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

[DjTj]

there must be limit

Patents expire after about twenty years. After the 2014 growing season, everyone will be allowed to plant and re-plant soybeans with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready gene.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/business/18seed.html?_r=0

[twa]

but can we keep the thread going that long?

[JMS]

Were the Runyon's sued, yes or no?

Did Monsanto even ever threaten to sue Runyon?

The CBS story states they threatened his livelyhood. Clearly they threatened him... Clearly they threatened suit. Here is another story..

n 2005, investigators sent by Monsanto arrived at Mr Runyan's farm unannounced. "They came to my house and wanted all my production records," he says.

They asked questions about his farming operation and wanted to know who he was selling his food-grade soybeans to.

"They wanted to know who I'd bought all my herbicides from and they wanted records and phone numbers," Mr Runyan recalls.

Three months after the investigators left empty handed, Mr Runyan received a letter stating that he had seven days to turn over all his production records to Monsanto.

One reason why Mr Runyan refused was because the letter stated that Monsanto had an agreement with the Indiana Department of Agriculture, but the department didn't exist at that time.

Mr Runyan hired a lawyer to deal with his case.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7892328.stm

Also Mr Runyan was a witness against Monsanto in an international court which found Monsanto guilty of violating peoples rights.

http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1890431

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 12:45 PM ----------

Killing weeds and any crops that aren't patented.

So why spray it on your own crops?

"Honestly, your honor, when I sprayed that Roundup on my crops, I honestly expected it to kill my entire crop. That was my intention. And, when it didn't kill them, I harvested the plants that were resistant, and used them to plant next year's crop, and sprayed that crop with Roundup, too, because I was really, really, trying to kill all of them."

"And all those empty beer cans were in the back of my truck because I was taking them for recycling."

I don't think you spray round up on your crops.. I think you spray it on the fields to kill the weeds before you plant.. then plant the crops which can grow in such a contaminated field.

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 12:57 PM ----------

"The court heard the question of whether intentionally growing genetically modified plants constitutes "use" of the patented invention of genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it does.[1] The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. "

Note, the use of the word INTENTIONAL!

Cross-pollination would be what?.

:doh: He INTENTIONALLY PLANTED HIS FEILD!!! He UNINTENTIONALLY contaminated his 9000 acre crop with 45 acres of seed from his neighbor which partially had Monsanto seed from a previous planting.,

Reasons of the Court

Nor does the fact that Schmeiser did not use Roundup herbicide on his crops preclude "use" of the gene. Even though the plants propagate without human intervention the realities of modern agriculture mean there is always human intervention in the growth of plants and thus farming is a method of "use" of plant genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

DISPUTE

In 1998, Monsanto learned that Schmeiser was growing a Roundup-resistant crop and approached him to sign a license agreement to their patents and to pay a license fee. Schmeiser refused, maintaining that the 1997 contamination was accidental and that he owned the seed he harvested, and he could use the harvested seed as he wished because it was his physical property. Monsanto then sued Schmeiser for patent infringement. Patents being in federal jurisdiction, the case went to federal court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Dispute

And remember Mr Schmeister had no economic incentive for planting Monsanto's seed because he did no use roundup anyway.

[PeterMP]

The CBS story states they threatened his livelyhood. Clearly they threatened him... Clearly they threatened suit. Here is another story..

Also Mr Runyan was a witness against Monsanto in an international court which found Monsanto guilty of violating peoples rights.

http://curezone.com/blogs/fm.asp?i=1890431

I'll take that as the Runyan's weren't sued and Monsanto didn't even file any court papers against the Runyan's.

I'll also take that as the Runyan's have never presented any documentation from Monsanto stating that they should be expected to be sued (e.g. the letter you mentioned in the previous post doesn't state if they don't cooperate Monsanto will sue them).

I don't think you spray round up on your crops.. I think you spray it on the fields to kill the weeds before you plant.. then plant the crops which can grow in such a contaminated field.

With roundup resistant crops, you can spray round directly on the plants.

