Yahoo/AP: High-stakes fight over soybeans at high court

Link.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vernon Hugh Bowman seems comfortable with the old way of doing things, right down to the rotary-dial telephone he said he was using in a conference call with reporters.

But the 75-year-old Indiana farmer figured out a way to benefit from a high-technology product, soybeans that are resistant to weed-killers, without always paying the high price that such genetically engineered seeds typically bring. In so doing, he ignited a legal fight with seed-giant Monsanto Co. that has now come before the Supreme Court, with argument taking place Tuesday.

The court case poses the question of whether Bowman's actions violated the patent rights held by Monsanto, which developed soybean and other seeds that survive when farmers spray their fields with the company's Roundup brand weed-killer. The seeds dominate American agriculture, including in Indiana where more than 90 percent of soybeans are Roundup Ready.

Monsanto has attracted a bushel of researchers, universities and other agribusiness concerns to its side because they fear a decision in favor of Bowman would leave their own technological innovations open to poaching. The company's allies even include a company that is embroiled in a separate legal battle with Monsanto over one of the patents at issue in the Bowman case.

The Obama administration also backs Monsanto, having earlier urged the court to stay out of the case because of the potential for far-reaching implications for patents involving DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies.

Monsanto's opponents argue that the company has tried to use patent law to control the supply of seeds for soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. The result has been a dramatic rise in seed prices and reduced options for farmers, according to the Center for Food Safety. The group opposes the spread of genetically engineered crops and says their benefits have been grossly overstated.

"It has become extremely difficult for farmers to find high-quality conventional seeds," said Bill Freese, the center's science policy analyst.

As I understand the issues:

1) Monsanto makes a pesticide, Roundup, which they sell.

2) But, the pesticide also hurts the plants that it protects.

3) Monsanto also makes plants, which have been genetically engineered, so that Roundup doesn't hurt them as much. Monsanto gets to sell both the pesticide, and the plants that are resistant to it.

4) Problem for Monsanto is, these seeds they sell, well, they grow into plants, and those plants make seeds, and the seeds that the plants make also have the genetic resistance.

5) So, when a farmer buys the engineered seeds, he also agrees to a contract, in which he promises that he will not use the seeds that his plants produce, as seeds for the next crop. He has to buy new seeds form Monsanto, for every crop.

6) So, Farmer X buys seeds from Monsanto. Plants them. Raises a crop. Harvests it. Sells the soybeans at the local grain elevator. (And then he buys more seeds from Monsanto, and plants them, and starts his next crop.)

7) The grain elevator buys soybeans from all the local formers, both the patented ones and the natural ones. And then they sell the soybeans to all kinds of customers. Both big industrial customers, and local users. (For example, ranchers buy them to feed to livestock.)

8) Farmer Y buys soybeans from the grain elevator, and uses them for seed. He figures that a high percentage of them are patented seed (since most of the local farmers use the patented seed). They aren't all patented, but most of them are.

Now, Monsanto is claiming that their genetically engineered product, which they hold the patent on, is covered by their contract (which forbids using engineered beans for seed.)

The farmer is claiming that he didn't agree to Monsanto's contract, because he didn't buy the seeds from Monsanto.

----------

There's all kinds of ways I can see this thing argued. To me, one of the main ones is: If a company owns a patent on a life form, then does their patent give them the power to punish me, if their life form reproduces? Me, or anyone else who that life form comes into contact with?

----------

I will observe that no, I am not intending to start a thread about whether you think genetic engineering, or engineered food, are evil or some such.

I would think it comes down to whether or not the grain elevator has a contract as a reseller, and if they do, are their products governed by any contracts with Monsanto.

But i am about as far removed an expert as it gets in this stuff.

~Bang

No reason anothers contract should be binding on the farmer...if they don't want them on the market they need to buy them

add

ask yourself what the product markup is on these seeds if the farmer is willing to buy a inferior product(mixed beans)

8) Farmer Y buys soybeans from the grain elevator, and uses them for seed. He figures that a high percentage of them are patented seed (since most of the local farmers use the patented seed). They aren't all patented, but most of them are.

Now, Monsanto is claiming that their genetically engineered product, which they hold the patent on, is covered by their contract (which forbids using engineered beans for seed.)

