Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Supreme Court agrees to take case on whether Monsanto can forever own our food   (npr.org) divider line 130
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto, Roundup  
•       •       •

12550 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2012 at 8:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-16 08:01:21 PM  
This could be ever so interesting.
I predict that if Monsanto loses, that they quickly will come out with a sterile hybrid.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

sigh
 
2012-10-16 08:18:39 PM  
Best part? Forever!
 
2012-10-16 08:24:15 PM  
well duh - of course SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of a corporation.
 
2012-10-16 08:26:12 PM  
Do they want my poop back? I've got a corny one that I haven't flushed yet.
 
2012-10-16 08:27:21 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: Do they want my poop back? I've got a corny one that I haven't flushed yet.


If your poop contains patented DNA, you owe Monsanto a lot of money, I'm afraid.
 
2012-10-16 08:27:23 PM  
i44.tinypic.com

/not quite relevant but vaguely topical
 
2012-10-16 08:27:25 PM  
Won't someone think of the lobbyists?
 
2012-10-16 08:30:57 PM  
Umbrella Corp?
 
2012-10-16 08:34:18 PM  
this can only end in tears...
 
2012-10-16 08:37:06 PM  
It would be better if we stopped genetically engineering crops and just used them as fuel.
 
2012-10-16 08:38:16 PM  
Monsanto is Thorn Industries from the movie "Omen II".
 
2012-10-16 08:40:10 PM  
This should be good. Off to grab my genetically engineered popcorn.
 
2012-10-16 08:40:17 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-16 08:41:14 PM  
This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.
 
2012-10-16 08:43:25 PM  
Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:08 PM  
I wish that Monsanto would be ordered to cease and desist all operations immediately.

...I suspect that will never happen though.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:12 PM  
In case anyone missed it, like forever, is the genetically modified is so you can spray roundup all over the crops. It has barely anything to do with increased food production.

/Modify 1 product and made a fortune.
//Use product number 2 on product 1 and make a fortune.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:16 PM  

sprgrss: This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.


You've pretty much perfectly described 95% of the people posting in the politics tab.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:19 PM  
toirock.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-16 08:45:14 PM  

sprgrss: This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.


Oh do please clue us in. You may need to use small words. We don't all work for Monsanto
 
2012-10-16 08:47:29 PM  
taobaofieldguide.com
 
2012-10-16 08:49:05 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.
 
2012-10-16 08:52:00 PM  
I pooped in my genes.
 
2012-10-16 08:53:15 PM  
Go watch this movie. It's available to stream from netflix. What Monsanto does isn't just criminal, it's practically agricultural terrorism. They should be scorched from the surface of the Earth.
 
2012-10-16 08:53:22 PM  

cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?


3D print new ones.

cuzsis: What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?


3D print your own food. Power to the 3D people!
 
2012-10-16 08:53:28 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Considering that Monsanto has a very high percentage of the market in soybeans, that scenario is all too likely and has happened.

/you have a right to put up your own seed if you act in good faith
//fark Monsanto, anyway - putting insecticides into the genes of a plant just makes resistance in pests happen that much faster
///why, yes, I AM an entomologist
 
2012-10-16 08:53:53 PM  
www.amateurgourmet.com

This movie.
 
2012-10-16 08:54:25 PM  

cuzsis: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.


THIS!
 
2012-10-16 08:54:49 PM  

cuzsis: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.


I forgot to mention effort made to keep a viable population of plants that *aren't* GMO, for the purposes of starting over when we finally manage to fark up the first batch of GMO to the point where they become too poisonous to use consistently.

/that's a pipe dream though.
 
2012-10-16 08:57:49 PM  

Quantum Apostrophe: cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

3D print new ones.

cuzsis: What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

3D print your own food. Power to the 3D people!


If you can 3D print a seed, I want some farking "time of the dinosaur" foods!

/would be awesome actually.
 
2012-10-16 08:59:52 PM  

cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?


