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

[twa]

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

[AsburySkinsFan]

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?

This court has not inspired my hope of an over-turn of these lower court rulings. Jus' sayin'

[PeterMP]

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.

"given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened"

Of the people bringing suit, not a single one could present evidence that they'd been threatened.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 07:34 PM ----------

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.

Again, Monsanto is claiming this isn't what happened.

He purposely bought seeds that were very likely be patented and then treated them in a manner that only made sense if they contained their pateneted products to produce more patented product.

He purposely and knowingly in a manner dependent upon the patent used a patented product to produce more of a patented product.

If I buy a GM car with the purpose of using it to produce more of GMs patented technology, even if I don't buy the car directly from GM, and then actually produce the patented product, it is patent enfringement. Its an open and shut case.

[AsburySkinsFan]

"given that not one single plaintiff claims to have been so threatened

Of the people bringing suit, not a single one could present evidence that they'd been threatened.

Well that settles it then, Monsanto has never bullied any farmer over the seed patent.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/savingseed051503.cfm

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 07:43 PM ----------

If I buy a GM car with the purpose of using it to produce more of GMs patented technology, even if I don't buy the car directly from GM, and then actually produce the patented product, it is patent enfringement. Its an open and shut case.

Which is completely absurd because cars don't reproduce themselves. What Monsanto is saying with this patent is equal to a cattle farmer who buys a heifer being required to surrender any calves born to that heifer to the seller of the heifer. It is wrong, it is absurd, and it needs to be struck down.

[Larry]

goalposts are irrelevant as to pure vs patented wording

Then why did you change the wording?

....he obviously was sold soybeans,not patented seed

Really? He "clearly" wasn't sold patented seeds?

Then gee, I wonder where the patented, Roundup-resistant, DNA showed up in his plants?

Better yet, could you point me to your source that "clearly" shows that none of the beans he bought were patented?

[twa]

[/color]

Again, Monsanto is claiming this isn't what happened.

He purposely bought seeds that were very likely be patented and then treated them in a manner that only made sense if they contained their pateneted products to produce more patented product.

again....did he sell the product as what he bought it as (soybean) or as the patented product?

is a patent on steel transferred to the product made from scrap metal?

[Larry]

He purposely bought seeds that were very likely be patented and then treated them in a manner that only made sense if they contained their pateneted products to produce more patented product.

He purposely and knowingly in a manner dependent upon the patent used a patented product to produce more of a patented product.

He bought soybeans, planted them, and harvested them.

At what point did he infringe their patent? When he bought them? When he planted them? When he harvested the crop?

If I buy a GM car with the purpose of using it to produce more of GMs patented technology, even if I don't buy the car directly from GM, and then actually produce the patented product, it is patent enfringement. Its an open and shut case.

That looks, to me, like you're saying that merely by buying a seed that might have been patented, and doing what farmers have been doing for thousands of years, then he's a thief?

Does Monsanto's patent place everybody in the world under the obligation to not permit their product to reproduce?

[twa]

Better yet, could you point me to your source that "clearly" shows that none of the beans he bought were patented?

Did his bill of sale mention a patent or trademark?

I coulda swore they only sold patented seed with a contract specifying it.....he seems to have bought soybeans :evilg:

ones that if he guessed wrong would die

[PeterMP]

Well that settles it then, Monsanto has never bullied any farmer over the seed patent.Which is completely absurd because cars don't reproduce themselves. What Monsanto is saying with this patent is equal to a cattle farmer who buys a heifer being required to surrender any calves born to that heifer to the seller of the heifer. It is wrong, it is absurd, and it needs to be struck down.

That's not what you oringally claimed.

If you want to re-use your seed, don't buy Monsanto's seeds.

It is that simple.

These people aren't just throwing seeds in a field and letting them grow.

They are PURPOSELY spraying them with Round Up, knowing full well in good that they are using a product that won't be killed with Round Up while normal Soybeans wouldn't.

They are PURPOSELY and KNOWINGLY taking full advantage of patented technology to produce more patented technology.

Like I said, when I first came into this thread, I'm fine with steps 1-8 (buy seeds and replant).

It is step 9 (then grow in a manner dependent on HAVING them Round Up resistance) that is the issue and as far as I know where Monsanto is suing.

These people are PURPOSELY reproducing a product based on a patent that is dependent upon the patent.

If somebody can show me where it isn't step 9 that is generating the issue, I'll say in that case Monsanto is wrong.

[Larry]

Well that settles it then, Monsanto has never bullied any farmer over the seed patent.

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

What the court ruled was that none of the people in the courtroom had been threatened. Not that nobody in the world had.

Which is completely absurd because cars don't reproduce themselves. What Monsanto is saying with this patent is equal to a cattle farmer who buys a heifer being required to surrender any calves born to that heifer to the seller of the heifer. It is wrong, it is absurd, and it needs to be struck down.