You forgot step 9:

He then sprays said beans with roundup to kill anything without said genes.

I'm good with steps 1-8. When you do step 9, I'd say you are trying to circumvent a patent.

You guys forgot the most important element in all this:

10) Greed!

he bought beans w/o a patent or warranty

he bought beans w/o a patent or warranty

The beans are patented. A warranty is irrelevant.

I'm not saying what he did was illegal. I don't know the law.

But he absolutely purposely and knowingly took advantage of something being patented without worrying about the patent (i.e. paying the patent holder).

At some level, it is no different than going and buying a car with some new patents and the doing whatever you have to do to create the parts that are patented in the car for your own economic benefit.

In this case, he had to spray them with round up.

Tell the auto industry that the patents related to cars are irrelevant after they've sold a single car with the patented technology.

**EDIT**

And buying a car second hand doesn't mean then I get to reverse engineer the patents on the car and use them for my benefit either.

The patents still exist.

You forgot step 9:

He then sprays said beans with roundup to kill anything without said genes.

I'm good with steps 1-8. When you do step 9, I'd say you are trying to circumvent a patent.

Yeah, I'd say that's the major point here.

Yeah, I'd say that's the major point here.

There have been claims that Monsanto sued farmers not trying to use their seeds and genes because they ended up in their fields either through cross pollination or some how some of the seeds got mixed in.

Essentially, creating a situation where you either use their products, go through ridiculous measures to ensure the things covered under their patents don't get in your field, or get sued, which essentially forces people to use their product.

I'm against that.

If I'm growing soybeans and not using Round Up, Monsanto should have no grounds to sue me because some of their patented genes ended up in my field (and the burdern of proof that I used Round Up should be on them), IMO.

But if I bought seeds X knowing that a large number of them would be covered by the patent, and then do things that select for and take advantage of the patent, IMO that should be illegal.

So is Roundup what makes Tofu taste so awful?

With medical studies indicating a correlation between soy consumption and premature brain aging, I wonder how long it will be until we hit class action suits against Monsanto or ADM for growing/promoting the stuff.

You forgot step 9:

He then sprays said beans with roundup to kill anything without said genes.

I'm good with steps 1-8. When you do step 9, I'd say you are trying to circumvent a patent.

So, Monsanto's patent makes it illegal for people to spray Monsanto's pesticide (which I assume he purchased legally) on his own plants?

(Although I will willingly admit that the thought did occur to me, that if he did spray Roundup on his plants, then he's at least creating evolutionary pressure to favor the engineered seeds. I wasn't aware that he'd done it. But the thought did occur to me.)

The beans are patented. A warranty is irrelevant.

I'm not saying what he did was illegal. I don't know the law.

But he absolutely purposely and knowingly took advantage of something being patented without worrying about the patent (i.e. paying the patent holder).

At some level, it is no different than going and buying a car with some new patents and the doing whatever you have to do to create the parts that are patented in the car for your own economic benefit.

In this case, he had to spray them with round up.

Tell the auto industry that the patents related to cars are irrelevant after they've sold a single car with the patented technology.

**EDIT**

And buying a car second hand doesn't mean then I get to reverse engineer the patents on the car and use them for my benefit either.

The patents still exist.

The patents are irrelevant since he did nothing but use the product he bought...no engineering(reverse or otherwise)

Your car example is funny.,GM should be able to control what I do with a fender I buy on a wrecked vehicle?

he made nothing,but rather simply used what he bought w/o restriction

add

furthermore Monsanto including forbidding reusing the seed in the purchase contract of those beans labeled for seed illustrates they know they had to limit it by contract instead of patent

Monsanto created a monopoly and it needs to be broken up, they have also been ruthless in attacking people who through no fault of their own had their beans pollenated with Monsanto pollen, they are everything that is wrong with the agricultural industry in America.

But he absolutely purposely and knowingly took advantage of something being patented without worrying about the patent (i.e. paying the patent holder).

So, the presence of a patent makes it illegal for somebody to buy beans, plant them, and harvest the crop? Regardless of how he obtained them?

At some level, it is no different than going and buying a car with some new patents and the doing whatever you have to do to create the parts that are patented in the car for your own economic benefit.