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 01:02 PM ----------

:doh: He INTENTIONALLY PLANTED HIS FEILD!!! He UNINTENTIONALLY contaminated his 9000 acre crop with 45 acres of seed from his neighbor which partially had Monsanto seed from a previous planting.

Did the court find that the roundup resistant plants in his field were the result of cross pollination?

Yes or no.

From your own wiki link.

"However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination."

In 1998, did Schmeiser intentionally have as part of his crop patented seeds?

Here's what you said:

However, sueing farmers for cross polinated crops has happenned again and again and again.

Where is that law suit?

You've presented a SINGLE case where Monsanto (potentially aggressively if you believe the farmer) investigated a case of cross pollination (again if you accept evidence that has only been presented by the farmer as accurate), but there was no law suit and no threat of a law suit based on anything you've presented.

[JMS]

Maybe he was able to present convincing evidence that it was cross-pollination and Monsanto dropped it. Maybe they had evidence that it wasn't, and he figured he was going to lose

Origin of the patented seed in Schmeiser's fields

So what it says He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.

At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola in 1997, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated. While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm in 1997 remains unclear, the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Dispute

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 01:15 PM ----------

Did the court find that the roundup resistant plants in his field were the result of cross pollination?

The courts didn't rule on how the plants got into the field. It wasn't the issue. The only issue was once Schmeiser knew he had resistant plants in his field how did he proceed?

He proceeded by trying to isolate the seed that was resistant and harvest it for seed for future use... which the courts found was knowingly using Monsanto's seed, even though he never purchased it, and didn't have any agreement with Monsanto precluding this behavior.

There is nothing in the court finding which addresses how the Monsanto seed was introduced to Schmeiser's crop. Monsanto dropped all reference to that in their suit dealing only with subsequent years after it was introduced.

[PeterMP]

The courts didn't rule on how the plants got into the field. It wasn't the issue. The only issue was once Schmeiser knew he had resistant plants in his field how did he proceed?

He proceeded by trying to isolate the seed that was resistant and harvest it for seed for future use... which the courts found was knowingly using Monsanto's seed, even though he never purchased it, and didn't have any agreement with Monsanto precluding this behavior.

There is nothing in the court finding which addresses how the Monsanto seed was introduced to Schmeiser's crop. Monsanto dropped all reference to that in their suit dealing only with subsequent years after it was introduced.

So he was sued for intentionally and knowingly having plants in his field that were covered by Monsanto's technology?

[Larry]

The courts didn't rule on how the plants got into the field. It wasn't the issue. The only issue was once Schmeiser knew he had resistant plants in his field how did he proceed?

He proceeded by trying to isolate the seed that was resistant and harvest it for seed for future use... which the courts found was knowingly using Monsanto's seed, even though he never purchased it, and didn't have any agreement with Monsanto precluding this behavior.

There is nothing in the court finding which addresses how the Monsanto seed was introduced to Schmeiser's crop. Monsanto dropped all reference to that in their suit dealing only with subsequent years after it was introduced.

Agreed. At least according to Wiki, the court didn't rule on how he wound up with a crop that was 60% patented.

What he was convicted of was what he did after he knew that he had patented plants.

He intentionally killed all of his non-patented plants.

And then used his now 100% patented beans to raise a second, 100% patented, crop.

This is known as "intentionally creating, and then duplicating, somebody else's patent".

[JMS]

You've presented a SINGLE case where Monsanto (potentially aggressively if you believe the farmer) investigated a case of cross pollination (again if you accept evidence that has only been presented by the farmer as accurate), but there was no law suit and no threat of a law suit based on anything you've presented.

No all three deal with Farmers who are claiming Monsanto's seed found their way into their fields through cross pollination.

Schmeiser who was aggressively pursued claimed his crop was cross pollinated... The fact that Monsanto dropped that year from their lawsuit doesn't change that fact. Hear this... The fact that Monsanto didn't challenge how their crop ultimately got into Mr. Schmeiser's field in 1997, doesn't disprove or even adress Mr. Schmeiser's claim. The case only dealt with subsequent years.

Mr Runyan claimed cross pollination and Monsanto ultimately chose not to challenge that.

