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

[PeterMP]

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

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.)

For the third time in this thread (I am trying a different source though)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/monsanto-lawsuit-organic-farmers-appeal_n_1385693.html

"The group sued Monsanto in March 2011. U.S. District Court Judge Naomi Buchwald, for the Southern District of New York, threw out the case last month, criticizing the groups for a "transparent effort to create a controversy where none exists"."

"The court ruling said there was no likelihood that Monsanto would pursue patent-infringement cases against the organic farmers, who have no interest in using the company's patented seed products."

To my knowledge, there is not a single case of somebody having Monsanto technology in their field AND was also not growing their crops in a manner that was dependent on Monsanto technology being in their fields that has been sued.

And if somebody can show me such a case, I'll say that Monsanto is wrong and that the court should find for the farmer in a heart beat.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 09:15 PM ----------

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

It won't happen 100% in a single generation, but over time, the genes would be lost.

And no that isn't an assumption.

**EDIT**

I can't find anything concrete on the stability of the roundup resistant genes w/ respect to at what rate they would be lost, but genes that are not used are lost as part of evolution.

Essentially, there is no penalty for mantaining the gene in a functional state. The rate depends partly on the organism and the conditions and how the gene was engineered into the organism.

[twa]

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.

Set up a system seems a reach in this farmers case, the beans are reproducing themselves....as beans tend to do

[PeterMP]

Set up a system seems a reach in this farmers case, the beans are reproducing themselves....as beans tend to do

Again, as far as I know, Monsanto isn't suing people for growing beans.

They are suing people for growing beans in a manner that requires their technology to be present in the beans (i.e. they are knowingly reproducing patented technology).

[twa]

this reproduced technology is being sold as soybeans right?...what he bought them as w/o restriction

[AsburySkinsFan]

Again, as far as I know, Monsanto isn't suing people for growing beans.

They are suing people for growing beans in a manner that requires their technology to be present in the beans (i.e. they are knowingly reproducing patented technology).

They sue people for not turning over the excess beans, as a farmer you are not allowed to keep the extra beans for seed the next year, this makes the farmers dependent upon Monsanto perpetually. Which is why the cattle example is precisely what is going on and illustrates the absurdity.

[Larry]

this reproduced technology is being sold as soybeans right?...what he bought them as w/o restriction

Really admiring the dogged persistence demonstrated in the continued assertion that the word "soybeans" somehow grants immunity from patents.

I know this may be difficult to grasp, but if I take patented soybeans, and put them in a burlap bag labeled "soybeans", that doesn't magically cause the patent to disappear.

[PeterMP]

They sue people for not turning over the excess beans, as a farmer you are not allowed to keep the extra beans for seed the next year, this makes the farmers dependent upon Monsanto perpetually.

Monsanto doesn't collect the beans. You don't buy from Monsanto and then sell the product to Monsanto.

If you use Monsanto products, you sign an agreement not to use any of the beans as seed for next year.

You can get seed from other places, like this farmer has done.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/02/18/171896311/farmers-fight-with-monsanto-reaches-the-supreme-court

"In fact, after Monsanto took Bowman to court, his search for unrestricted seeds took him all the way to Ohio, one of the very few places in the country where the state still distributes non-patented soybean varieties.

Bowman acquired some of that seed — a variety called Dennison — and grew it last year. He saved part of his harvest. Those soybeans are now sitting in an old combine in a shed behind his house.

If the Supreme Court rules against him, Bowman can still use those beans for seed this year."

Now, I don't know REALLY how hard it is go get non-patent seeds and not just from Monsanto:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/02/18/171896311/farmers-fight-with-monsanto-reaches-the-supreme-court

"It's standard practice now even among small companies like Great Heart Seed, in Paris, Ill.

Great Heart Seed's warehouse is filled to the rafters with white bags of soybean seed. The company sells 45 different varieties in all. Some grow better in the south, others in the north. Most have Monsanto's Roundup resistance genes, while others do not."

(I added the bold), but if it is true that it is hard to get seeds w/o Monsanto's technology so that you don't have to worry about the patent, that's an anti-trust issue and not a patent issue, and I'd completely support the government doing something like that.

I'd completely support the government forcing companies over a certain size that sell seeds to also sell some non-patent protected seeds to limit anti-trust issues.

But that's not really the heart of this case or other similar cases.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Monsanto doesn't collect the beans. You don't buy from Monsanto and then sell the product to Monsanto.

If you use Monsanto products, you sign an agreement not to use any of the beans as seed for next year.

The difference there is negligible to say the least, but if it makes you happy then amend the parallel so that any calves born by the heifer must be killed.

[PeterMP]

The difference there is negligible to say the least, but if it makes you happy then amend the parallel so that any calves born by the heifer must be killed.

If you don't like Monsanto's requirements, don't use their product.

[Larry]

But now what I'm seeing is at least getting close to asserting that, for a farmer not to infringe Monsanto, then the farmer must buy seed which is labeled as not containing Monsanto's product.