Cars don't reproduce. Soybeans do.

In fact, that's why people buy soybeans. (Well, one of the reasons.)

----------

I will also mention that I've seen claims of Monsanto suing farmers for patent infringement, when the farmers claim they haven't knowingly done a thing.

Plants produce pollen. Pollen blows in the wind. Pollen from patented plants doesn't respect property lines.

The claim is that:

Farmer X buys patented plants. Plants them.

Pollen from patented plants blows into Farmer Y's field. Cross-fertilizes Farmer Y's plants.

Monsanto sends checkers around. They go to Farmer Y's field, pick some beans, test them, discover that Monsanto's DNA is in some of Farmer Y's plants.

Monsanto sues Farmer Y.

Now, I'm underlining the word claim here, because, while I assume that Monsanto can't prove Farmer Y did anything wrong, that the whole "the pollen must have blown in from my neighbor's crop" story seems a) really convenient, and while it can't be disproven, it can't be proven, either.

But I will ask (you and the audience): If something like this happens, has Farmer Y infringed a patent?

Or, in consideration of your point, if he then sprays his cross-pollinated crop with Roundup, then is he infringing?

(I'm assuming that Roundup doesn't just kill everything that isn't genetically engineered. I'm assuming it's more a case of Roundup somehow makes treated plants grow, say, less than optimally. That when a farmer sprays Roundup, you can claim that maybe he's creating evolutionary pressure that favors patented plants, but that you can't claim that, say, "it is impossible to believe that he sprayed Roundup unless he fully intended to kill every non-patented plant in his field".)

Monsanto created a monopoly and it needs to be broken up, they have also been ruthless in attacking people who through no fault of their own had their beans pollenated with Monsanto pollen.

This has been claimed.

The US courts don't seem to think it is true.

"The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and several other growers and organizations do not use Monsanto seeds. But they were betting that the judge would agree that Monsanto should not be allowed to sue them if pollen from the company's patented crops happened to drift into their fields.

Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." The ruling also found that the plaintiffs had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement." Monsanto brings an average of 13 patent-enforcement lawsuits per year, which, the judge said, "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto

So, the presence of a patent makes it illegal for somebody to buy beans, plant them, and harvest the crop? Regardless of how he obtained them?

Cars don't reproduce. Soybeans do.

In fact, that's why people buy soybeans. (Well, one of the reasons.)

----------

I will also mention that I've seen claims of Monsanto suing farmers for patent infringement, when the farmers claim they haven't knowingly done a thing.

Plants produce pollen. Pollen blows in the wind. Pollen from patented plants doesn't respect property lines.

The claim is that:

Farmer X buys patented plants. Plants them.

Pollen from patented plants blows into Farmer Y's field. Cross-fertilizes Farmer Y's plants.

Monsanto sends checkers around. They go to Farmer Y's field, pick some beans, test them, discover that Monsanto's DNA is in some of Farmer Y's plants.

Monsanto sues Farmer Y.

Now, I'm underlining the word claim here, because, while I assume that Monsanto can't prove Farmer Y did anything wrong, that the whole "the pollen must have blown in from my neighbor's crop" story seems a) really convenient, and while it can't be disproven, it can't be proven, either.

But I will ask (you and the audience): If something like this happens, has Farmer Y infringed a patent?

Or, in consideration of your point, if he then sprays his cross-pollinated crop with Roundup, then is he infringing?

(I'm assuming that Roundup doesn't just kill everything that isn't genetically engineered. I'm assuming it's more a case of Roundup somehow makes treated plants grow, say, less than optimally. That when a farmer sprays Roundup, you can claim that maybe he's creating evolutionary pressure that favors patented plants, but that you can't claim that, say, "it is impossible to believe that he sprayed Roundup unless he fully intended to kill every non-patented plant in his field".)

I think I've addressed most everything here in my response to Hubbs and ASF, but just to repeat:

As far as I know, the US courts don't seem to think the pollination case has happened, BUT if it does, then I'd side with the farmer (see my response to Hubbs).

Round-up kills traditional soybeans. You would not spray round up on a field of soybeans you planted or the vast majority of the soybean plants would die (which is what I saw in another article this farmer was doing).