Mr. Nelson had purchased Monsanto's crop. Monsanto claims Mr. Nelson stored seed and replanted with second generation Monsanto seed. An independent agricultural board found he did not. Mr. Nelson claims the genetically altered plants got in his crop via cross pollination from neighbor's fields. Don't think it's settled yet... But Monsanto is suing him even though Mr. Nelson signed no agreement stating he wouldn't use second generation Monsanto seed.

[Larry]

No all three deal with Farmers who are claiming Monsanto's seed found their way into their fields through cross pollination.

Schmeiser who was aggressively pursued claimed his crop was cross pollinated... The fact that Monsanto dropped that year from their lawsuit doesn't change that fact. Hear this... The fact that Monsanto didn't challenge how their crop ultimately got into Mr. Schmeiser's field in 1997, doesn't disprove or even adress Mr. Schmeiser's claim. The case only dealt with subsequent years.

Mr Runyan claimed cross pollination and Monsanto ultimately chose not to challenge that.

Mr. Nelson had purchased Monsanto's crop. Monsanto claims Mr. Nelson stored seed and replanted with second generation Monsanto seed. An independent agricultural board found he did not. Mr. Nelson claims the genetically altered plants got in his crop via cross pollination from neighbor's fields. Don't think it's settled yet... But Monsanto is suing him even though Mr. Nelson signed no agreement stating he wouldn't use second generation Monsanto seed.

So your point is?

[PeterMP]

Schmeiser who was aggressively pursude claimed his crop was cross pollinated... The fact that Monsanto dropped that year from their lawsuit doesn't change that fact. Hear this... The fact that Monsanto didn't challenge how their crop ultimately got into Mr. Schmeiser's field, doesn't disprove Mr. Schmeiser's claim.

Mr Runyan claimed cross pollination and Monsanto ultimately chose not to challenge that.

Mr. Nelson had pruchased monsanto's crop... Monsanto claims they stored seed and replanted with second generation seed. An independent agricultural board found he did not. Don't think it's settled yet.

Schmeiser was found to have intentionally and knowingly planted patented seeds.

Nelson has settled out of court and the independent ag board only heard evidence from Nelson and didn't collect any evidence on its own (Monsanto didn't even bother to show up).

Runyon wasn't sued and there is no evidence that Monsanto even ever threatened to sue him.

And that's three whole incidents. One lawsuit where the person intentionally and knowingly planted patented seed.

And your NYT piece is right. If Monsanto wanted to pursue cases based on cross pollination/unknowing contamination, they could walk into probably 60% of the soybean fields in this country where the person didn't knowinly and intentionally plant their seeds take samples have grounds for a lawsuit.

That's not what they've done. They've investigated lot's of cases (like the Runyan case). They've pursued some more aggressively, including filing court paper, where they think the person knowingly and intentionally planter their seeds, but they get settled (like the Nelson case).

And as far as I know, which is been backed up by what you've posted, in every single case that's actually gone to court, the person has been found with knowingly and intentionally having planted patented technology.

That's not prosecuting for simple cross pollination.

[JMS]

This is known as "intentionally creating, and then duplicating, somebody else's patent". .

That is one way to look at it, and that is what the Canadian Supreme Court found... broadly... although narrowly they found Schmeiser was not liable for any damages and Monsanto couldn't get any money from him.

The problem here is that by Canadian Law seeds are patentable.. plants are not. So what the courts are really saying here is both are patentable which refutes an earlier precedent (Harvard College v. Canada, 2002)

Higher life forms are not Patentable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_College_v._Canada_%28Commissioner_of_Patents%29#Ruling

So basically doesn't matter if your crop is contaminated by their plants... If it's resistant to round up, they own it.

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 02:01 PM ----------

Schmeiser was found to have intentionally and knowingly planted patented seeds.

Now you are just dancing. Schmeiser never bought or planted Monsanto's seed, He says he discovered it accidentally growing on the edge of his field... HIS Field.... Then he did what he has always done, what farmers have done for thousands of years... he made plans to use the properties of strong plants on his farm to benefit his overall farm.