Now, actually, Monsanto does have contracts with every person who has purchased their seed, specifying exactly that. The farmer who buys Monsanto seed is permitted to sell the beans, but he isn't allowed to keep some of them, and use them as next year's seeds. (And I assume that there are restrictions on who he can sell the beans to. I assume that he can't sell them to his neighbor, so the neighbor can plant them next year, either.)

The catch, here, is that the licensed, under contract, Monsanto customer farmer, sold his beans (perfectly legally) to a local elevator. And the elevator sold the beans to a local customer. (Which is also allowed. If Farmer 2 had bought those beans and fed them to his pigs, Monsanto wouldn't be complaining.) And the customer (Farmer 2) then did something which Farmer 1 isn't allowed to do, according to his contract.

A better analogy would be

like Monsanto saying that a farmer who buys a heifer is allowed to sell any offspring to a slaughterhouse, but that somebody who then buys that offspring from the slaughterhouse can't breed it.

[PeterMP]

Did his bill of sale mention a patent or trademark?

I coulda swore they only sold patented seed with a contract specifying it.....he seems to have bought soybeans :evilg:

ones that if he guessed wrong would die

If a use a GM bumper to create more bumpers where I bought the bumper from an agreement from a junk yard that I'd buy 10 random bumpers, it doesn't void GMs patents.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 08:06 PM ----------

A better analogy would be

like Monsanto saying that a farmer who buys a heifer is allowed to sell any offspring to a slaughterhouse, but that somebody who then buys that offspring from the slaughterhouse can't breed it.

AND do the breeding in a manner dependent on the patent!

[Larry]

again....did he sell the product as what he bought it as (soybean) or as the patented product?

is a patent on steel transferred to the product made from scrap metal?

Monsanto owns the patent on their engineered DNA. Not on a trademarked advertising name.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 08:10 PM ----------

Did his bill of sale mention a patent or trademark?

Wow, look! Moving the goalposts again.

We've gone from "ho didn't buy patented product" to "he didn't buy pure patented product" to "he didn't buy product that was specified in writing to be patented".

You're the one claiming he didn't buy patented product. Back up your claim. Show us the bill of sale that specifies that he didn't buy any patented soybeans.

[Prosperity]

He bought soybeans, planted them, and harvested them.

At what point did he infringe their patent? When he bought them? When he planted them? When he harvested the crop?

That looks, to me, like you're saying that merely by buying a seed that might have been patented, and doing what farmers have been doing for thousands of years, then he's a thief?

Does Monsanto's patent place everybody in the world under the obligation to not permit their product to reproduce?

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that patent infringement is not theft. This guy is not charged with a crime. It is not theft, even if it is patent infringement. Sheesh.

Tangent, I know, carry on.

[Larry]

That's not what you oringally claimed.

If you want to re-use your seed, don't buy Monsanto's seeds.

It is that simple.

These people aren't just throwing seeds in a field and letting them grow.

They are PURPOSELY spraying them with Round Up, knowing full well in good that they are using a product that won't be killed with Round Up while normal Soybeans wouldn't.

They are PURPOSELY and KNOWINGLY taking full advantage of patented technology to produce more patented technology.

Like I said, when I first came into this thread, I'm fine with steps 1-8 (buy seeds and replant).

It is step 9 (then grow in a manner dependent on HAVING them Round Up resistance) that is the issue and as far as I know where Monsanto is suing.

These people are PURPOSELY reproducing a product based on a patent that is dependent upon the patent.

If somebody can show me where it isn't step 9 that is generating the issue, I'll say in that case Monsanto is wrong.

But every single Monsanto farmer is "reproducing a patented product"

And this guy didn't "buy Monsanto seed". He bought "gimmee a hundred bushels of whatever you've got".

(Now, did he know that 90% of the farmers in the county are using Monsanto seeds? I think it's a safe bet.)

But this isn't like buying a DVD and copying it. Copying a DVD isn't what I consider a normal use of the DVD.

But planting soybeans (and letting them grow, and produce a vastly bigger pile of soybeans) is what soybeans are for.

[twa]

Monsanto owns the patent on their engineered DNA. Not on a trademarked advertising name.

DNA that they clearly sold(or allowed to be sold) as soybean, not seed

they should be happy corn doesn't reproduce like soybean

[AsburySkinsFan]

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

What the court ruled was that none of the people in the courtroom had been threatened. Not that nobody in the world had.

I never claimed that anyone in the courtroom had been bullied, look back over my posts, all I have claimed is that Monsanto routinely bullies farmers.

Now, actually, Monsanto does have contracts with every person who has purchased their seed, specifying exactly that.

There are such things as illegal contacts, just because a contract says you give away your rights does not mean that the contract is legal.

[Larry]

AND do the breeding in a manner dependent on the patent!

There is no such thing.

Monsanto didn't patent reproduction. (Soybeans already knew how to do that.)