In fact today, because of evolution and exposure to Round Up weeds are more likely to be round up resistant than non-genetically modified soy beans.

The traditional use of Round Up was about a 6 weeks before you planted, you'd till over the field, and then spray Round Up to try and kill any plants that had rooted and seeded in your field.

Then you'd wait and come back and plant your actual crop.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 04:37 PM ----------

The patents are irrelevant since he did nothing but use the product he bought...no engineering(reverse or otherwise)

Your car example is funny.,GM should be able to control what I do with a fender I buy on a wrecked vehicle?

he made nothing,but rather simply used what he bought w/o restriction

add

furthermore Monsanto including forbidding reusing the seed in the purchase contract of those beans labeled for seed illustrates they know they had to limit it by contract instead of patent

If you use the fender to figure out how they make fenders, and then start making them yourselves GM is going to complain.

That's what he did. He bought a patented product, and then used it to make more patented product where the extra production was dependent upon the patent, and he did it all knowingly.

This has been claimed.

The US courts don't seem to think it is true.

"The Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and several other growers and organizations do not use Monsanto seeds. But they were betting that the judge would agree that Monsanto should not be allowed to sue them if pollen from the company's patented crops happened to drift into their fields.

Instead, the judge found that plaintiffs' allegations were "unsubstantiated ... given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened." The ruling also found that the plaintiffs had "overstate[d] the magnitude of [Monsanto's] patent enforcement." Monsanto brings an average of 13 patent-enforcement lawsuits per year, which, the judge said, "is hardly significant when compared to the number of farms in the United States, approximately two million."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/27/147506542/judge-dismisses-organic-farmers-case-against-monsanto

They "brought" 13 suits per year, how many were threatened? How many farmers have had legal papers sent to them and "fell in line" rather than be bankrupted by Monsanto? They are bullies, I can't wait for the day when they collapse.

He did not buy a patented seed, nor make it do anything.

if your patented product reproduces itself that is on you

He did not buy a patented seed, nor make it do anything.

if your patented product reproduces itself that is on you

Not according to the courts, they have continually sided on behalf of Monsanto.

Not according to the courts, they have continually sided on behalf of Monsanto.

and apparently SCOTUS finds it too interesting to ignore instead of allowing those rulings to settle it.

the lower courts are certainly entitled to their opinion though.

I'm curious if the patent holder controls animals bred from patented stock they released as well?

He did not buy a patented seed, nor make it do anything.

if your patented product reproduces itself that is on you

I think that even the farmer agrees that he bought a patented seed.

As I understand it, the argument is whether a farmer who buys a patented seed (but not from Monsanto) is allowed to use it in a way that, if he had bought it from Monsanto, would have violated the contract that comes with it.

i

I think that even the farmer agrees that he bought a patented seed.

t.

He bought soybeans,not pure Monsanto patented seed....and it was not sold as such obviously.

You will note it was also put on the market with Monsantos approval obviously

if you sell livestock do you own any offspring because it has its traits/genes?

He did not buy a patented seed, . . .

He bought soybeans,not pure Monsanto patented seed....

Is that a goalpost in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Is that a goalpost in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

if you sell me a dog that I see championship lines in ....is it purebred w/o papers?

Caveat Emptor works another way if you choose wisely...by buying soybean vs patented seed he assumed a risk that he should not be punished for profiting from.

add

goalposts are irrelevant as to pure vs patented wording....he obviously was sold soybeans,not patented seed

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 06:24 PM ----------

Anyone know what he sold his crop as?

if he was selling it as roundup resistant seed I could see a patent issue, if as soybean there should not be one

All costs associated with a profit producing product should fall on the company enjoying those profits. If Monsanto doesn't want farmers buying their patented wonder seeds without a contract than they are responsible for the infrastructure needed to keep those seeds from the general market. If a farmer has no business with Monsanto and wishes to continue in that capacity it should not fall on him to take on the cost and responsibility to sort out which seeds are which. That farmer should not have to seek out special sources of seeds to ensure that Monsanto's special brand is not present. Allowing your seeds to get into the general pool and then threatening legal action against those that planted from it is nothing more than a dirty business strategy.