Runyon wasn't sued and there is no evidence that Monsanto even ever threatened to sue him.

Pete they sent a team of investigators to the man's house. They treaspassed on his property, They conducted illegal searches. They forged papers, They manufactured signed documents, They wrote him threatening letters demanding records. He hired a lawyer. To this day Runyon is blacklisted and can't purchase any Monsanto products even though he was using other Monsanto products and paying for them without dispute before these troubles.

What is your point? That Monsanto's legal actions aren't aggressive? You are wrong.

That Monsanto's actions aren't controversial... You're still wrong.

That Monsanto's overall argument is reasonable.. I think you are still wrong, but this is crux of the discussion.......

I think it's unreasonable that a farmer who never signed an agreement precluding such actions has somehow lost the rights to use his crop how he sees fit. I don't see how Monsanto's crop ending up on his property is his problem. I find it amazing that farmers who have no financial benefit for introducing Monsanto's seed into their fields are being threatened with loosing their crops by this monster company.....

I think ultimately much like the technology sector, this is a brand new kind of issue that our courts have never really considered before. As such it's true, much like the technology sector, that at least initially the guy with the deepest pockets gets the early decisions....

And that's three whole incidents.

There are hundreds of these cases out there according to CBS, BBC, NY TIMES etc. Monsanto is aggressively pursuing farmers in support of their intellectual property.

---------- Post added February-21st-2013 at 02:20 PM ----------

So your point is?

That the world has changed. That a farmer who is operating under what was established moral and legal behavior of 1990's, turned out to be breaking the law.

That the burden is being placed here entirely upon the farmer for ensuring Monsanto's crop doesn't spread... Something that he, nor Monsanto, nor the US Government can ensure.

That this ultimately this is an impossible law to protect yourself from because it doesn't require any bad behavior on your part to break. You can purchase 100% natural seed and no seed seller can guarantee your seed doesn't have some Monsanto properties in it. That over time that will become "most" Monsanto properties because it has a pretty big genetic advantage over normal seed. Which means we very well might just have created the first genetically engineered predatory monopoly shrouded in intellectual property which can not be avoided.

Basically no farmer is safe if Monsanto wants to make an example of them. Not today, and it's going to get worse.. Really their good will is the only thing keeping them from attempting to take over most of the crops in the country. And over time we all know the "good will" of large corporations are not a very reliable foundation legal decisions.

AND that's not good for the consumer

According to the NY Times article I posted their seed has infected most of the corn seed reserves in the country. It may not even be possible to eradicate it if we so choose too.

[PeterMP]

Pete they sent a team of investigators to the man's house. They treaspassed on his property, They conducted illegal searches. They forged papers, They manufactured signed documents, They wrote him threatening letters demanding records. He hired a lawyer. To this day Runyon is blacklisted and can't purchase any Monsanto products even though he was using other Monsanto products and paying for them without dispute before these troubles.

Okay, they did the first, but unless you consider the first also the 2nd and 3rd (which I guess technically it is), I'd be curious to see you post anything supporting the rest.

(He claims they did tell him a lie in something they sent him, but that isn't forging papers or manufacturing signed papers).

Are you now saying that Monsanto should be forced to sell their product to somebody?

What is your point?

My points real simple, your original claim that people have been sued again and again and again just for having their crop contaminated via cross pollination is wrong.

Every single time a case has gone to court the courts have found that the person intentionally and knowingly reproduced patented technology.

Which has been illegal since the creation of patent law in this country.

[Larry]

Now you are just dancing. Schmeiser never bought or planted Monsanto's seed, He says he discovered it accidentally growing on the edge of his field... HIS Field.... Then he did what he has always done, what farmers have done for thousands of years... he made plans to use the properties of strong plants on his farm to benefit his overall farm.

Now you're just dancing.

He discovered that his field contained some valuable, patented, plants.

These plants were so valuable that he was willing to kill off the plants that weren't patented, just so he could create a crop that was entirely patented.

He then copied the patented plants.

That the world has changed. That a farmer who is operating under what was established moral and legal behavior of 1990's, turned out to be breaking the law.

