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."

Comments

The farmer's recourse is to sue to sell

[Fallen Kell]

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.

Re:The farmer's recourse is to sue to sell

[berashith]

I was wondering why Monsanto didnt sue the elevator instead. Obviously sueing your distributor and claiming they have no right to sell is a short sighted activity, but they are the ones who violated the contract. I just cant wrap my head around the concept that you can purchase something not under contract, that someone else can then come along and sue you for having purchased under incorrect terms.

I guess the car analogy is that if you buy a stolen car, you are in possession of a stolen vehicle , but the real wrong doer is the guy selling 50 stolen cars on his used car lot.

Re:The farmer's recourse is to sue to sell

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the car analogy is that the Toyota you bought drives past a Honda and gets some of the exhaust residue on it. Then the guys from Honda come around, swab your car, say that it tests positive for being a Honda, and rape you over the table.

The seeds he bought weren't Monsanto seeds, they had just been pollinated (contaminated) by Monsanto plants that were upwind. The Monsanto genetic pollen is now all over his field, and any new soy beans he plants will have the Monsanto genetic fingerprint, meaning he will never be able to buy another brand ever again.

I think an enterprising lawyer should partner up with a genetic testing company and go around to the small farmers to test their seeds before they plant to certify them as Monsanto GM free. Then periodically test the plants throughout the season, and as soon as any sign of Monsanto contamination shows up, sue Monsanto and every farmer within 30 miles that uses Monsanto seed for environmental contamination and plant rape.
Huge class action damages here.

Re:Rock and a hard place

[The Rizz]

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?

The logical fallacy here is that selling the seeds is the only way they profit from this. The true fact is that they created the seeds to sell Roundup, which previously could not be used by farmers without killing the crops. They discovered that because of how fucked-up patent law is, they could also force the farmers to re-buy the seeds from them every year, in addition to buying the Roundup.

This is not an issue of Monsanto not getting their money out of the research - the yearly sale of Roundup in vast quantities to the farmers does that. It's an issue of Monsanto using a broken patent system to double-dip into farmers' pockets after locking them into the seeds.

Re:So much for that!

[MrLint]

Its worse than that. When monsanto's "patented" pollen contaminate non GMO plants, the offpring is suddenly monsanto's property.

Re:So much for that!

[ColdWetDog]

Oh BS. There are plenty of high yield seed varieties that aren't own by Monsanto or anyone else. Besides 'Roundup Ready' is just a gene for Roundup resistance and the weeds have already appropriated said gene for their own purposes, thankyouverymuch. The way to feeding the world's poor is not to rely on herbicide resistance.