduce the "damage" they receive and go after the party that is truly guilty. Correct me if I am wrong, but the precedent this court opinion sets is buyer beware when it comes to patent violations?
Even if the farmer is technically a businessperson it's still clear that the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the large corporation (at the expense of everyone else), as they're now wont to do:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/business/pro-business-decisions-are-defining-this-supreme-court.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
You can't lobby the court, but you can vote with your feet. It takes time and effort though. This is just a battle that was lost, not the war.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
If these things have been sold since 1996, and presumably the patent was filed a few years before that, I guess it will expire soon...
Cross contamination is the big issue that needs to find its way into the SCOTUS dockets. Monsanto routinely goes after organic farmers whose farms were contaminated by neighboring GMO farms.
Has Monsanto proven that they have taken reasonable steps to prevent pollination where it is "unauthorized"? If my neighbor's "RoundUp Ready" (yuk, btw) crop of soybeans pollinates my field, am I just screwed?
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use!
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this - for future use.
There are competing interests here.
On one hand we have farmers who are trying to make a living growing things. They want to use Roundup Ready seeds as they have a higher yield when used with Roundup.
On the other hand we have Monsanto who spent millions of dollars creating genetically modified seeds that are resistant to their herbicides. There needs to be a way for them to make a profit from that investment.
The issues; If there is no patent protection the seed manufacturer would have to make all their investment back in one year as any subsequent seeds can be saved and re-sold by farmers. Where is the incentive to invest in the technology if there is no way to benefit from it?
On the other side there are lawsuits that being filed against farmers who's crops are infected by stray seeds from nearby fields. Though on closer examination some of the suits are against farmers who are deliberately killing most of their crop with Roundup, by over spraying, so they can isolate the volunteer plants and use their seeds for the next year's crops. That is not normal farming practice and is designed to get around the patent.
Monsanto has gone overboard in a few cases but in many cases it is well justified in protecting its business. Perhaps patent laws could be modified so that the time to recoup investment is shorter and the patent ends sooner.
I propose a new law that states that a) seeds cannot be patented; b) inserting termination genes into plants intended for human or livestock consumption is a criminal offense (think of our future children, seriously). In addition, any corp which tries it is to be disbanded and its assets seized.
Sounds like Monsanto is at fault here. Not the farmer who "produced" the seeds nor the farmer who bought them. If they wanted to be the sole producer, they shouldn't have been selling self-contained seed factories with every seed purchased.
This is how the US legal system is designed to work.
Look up the ramifications of GMOs. I'm suprised it's not outlawed yet. But too much money churning I guess.
I'm impressed! You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
SCOTUS proves they are suckling off the teats of big business. They should all be impeached and removed. They are all a disgrace.
I agree with the other posters that THIS case certainly seems like the defendant was trying to avoid paying for a copyrighted good. However, what I don't understand is that a seed differs from most other copyrighted works in a very special way: it is self replicating. It would be as if I made a useful piece of software that sends out copies of itself to random people (aside from its useful part). Then when I found someone who was using one of the copies it sent out I would sue them. This sounds like how the RIAA would upload songs to torrent sites then sue the people who downloaded them. How is this reasonable? Sure Monsanto has a patent on the genes (something I also disagree with) in the seed but it is putting those genes into a product which spews itself out into the world. Shouldn't a patent/copyright holder hold some responsibility for not disseminating their own product?
Can't you build a patented device personally without a license?
The crux here seems that seeds for sowing are protected by the patent, but NOT protected for consumption. If this farmer purchased seed from a third party, and then used these seeds only for internal sowing use, only selling his seed for consumption - is that an actual violation? I (perhaps mistakenly) understood that you were allowed to build anything for your own use without patent licensing fees, but you could not sell those same items for commercial gain. If he's not selling GM seeds for sowing, and only for consumption (and sells them under that condition), he's not violating the patent.
Example: I make, in my backyard, a patented Soybean Harvester out of plans I obtained from the USPTO, or by taking pictures and measurements of my neighbor's. I then use that to harvest my soybeans. It works so well I make three more for my farm. When they break down, I re-build them. Am I liable for patent infringement? I'm not selling the patented Harvester - only using it myself.
I'm sure there are not-lawyers here who can sort this out.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Anyone who does n't think the deck is stacked against the
little guy is a naive chump.
And decisions like this prove it.
the supreme court justices have below-average IQs? they never seem to make an argument without numerous fallacies.
He was trying to use patent law to void a contract. The ruling clearly states he would not found himself in trouble if he was using the seeds for his own use, but instead he bought seeds counting on the fact that some would have the anti-Round up gene.