Really? Copying other people's patents was "established moral and legal behavior of 1990s"?

I bet Eli Whitney would be stunned to hear that.

That the burden is being placed here entirely upon the farmer for ensuring Monsanto's crop doesn't spread... Something that he, nor Monsanto, nor the US Government can ensure.

Not true.

He was prosecuted for knowingly and intentionally copying a patented product. (And his actions, IMO, were completely sufficient to meet that burden.)

Now I've said from the beginning of this discussion that I will have a problem, if someone ever gets prosecuted for unintentionally copying somebody's patent. In fact, I've expressed my very deep concerns that cases like this are going to become the precedents of tomorrow, and that down the road, people will point at these cases to argue that there's a clearly established precedent that unintentional infringement is still infringement.

(Go re-read the first few pages of this thread. Peter and I were on completely opposite sides.)

But the cases you're pointing at, are not cases of accidental infringement. They are clear-cut cases of intentional, deliberate, wholesale, commercial infringement.

[JMS]

Okay, they did the first, but unless you consider the first also the 2nd and 3rd (which I guess technically it is), I'd be curious to see you post anything supporting the rest..

Runyon... It's all in the original CBS article.

They treaspassed on his property, They conducted illegal searches.

"What Monsanto is doing across the country is often, and according to farmers, trespassing even, on their land, examining their crops and trying to find some of their patented crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, with the Center For Food Safety. "And if they do, they sue those farmers for their entire crop."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html

They forged papers, They manufactured signed documents,

In fact, in Feb. 2005 the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto, citing "an agreement" with the Indiana Department of Agriculture giving it the right to come on their land and test for seed contamination.

Only one problem: The Indiana Department of Agriculture didn't exist until two months after that letter was sent. What does that say to you?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-4048288.html

[PeterMP]

Runyon... It's all in the original CBS article.

Just because somebody said they did it isn't evidence that they did do it.

And the Runyons didn't make that claim.

(And I'll make the point that just because Monsanto said the Nelson's saved seed isn't evidence that they did. I don't know the result of that case.)

They forged papers, They manufactured signed documents,

That doesn't constitute forgery nor manufacture of a signature.

That constitutes exactly what I said in the post (the lied to him in a document they sent him).

Forgery would be illegal. Sending somebody a document that contains lies is not.

**EDIT**

I'm going to drop out of this line of the conversation in this thread. If we could get back to the direct topic of this thread, I think that would be great.

I think my core point about what Monsanto has and has not done in terms of their law suits is clear.

[Larry]

Okay, they did the first, but unless you consider the first also the 2nd and 3rd (which I guess technically it is), I'd be curious to see you post anything supporting the rest.

(He claims they did tell him a lie in something they sent him, but that isn't forging papers or manufacturing signed papers).

Are you now saying that Monsanto should be forced to sell their product to somebody?

One of the pages that somebody posted, in here, did have several claims of Monsanto supposedly forging people's signatures on Monsanto contracts. They were supposedly caught at it, using forged documents in court.

Every single time a case has gone to court the courts have found that the person intentionally and knowingly reproduced patented technology.

Which has been illegal since the creation of patent law in this country.

Have they?

I agree that the cases we've been arguing, the defendant has knowingly and intentionally copied patented technology. But was the law they were convicted under, was "knowingly and intentionally" part of the law?

Or were the respective juries told that "It doesn't matter whether he knew, it doesn't matter how it got there, all that matters is was a patent copied"?

Was the jury told that the prosecution had to prove "knowingly and intentionally", and the jury (correctly, IMO) ruled that he did?

[PeterMP]

Have they?

I agree that the cases we've been arguing, the defendant has knowingly and intentionally copied patented technology. But was the law they were convicted under, was "knowingly and intentionally" part of the law?

Or were the respective juries told that "It doesn't matter whether he knew, it doesn't matter how it got there, all that matters is was a patent copied"?

The courts have found that (The Canadian court was clear that the case was only about intentional use). There verdict said nothing about unintentional use. I don't know if that is really required for a guilty verdict because the courts haven't stated on that mostly because there hasn't been a case where that was the issue because Monsanto isn't suing those people.