----------

But let's take your assertion and look at it:

Let's say that spraying roundup somehow infringes Monsanto's patent. (Maybe they should make people who buy Roundup sign a contract? "If this product is sprayed on crops, then said crops must be sold, and cannot be retained for use as seed?")

If Farmer Bob buys a bunch of soybeans, and that bunch are 90% patented. He plants them. He harvests a crop that's 90% patented.

Far as you're concerned, he can do what he wants with them? Use them as seed? Sell them to other people for use as seed? Long as he doesn;t spray Roundup on them, he's clear?

How about the people who buy their seeds from Farmer Bob? Are they allowed to spray Roundup on them?

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 08:28 PM ----------

DNA that they clearly sold(or allowed to be sold) as soybean, not seed

they should be happy corn doesn't reproduce like soybean

Ah, still pretending that soybeans aren't seeds, are we?

[PeterMP]

But every single Monsanto farmer is "reproducing a patented product"

And this guy didn't "buy Monsanto seed". He bought "gimmee a hundred bushels of whatever you've got".

(Now, did he know that 90% of the farmers in the county are using Monsanto seeds? I think it's a safe bet.)

But this isn't like buying a DVD and copying it. Copying a DVD isn't what I consider a normal use of the DVD.

But planting soybeans (and letting them grow, and produce a vastly bigger pile of soybeans) is what soybeans are for.

Step 9 Larry.

Spraying planted soybeans with Round Up is NOT normal use of non-Round Up ready soybeans.

[twa]

Ah, still pretending that soybeans aren't seeds, are we?

Still pretending they are patented seeds despite not being labeled and sold as such?

it is what it is ,as someone used to say around here.

[PeterMP]

If Farmer Bob buys a bunch of soybeans, and that bunch are 90% patented. He plants them. He harvests a crop that's 90% patented.

Far as you're concerned, he can do what he wants with them? Use them as seed? Sell them to other people for use as seed? Long as he doesn;t spray Roundup on them, he's clear?

How about the people who buy their seeds from Farmer Bob? Are they allowed to spray Roundup on them?

If you don't spray them, they will lose the gene (there won't be an incentive to keep them). Genes not used will be evolutionarily lost.

Then they won't be covered by the patent and spraying them with Round Up would kill them.

People spraying soybeans with Round Up are trying to circumevent a patent.

**EDIT**

Larry, on one level this is an interesting question, and I'm not sure where to draw the line. Practically based on what I know, this is where Monsanto is drawing the line. If you are an organic farmer and end up with Monsanto genes in your field and aren't spraying them with Round Up, Monsanto is not coming after you.

As far as I know, Monsanto is coming after people that are PURPOSELY growing soybeans in a manner that is depdendent upon the soybeans containing their patented technology.

At that point in time, they are knowingly reproducing a patented technology. I think that's a pretty obvious patent infringement.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 08:44 PM ----------

Still pretending they are patented seeds despite not being labeled and sold as such?

it is what it is ,as someone used to say around here.

Again, an agreement to buy 10 random car parts from a junk yard does not void any patents the original manufacturer has on said car parts.

[twa]

what if you just spray them with a solution of 41% Glyphosate?.......or is the brand immaterial?

[PeterMP]

what if you just spray them with a solution of 41% Glyphosate?.......or is the brand immaterial?

If you are knowingly growing plants in a manner that is dependent upon them containing patented technology, then you are knowingly reproducing patented technology.

Is that really that hard?

[twa]

If you are knowingly growing plants in a manner that is dependent upon them containing patented technology, then you are knowingly reproducing patented technology.

Is that really that hard?

Yes it is

if your technology is capable of reproducing itself you should not be surprised it happens when you sell it to someone

[PeterMP]

Yes it is

if your technology is capable of reproducing itself you should not be surprised it happens when you sell it to someone

The plants aren't just growing. The person isn't even just growing them. They are growing them knowingly in a manner that is dependent on them having patented technology.

They are PURPOSELY reproducing patented technology.

GM will sell cars to people that have the ability to set up a system to reproduce their technology.

If you do so, it is a patent infringement.

[Larry]

If you don't spray them, they will lose the gene (there won't be an incentive to keep them). Genes not used will be evolutionarily lost.

Then they won't be covered by the patent and spraying them with Round Up would kill them.

Is that an assumption? (That patented seeds, if not sprayed, will have non-patented offspring?)

Larry, on one level this is an interesting question, and I'm not sure where to draw the line. Practically based on what I know, this is where Monsanto is drawing the line. If you are an organic farmer and end up with Monsanto genes in your field and aren't spraying them with Round Up, Monsanto is not coming after you.

I certainly haven't heard that.

I have heard lots of people claiming that Monsanto sends people out into the field, collects samples from farmer's crops, tests them for patented DNA, and goes after anybody whose crops test positive.

(Although, as I've said, I'm not taking those claims as proven fact.)