Read the NYT article http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Instead of butting heads with Monsanto over this, why not create a new variety from scratch? These kinds of genetic manipulations have gotten a lot simpler and cheaper over the last two decades. A group of farmers or a non-profit should be able to do it.
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed, and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand, and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
I am not clear on this farmer’s specific case, but Monsanto has lost all rights to protect its patent on any seeds that it allowed to be planted in a non-environmentally control environment, AKA outdoors. Our legal system cannot supersede the basics facts of nature.
If you allow your patented seeds to be planted out doors and allow their pollen to escape freely into the wind, you have no right to tell anyone that they have no right to use seeds produced from their own non-Monsanto plants that happened to have been inadvertently pollenated by Monsanto’s insufficient processes and out right failure to adequately protect its own patent. At best the only recourse that Monsanto has is to fully compensate the lost seed and potential crop of any person that has seeds of this kind in exchange for destroying them.
Monsanto cannot legally protect a patent for seed that they have knowing allowed and opening allowed to enter the world’s ecosystem. There are forces there that no court has the juristiction to control. This is not as simple as returning a lost bag of money found on the side of the road. This is Mother Nature doing what it does. Monsanto is aware of this issue and knows how to protect their patent by only allowing their seeds to be planted inside environmentally controlled green houses. This is a failure on their part to protect their patent.
By the way Monsanto did not create the genes that make this seed resistant. They genes came from another public plant that anyone can own. All they truly should have been allowed to patent was the process of adding the genes to the soybean. They don’t own the genes; and no court has the authority to give the sole right to use the genes to anyone entity. The genes are publicly owed when in the original plant or any other plant that nature choses.
You're going to need to provide some actual documentation of your claims other than your own personal (non-lawyer) logic for that. Just because you personally feel that they aren't allowed to do something doesn't mean that they actually aren't. The legal system currently allows them to file these patents, and protect them, and they've been winning their court cases.
Observations of reality conflicting with an elegant theory means the elegant theory is wrong, not that we should plug our ears and cover our eyes yelling "LA LA LA THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN!"
According to observations of reality, they do, in the eyes of the law, own those genes, and not only can defend them, but do.
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed - and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
If the Supreme Court is going to help Monsanto shove GM down farmer's throats, I want it to stop there. I want products made with Monsanto's GM products to be labeled as such so that I can choose to buy them or not, depending on what I want. It is utterly unethical to allow Monsanto to make money with patents on this stuff while simultaneously hiding it from consumers, blocking them from being able to choose whether or not to support what's happening with their dollars.
Sorry, but the patent only applies to the seed made/raised by Monsanto.
Once it's been through a single planting / harvesting - it is no long the exact same seed - mutations have set in.
Unless it is 100% genetically identical to the seed sold by Monsanto, whether or not it carries the RR gene sequence is irrelevant - the patent applies to the entire gene sequence, not just the bit that makes it RR.
So once a single dna chain is modified (ie through natural selection) - it is no longer the patented product.
End of story.
The judges are WRONG.
Whilst it is apparent that this farmer was deliberately circumventing the patent in this case, if one were to wish to produce a roundup-ready crop "naturally", this would be exactly the way it would be done. Unfortunately, because of Monsanto, it would be a lot harder to do than without as now you have to compensate for the possibility of contamination.
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand - and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
...his only recourse is suicide, like the India farmers.
God bless Monsanto with the highest wisdom and integrity!
The ruling is here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
It's not too long and is interesting. Read it before complaining too much.
What fantastic gains:
Killing 90% of amphibians
Wiping out bee colonies
Killing thousands of farmers
Causing widespready obesity diseases
I'm sure there are lots more. This is just the tip of the iceberg. They will suck the planet and humanity dry, and vanish like a puff of smoke when everything collapses due to their greed and harmful actions.
farming. SCNR. Something's wrong when farmers need a legal department and have to read and comply with license agreements. In the old days, when everything -- even nostalgia -- was better, we'd shake our heads at the notion that life could be patented.
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
It is worth adding that both of the Monsanto patents mentioned in the Supreme Court judgment either are, or will shortly become, history. The Supreme Court judgment itself can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf.
One of the Monsanto patents is U.S. Patent 5,352,605, issued October 4, 1994 http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,352,605.PN.&OS=PN/5,352,605&RS=PN/5,352,605
and the other is U.S. Patent RE 39,247E, a reissue of U.S. Patent Number 5,633,435, originally issued May 27, 1997
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,633,435.PN.&OS=PN/5,633,435&RS=PN/5,633,435.
Both these were filed before mid-1995 (see linked information at US Patent Office website) , and so they seem to have arisen from the 'old-law' US patent regime, when the patent term used to be '17 years from issue date'. Under that old regime the normal expiry dates for these two patents would be October 2011 and May 2014 (unless Monsanto manages for any reason to obtain some patent-term extension).