If that's not required for a guilty verdict, then I fully support changing the law with respect to DNA technology that it is.

**EDIT**

Larry, see my edit to the above post about the rest of your post, which I made before responding your post. I don't really want to be in a position where I'm vigorously defending Monsanto. There have been plenty of other situations where they've done plenty wrong, especially related to things like the environment.

I just thought in terms of the law suits it was difficult to discuss what we should do w/o being clear what has been done.

Monsanto's behavior beyond that isn't something I'm interested in getting into or defending.

And that's why I only responded to part of your post above.

Sorry!

[twa]

Every single time a case has gone to court the courts have found that the person intentionally and knowingly reproduced patented technology.

Which has been illegal since the creation of patent law in this country.

Which is a problem when they insert their DNA into a product that has that as its purpose

that loop issue existed prior to Monsanto's manipulation, the fact they did not close it should not fall on the farmer or patent protection

are patented stem cells in humans going to carry the same issue?

[PeterMP]

Which is a problem when they insert their DNA into a product that has that as its purpose

that loop issue existed prior to Monsanto's manipulation, the fact they did not close it should not fall on the farmer or patent protection

are patented stem cells in humans going to carry the same issue?

Yes.

If you have patented stem cells put into you, you better get a life time exemption from them, and you should probably talk to whoever is putting them in about what happens if you have kids.

It is illegal to replicate patented technology (now, I think for DNA we should alter that some).

[JMS]

Now you're just dancing.

He discovered that his field contained some valuable, patented, plants.

These plants were so valuable that he was willing to kill off the plants that weren't patented, just so he could create a crop that was entirely patented.

He then copied the patented plants.

Well, So "valuable" the Canadian Supreme Court decided he saw no economic benefit from using the seed, SIX YEARS AFTER HE PLANTED IT, ? Now that's dancing...

But most of what you said is true. My point is If he didn't plant the original seed on his land, and the court didn't accuse him of that or find that he did... He did nothing more than the ancient Egyptians did when they first started to farm the Nile delta 5000 years ago. He used his existing crop to make seed for future crops.

Really? Copying other people's patents was "established moral and legal behavior of 1990s"?

Using seed from plants legally on your property as you see fit, given you have no agreement not too with any third party, certainly was.

I bet Eli Whitney would be stunned to hear that.

Eli Whitney did go out of business as his patents were unenforceable.. right. His Gin was so easily reproduced( copied) he couldn't enforce his patent. And in Eli's case his "gin" as I remember was made of wood (boards); so it took effort to build....

Where as Mr. Schmeiser woke up one day and 60% of his crop in some fields were Round up resistant. Before he started to isolate for the trait!

Not true.

But the cases you're pointing at, are not cases of accidental infringement. They are clear-cut cases of intentional, deliberate, wholesale, commercial infringement.

Just to be clear... Your position is Mr Schmeiser infringed not when the plants were introduced into his fields. Your position is HE infringed when he decided to make seed from HIS plants which nobody has accused him of steeling or intentionally planting from Monsanto.... He infringed when he decided to use his property, his plants, on his farm, which nobody has challenged were his. Plants he had no agreement with anybody not to use.

Plants that if we are to believe him had such a genetic advantage over his own crop they had already in some fields become 60% of his seed by 1997....

[twa]

Yes.

.

Are they gonna charge you if your offspring benefit from them?

confiscate them?

Limits

[Larry]

Well, So "valuable" the Canadian Supreme Court decided he saw no economic benefit from using the seed, SIX YEARS AFTER HE PLANTED IT, ? Now that's dancing...

Your explanation for why he was willing to kill off all his non-patented plants, just to get a completely patented crop, is . . . ?

Using seed from plants legally on your property as you see fit, given you have no agreement not too with any third party, certainly was.

There is an agreement.

It's called the law.

The law says "Thou shall not copy somebody else's patent, without their permission".

No further agreement is necessary.

I have never signed a contract promising not to break into your house and kill you. That doesn't mean that if I do so, it's legal.