Whereas, I was under the impression that a farmer doesn't have to buy seed, at all. And he doesn't have to buy it from a seed dealer. He can simply buy beans from his local grain elevator.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:02 PM ----------

The difference there is negligible to say the least, but if it makes you happy then amend the parallel so that any calves born by the heifer must be killed.

I've already suggested what I think would be a more accurate analogy:

"any calves cannot be kept or sold for breeding".

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:02 PM ----------

If you don't like Monsanto's requirements, don't use their product.

Or buy soybeans from your local grain elevator?

[AsburySkinsFan]

If you don't like Monsanto's requirements, don't use their product.

Again, just because it is in a contract doesn't make something legal. They could put in the contract that you have to turn over all of your possessions if you use their product, but that doesn't make it legal. Monsanto was granted an extra ordinary patent, the first ever that allows full control not only over the beans that they sell, but also on the beans that are bought and grown by others. What other patent allows for such controls?

[twa]

Really admiring the dogged persistence demonstrated in the continued assertion that the word "soybeans" somehow grants immunity from patents.

I know this may be difficult to grasp, but if I take patented soybeans, and put them in a burlap bag labeled "soybeans", that doesn't magically cause the patent to disappear.

this magic patent that precludes growing beans bought w/o restriction?....planting beans used to be so simple

[AsburySkinsFan]

I've already suggested what I think would be a more accurate analogy:

"any calves cannot be kept or sold for breeding".

Which is absurd, Wagyu beef sellers don't have this type of control over the cattle they sell even though their beef are genetically bred to produce a certain grade of product.

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

this magic patent that precludes growing beans bought w/o restriction?....planting beans used to be so simple

Exactly, Monsanto wants the farmers indentured to them, and they crush those who challenge them, or they threaten them with litigation until they buckle.

[PeterMP]

But now what I'm seeing is at least getting close to asserting that, for a farmer not to infringe Monsanto, then the farmer must buy seed which is labeled as not containing Monsanto's product.

Whereas, I was under the impression that a farmer doesn't have to buy seed, at all. And he doesn't have to buy it from a seed dealer. He can simply buy beans from his local grain elevator.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:02 PM ----------

I've already suggested what I think would be a more accurate analogy:

"any calves cannot be kept or sold for breeding".

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:02 PM ----------

Or buy soybeans from your local grain elevator?

Again, I'm not sure where the line is, and I'm not sure where the court will say the line is. Personally, I'd let somebody buy seed from their local grain elevator as long as they didn't treat it like it contained the patented technology.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/11-796-2012_02_27-Brief-in-Opposition_100943262_1.pdf

"And although Roundup Ready® soybeans are often commingled with conventional soybeans in grain elevators, there was no doubt that

Bowman hoped and expected that the soybeans he purchased from the elevator would be resistant to glyphosate:

each year from 1999 to 2007, after purchasing soybeans from the elevator and planting them (or the

progeny of soybeans he had purchased from the elevator in prior years), Bowman sprayed his fields with

glyphosate two or more times, which would have killed any conventional soybeans."

If that's true, to me that's where he loses the case. He was knowingly and purposely reproducing patented technology.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:11 PM ----------

Exactly, Monsanto wants the farmers indentured to them, and they crush those who challenge them, or they threaten them with litigation until they buckle.

Who has Monsanto sued for just planting beans?

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:16 PM ----------

this magic patent that precludes growing beans bought w/o restriction?....planting beans used to be so simple

How you came upon the patented material is irrelevant. You can't knowingly reproduce patented technology.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Who has Monsanto sued for just planting beans?

I'm normally not one to do a classmate's homework, but here ya go.

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer

[PeterMP]

I'm normally not one to do a classmate's homework, but here ya go.

http://www.mnn.com/your-home/organic-farming-gardening/stories/monsanto-wins-lawsuit-against-indiana-soybean-farmer

That's the same case we are discussing here.

As clearly demonstrated in the link above, he didn't just grow beans.

He grew beans in a manner that was dependent on them containing patented technology, and he knew it.

In other words, he knowingly reproduced patented technology.

That's not JUST planting/growing beans.

[twa]

How you came upon the patented material is irrelevant. You can't knowingly reproduce patented technology.

I disagree if you bought it w/o restriction and it reproduces itself.....a flaw in their control is not your problem

I would agree if he sold it as seed

[AsburySkinsFan]

That's the same case we are discussing here.

As clearly demonstrated in the link above, he didn't just grow beans.

He grew beans in a manner that was dependent on them containing patented technology, and he knew it.

In other words, he knowingly reproduced patented technology.

That's not JUST planting/growing beans.

Did you read the article?

even though Bowman said he bought those seeds as part of a mix of commodity seeds.

In fact, Monsanto authorizes the growers to sell their second-generation seed to grain elevators as a commodity and does not require restrictions on grain elevators' subsequent sales of that seed, the court said.