(The current patent-term regime doesn't seem to apply to these two, but if the last patent applications in the chains leading to these patents had been filed under the current law, with a 20-year term from application date, then the normal expiry dates would have been determined from the earliest dates in the chains of patent applications from which the two patents eventually issued. These chains began in 1983 and 1990, and would have led to normal expiry dates in 2003 and 2010, so the patents would on that basis already have been history for some time now.)
-wb-
Turns out, the patent expires soon. Monsanto seems to be pretty reasonable about it:
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx
After patent expiration, you can use the old soybeans royalty free. Or you can choose the newer, higher-yield varieties they have constructed since (and that will themselves expire at some point).
Seems to me the patent system here is actually working as it should.
1. make GMO seeds
2. contaminate the seed supply around the nation
3.??????
4. sue for profits
this is a travesty of justice, that farmer can not know where those seeds came from if he got them unlabeled at a grain mill, the judge that ruled in favor of Monsanto should know better, either that or Monsanto bribed or blackmailed him, this stinks like a dead fish
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
I'd say that Monsanto loses a lot of protection for failing to properly label their self-replicating devices as patented.
Most other similar products would carry a stamp or imprint somewhere stating "Patent No. 1231235677" to avoid any confusion, especially when they could easily be mistaken for a non-patented alternative (in this case natural soybeans).
If it was that tough, the other farmer not using the modified seed would have a competitive advantage, and mosanto would see its revenue dry up. I am willing to bet they set up the price of the seed so that it is not too painful as to kill the market, but more expansive as still make it a good revenue source for them. If it was not the case, you would not have the 90% using the modified seed.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The Golden Rule- he who has the gold makes the rules. In the USA, the Founding Fathers, apart from almost all of them having a liking for raping child slaves, had a taste for 'no risk' financial investments. Thus, US politicians, under the excuse of 'independence' of the three branches of government, were given carte blanche to indulge in insider-trading.
Monsanto has made thousands of US politicians multi-millionaires. As a consequence, Monsanto is above the law, or IS the law, depending on how you view the situation. The USA is built on a level of corruption greater than any seen in Human History. The deal is that while the populace of the US benefit from their system of governance, they turn a blind eye to the excesses of the elites that actually run the nation. Of course, this is only sustainable if the US operates as an ever growing empire, sucking the resources from 'slave' nations to keep its own population rich and happy. Sooner or later the this strategy leads to planetary war.
The 'downside' of Monsanto is best understood through the examples of AIDS and BSE (mad-cow disease). Both of these biological disasters were results of Man's unregulated science. AIDS when experimental oral-polio vaccines were manufactured using monkeys, breaking all known protocols. BSE when farm animals were industrially converted into food for other farm animals, breaking farming protocols that Man had understood since before written language was invented. Monsanto operates specifically and deliberately using the same methods that gave us AIDS and BSE.
Monsanto seeks to 'hack' nature for a cheap immediate profit just as those East European criminals hack your computer with malware. And be in no doubt- those East European hackers work for companies every bit as well connected to the rulers of the Ukraine as Monsanto is linked to the rulers of the USA.
Places like Slashdot exist to convince the stupid that hacking nature is 'cool' and 'clever' (just as earlier computer hackers were portrayed as 'cool' and 'clever'). You are encouraged to NEVER ask "where will this end up" or "what are the worst accidents hacking nature can cause". Remember how shills for the nuclear industry told you that nuclear power stations were so safe by design, we were likely to see only one major accident every hundred thousand years at worst?
The politicians who grant Monsanto unlimited power are like that perverted criminal who kidnapped those three women as sex slaves. He, and they operate without care for the long term future of anything. They live for the minute, seeking to maximise their immediate goals- the future be damned. The sex criminal couldn't care less that one day he would be caught. The politicians couldn't care less that one day millions of Humans will pay for 'mistakes' by Monsanto.
The 'Monsanto' effect can be seen in that sickening act of industrial mass-murder in Bangladesh that gets so little news coverage. So what if near 1.5 THOUSAND workers are murdered when their substandard building collapses, so long as the richest and most powerful clothing groups in the USA and Europe get their clothes at rock-bottom prices (before adding their MASSIVE mark-ups).
Monsanto says "you may not plant that seed that you own" just as American politicians before 1860 said "of course you can rape that child slave you own". In both cases, the Supreme Court of the USA agreed. Nothing to do with right and wrong. Nothing do do with natural justice or morality. No, it is just evil it its most vile and obvious form- evil that gifts powerful people with situations that they desire.
Monsanto's monoculture crop is a global disaster waiting to happen. The first disease that comes along which has evolved to target Monsanto's GM plants will wipe out a HUGE portion of the world's food supply.