Eli Whitney did go out of business as his patents were unenforceable.. right. His Gin was so easily reproduced( copied) he couldn't enforce his patent. And in Eli's case his "gin" as I remember was made of wood (boards); so it took effort to build....

Last I heard, killing off all non-patented plants, collecting the seeds from plants that you now know to be patented, keeping those seeds separate from the rest of your crop, and using those seeds to plant thousands of acres counted as "effort".

Just to be clear... Your position is HE infringed not when the plants got into his fields. Your position is HE infringed when he decided to make seed from HIS plants which nobody has accused him of steeling or intentionally planting from Monsanto.... He infringed when he decided to use his property, his plants, on his farm, which nobody has challenged were his.

Just to be clear, my position is he infringed when he intentionally killed off half of his crop, just so he could get a batch of seeds which he knew were patented, and then used those seeds to plant an entirely-patented crop, to make even more of them.

And they weren't his property.

That's what a patent says. The patent owner has exclusive ownership of the patented property.

If you accidentally find a Microsoft Office CD in your front yard, then the fact that you didn't steal it does not make it legal for you to install it on every computer you own, and make thousands of copies of it.

"Finders keepers" does not trump patent laws.

[PeterMP]

Are they gonna charge you if your offspring benefit from them?

confiscate them?

Limits

The limit is nobody is going to force you to use patented technology, and you have the right to educate yourself on pantented technology before you use it.

Also the patent has a lifetime to it so at most they'd be able to confiscate your kid until the patent runs out.

[JMS]

It is illegal to replicate patented technology (now, I think for DNA we should alter that some).

Well somebody should have told the corn that.

Let me give you a hypothetical... If I engineer a strand of corn which has a single pronounced pink dot on the foliage... and I give this corn a genetic advantage over all other corn including Monsanto's Corn... An advantage so pronounced that say after five years it replaces without any assistance all other corn strains.

Can I then claim all corn in this country as my personal property... Hey it's my freaking intellectual property. How dare they use it.

That's really what we are talking about here. The genetic corn has such an advantage over other strains of corn that it has already contaminated most seed stocks in this country..

As Biotech Crops Multiply, Consumers Get Little Choice

Despite persistent concerns about genetically modified crops, they are spreading so rapidly that it has become almost impossible for consumers to avoid them, agriculture experts say.

More than 100 million acres of the world's most fertile farmland were planted with genetically modified crops last year, about 25 times as much as just four years earlier. Wind-blown pollen, commingled seeds and black-market plantings have further extended these products of biotechnology into the far corners of the global food supply -- perhaps irreversibly, according to food experts.

They are even turning up where people least expect them :.....in food supplies where they are forbidden or shunned, like organic products; even in fields that farmers believe are completely free of genetically modified crops.

Food makers around the world are finding traces of gene-altered crops in foods that were not supposed to be made with them; Midwestern farmers are complaining that wind is blowing pollen from gene-altered crops into neighboring fields planted with conventional corn.

Even organic crops labeled ''G.M. Free'' are testing positive for genetic modification. Organic growers are now considering a class-action lawsuit against the biotech industry that would seek damages for the contamination.

''We have found traces in corn that has been grown organically for 10 to 15 years,'' said Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path Foods, an organic producer of breads and cereals based in Delta, British Columbia. ''There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff contained.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/10/us/as-biotech-crops-multiply-consumers-get-little-choice.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

And now we are saying Monsanto has the rights to all of it, regardless of how it got there..

[PeterMP]

Well somebody should have told the corn that.

Let me give you a hypothetical... If I engineer a strand of corn which has a single pronounced pink dot on the foliage... and I give this corn a genetic advantage over all other corn including Monsanto's Corn...

An advantage so pronounced that say after five years it replaces without any assistance all other strands of corn strains.

Can I then claim all corn in this country as my personal property... Hey it's my freaking intellectual property. How dare they use it.

The result of such a case is unclear because no such case has come before the courts.

I wouldn't support that just like I wouldn't support the right of Monsanto to sue farmers just for cross pollination.