But that still does not give growers a green light to replicate Monsanto's patented technology by planting it in the ground to create "newly infringing genetic material, seeds and plants," the court found.

The court has already said that Monsanto's patents do not apply to second generation seeds, if so then how can they tell farmers what to do with the second generation seed? You still want to claim that a person gives up their property rights because of a contract, that contract is illegal.

[PeterMP]

I disagree if you bought it w/o restriction and it reproduces itself.....a flaw in their control is not your problem

I would agree if he sold it as seed

It isn't reproducing on its own. He planted it. He sprayed it (several times). He's purposely reproducing patented technology when he doesn't have to.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:29 PM ----------

Did you read the article?

Yes, did you?

"The farmer applied glyphosate to his second soybean crops and was able to identify herbicide-resistant plants, from which he then saved seed for subsequent years of second-crop planting, according to the court documents."

He is purposely reproducing patented technology.

If I buy a patented part of a car from a junk yard, that doesn't mean I have the right to reproduce it. The patent is independent of the transfer of ownership.

He didn't just plant seeds. He went out of his way to grow plants and collect seeds that he knew had patented technology.

He went out of his way to reproduce patented technology.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Yes, did you?

"The farmer applied glyphosate to his second soybean crops and was able to identify herbicide-resistant plants, from which he then saved seed for subsequent years of second-crop planting, according to the court documents."

He is purposely reproducing patented technology.

And yet Monsanto does not have a claim on second generation beans, this is smart farming. He bought the seeds legally and then found the strongest plants, give him an award!

[PeterMP]

And yet Monsanto does not have a claim on second generation beans, this is smart farming. He bought the seeds legally and then found the strongest plants, give him an award!

So far the Courts disagree.

Historically, how came upon the patented technology is irrelevant. The patent is not voided by it transferring from person to person or thing to thing.

If I take a part of a GM car that is under patent, transfer it to a Toyota, I sell the Toyota to somebody else, and you buy it from them, GM still has the right to defend its original patent.

If you say, hey this part is a good idea and start making it even for use only in Toyota's, you are infringing on GM's patent.

[twa]

It isn't reproducing on its own. He planted it. He sprayed it (several times).[.

the act of spraying does not create or reproduce the product...

planting beans you bought w/o restriction should be allowed(and clearly within reasonable use)

I'll await the wisdom of the court

[AsburySkinsFan]

So far the Courts disagree.

Historically, how came upon the patented technology is irrelevant. The patent is not voided by it transferring from person to person or thing to thing.

Again, Monsanto does NOT have claim over second generation beans, Monsanto allows them to be bought from a grainery mixed with other seeds, which this guy did. Now Monsanto wants to sue him because he was smart!?

If I take a part of a GM car that is under patent, transfer it to a Toyota, I sell the Toyota to somebody else, and you buy it from them, GM still has the right to defend its original patent.

If GM makes car parts that sutomatically replicate then they better figure out a way to make sure they don't replicate. This guy didn't reverse engineer the dna, he figured out which where the stronger beans through completely legal means which Monsanto allows.

---------- Post added February-18th-2013 at 10:47 PM ----------

the act of spraying does not create or reproduce the product...

planting beans you bought w/o restriction should be allowed(and clearly within reasonable use)

Exactly! He didn't create anything, he was smart and obeyed the law and Monsanto's absurd rules.

I'll await the wisdom of the court

You have more faith in them than I do.

My personal feeling is that Monsanto has to know that their patent on these beans is a temporary gig, the Ag industry is not nearly as controllable as even the music industry. There is no way they can maintain this stranglehold forever. The best thing they can do now is do is go like PC do and sell the licensing of new beans to third parties. The game is over Monsanto.

[PeterMP]

Again, Monsanto does NOT have claim over second generation beans, Monsanto allows them to be bought from a grainery mixed with other seeds, which this guy did. Now Monsanto wants to sue him because he was smart!?

If GM makes car parts that sutomatically replicate then they better figure out a way to make sure they don't replicate. This guy didn't reverse engineer the dna, he figured out which where the stronger beans through completely legal means which Monsanto allows.

Monsanto doesn't allow somebody to reproduce their patented technology, which is why this guy lost his case.

And again, the Roundup resistant part won't automatically replicate it, IF you don't plant it, spray it with roundup, and specifically collect the seeds grow.

If that's your idea of "automatic", then you need to talk to some farmers.

I could easily reproduce some patented chemicals and make some nice pocket money than what this guy did.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Monsanto doesn't allow somebody to reproduce their patented technology, which is why this guy lost his case.

Begging your pardon, but yes they do. They force farmers to sell their seed to granaries which then mix the Monsanto seed to be resold as commodity seed....as such they allow EVERY buyer of that commodity seed to "reproduce their patented technology", they just didn't figure that someone would get smart....that's their fault.

If I go to a beef auction and purchase a heifer and find out later that she's a Wagyu beef, can I be forced to not breed her as Wagyu, that's what you're claiming Monsanto can do.