But what if some human disease was engineered and passed around the globe in an epidemic which rendered people allergic to Monsanto's GM crops? Now we've got a world of useless and even dangerous plants which are essentially out of control.
And to top it all off? You might be able to sue all the sick people who contract the disease! :) Did you forget to patent the genetic material of your new disease?
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could... understand, and made the subject intriguing, for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
What if I done some selection with my seeds (clean from Monsanto stuff) by spraying small amounts of Roundup and then bringing the most resistive seeds. Possibly after few generations I could come with seeds quite ressistive to Roundup. Possibly crossbreading with Mosanto seeds might be involved, but how could it be proved? Would it be illegal to grow plants resistive to Roundup? And where would be the line between legal and illegal?
They were selling the soybeans for 'feed, milling, and other uses'. Not for seed to be planted.
Well clearly Monsanto need to add DRM to their seeds because we can't have people buying seeds and then using them in an unlicensed fashion. I suppose the method that would work best in this case is to install a root kit.
I see a lot of people arguing that Monsanto should not have the right to control how successive generations of their product be created.
I wonder how of those same people argue that pet b readers should not have the right to require that people buying their pets have those pets spayed or neutered?
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent! You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
The seller was legitimately selling the produce as food, not as seeds for future planting. The seller was open about the fact that these were genetically modified soy beans and that there may or may not be restrictions on the use of said beans for any other purpose than food. The farmer knowingly bought these soy beans as genetically modified and for food purposes. The farmer is the one deciding to break the copyright and use the beans as seeds. This says nothing about the silliness of the copyright, but it does say something about the liability of the seller of the genetically modified beans.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
Why do Monsanto execs get to go through life fucking everyone and everything in their path and nothing can be done about it?
mutant salad with poison dressing, frankly we don't want this stuff on our planet in the first place. We need to BAN genetically modified food and start cutting the balls off of people who think it's still cool to have twelve kids
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent... you wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
Monsanto doesn't have a case unless someone uses RoundUp or one of the generic alternatives on the "polluted" seeds.
I'm... impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
We should all boycott anything with Monsanto in it. I sure will.
As for the idiots in the Supreme Court, they are just looking for their envelopes with cash.
Monsanto doesn't try to sue people affected by accidental pollenation.
It's only in cases like Percy Schmieser who intentionally selected seeds that were accidentally pollenated by use of Roundup to obtain 2nd or third genaration seed collection that have a high percentage of RoundUp resistance that Monsanto considers to be infringing.
That's incorrect. No matter how self-consistent the set of rules making up US law; no matter how well-studied; no matter how well-discussed - objectively, they are no more valid than the GPs own set of beliefs.
Where they do differ and where most seem to find illusory objective validity is in the increasing acts of punishment that will be handed-out for failing to act as if the set of rules are indeed objectively valid.
Ultimately, for all our sophistication and rationalization, this is what 'civilization' comes to... "do what I say, or else!"
Requiem for the American Dream
Lot's of folks got dogs in this race. Farmer was an idiot to push this one.
-- Jimtown Kelly
So by that logic, if you happen to stumble upon the plates used to print currency, you have a free hand to print your own money?
This is in contrast to Canola (rapeseed), which pollinates like a weed and has a very light seed. Monsanto has also generated a 'roundup ready' canola plant, that is very much at risk of invading into other farms unbidden.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
"protecting a patent" is not required, you're confusing patent law with trademarks.
Monsanto can't blame people who accidentally get pollen and thus genetic material from their seeds, but when the farmer goes about using Roundup on these cultures, that's another problem.
They genes came from another public plant that anyone can own
The genes came from a bacteria called Agrobacterium tumefaciens
They don’t own the genes; and no court has the authority to give the sole right to use the genes to anyone entity. The genes are publicly owed when in the original plant or any other plant that nature choses.
The genes aren't in a plant that 'nature chose', and genes are patentable "if they are sufficiently "isolated" from their naturally occurring states", i.e. manipulated to be expressed in an organism they aren't naturally found in, as was done with round-up ready soybeans.
Not that I like Monsanto, but they are within the law as currently written to patent their round up ready plants.
The People of the World should burn Mosanto to the ground.
90% of the American soy is Mosanto. And Mosanto "owns" all the seed. This is fucking ludicrous. Dangerous. And potentially such a threat to humanity. That I don't see how the mere "benefit for innovation" does not outweigh the threat. In which case, these patents should be deemed null and void.
So if Mosanto winds up destroying a key crop such as corn or soy. What then? risking such is unacceptable. Nor is letting a company claim ownership of an entire food product (eg: soy, corn, etc).