But then you're talking about breaking up a monopoly. I'm pretty sure that's a completely different thing, though I'd agree, we can't let a single company own all the seed crops.

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

Again, I'll agree, we can't let that happen, but this case isn't where we should work on that. On the contrary, it wouldn't surprise me, if Monsanto wins this case, it might make it easier for them to create a monopoly and patent all the agricultural crops. (Because the next time a case against them comes up, the SC will be more likely to reject it out of hand, for being groundless.)
 
2012-10-16 08:59:57 PM  
If Monsanto wants to protect their patented crop, they should be forced to cull them from every harvest regardless of what the farmer planted, especially if the farmer planted non-Monsanto seed and is trying to save it. Shouldn't Monsanto Corporation be required to remove their product from the farmer's harvest at their own corporate expense?
 
2012-10-16 09:02:12 PM  
Here's a clue to how the decision will come out.

Michael R. Taylor
Former Monsanto executive, current Obama administration FDA executive
farm9.staticflickr.com 

Islam A. Siddiqui
Former Monsanto lobbyist, current Obama administration Chief Agriculture Negotiator
farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-16 09:03:00 PM  

sprgrss: This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.


As my dear, departed grandfather liked to say- "Put up or shut up."
 
2012-10-16 09:03:02 PM  

Honest Bender: [www.amateurgourmet.com image 450x300]

This movie.


Good movie.
 
2012-10-16 09:05:04 PM  
Many folks protest Monsanto's business practices, like this Greenpeace protester spraying paint on a company research soybean field in Iowa.

Hahaha, was it a water soluble, VOC-free paint which won't poison the air or water table? Or is this one of those deals where, "fark the environment, we've got to protect the environment."
 
2012-10-16 09:07:59 PM  
The most outrageous case from Monsanto I've heard of it a farmer using non-Monsanto seed (that are not round-up-proof)
Monsanto see from a passing truck allegedly has some blown into his field and it mixed in with his seeds. When Monsanto found out they said all of his seed, whether round up ready or not, was subject to their patent because some of the seed had been mixed in. It was either pay Monsanto for seed he already paid someone else for, or throw it out.
 
2012-10-16 09:09:22 PM  
you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet. this may change in the future, who knows. be prepared. with the cost of foods rising as fast as they are we should grow victory gardens & scoff the old pamphlets telling you how to grow indoors, hydroponic, etcetera. your government doesn't care if your kids starve to death.
 
2012-10-16 09:10:37 PM  
I am pretty sure I understand the ramifications of this issue, and that fellow above can blow it out his ass.

Monsanto is evil.

Businesses that work to control future development and innovation in this manner are evil and an anathema to a free market.
 
2012-10-16 09:11:27 PM  
photo.goodreads.com

//Beware the blister rust
 
2012-10-16 09:12:37 PM  

Dadoo: cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

But then you're talking about breaking up a monopoly. I'm pretty sure that's a completely different thing, though I'd agree, we can't let a single company own all the seed crops.

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

Again, I'll agree, we can't let that happen, but this case isn't where we should work on that. On the contrary, it wouldn't surprise me, if Monsanto wins this case, it might make it easier for them to create a monopoly and patent all the agricultural crops. (Because the next time a case against them comes up, the SC will be more likely to reject it out of hand, for being groundless.)


According TFA, over 90% of the seeds in that region (accessible by farmers who wish to plant) come from Monsanto. Their genetic monopoly is almost complete here.

Which is why this case might actually be useful. In short, you have a farmer who's choice of seeds is almost *entirely* Monsanto. It's getting beyond the ridiculous to expect him to hunt high and low for that remaining less than 10% that *aren't* in order to plant a small crop.

The question of "What happens if you want to plant seeds that *aren't* Monsanto?" that I posted earlier, suddenly becomes quite relevant when only a small percentage of the seeds aren't.

/it's not the best case, I will certainly agree with you there.
//but I think, assuming our justices are being honest, that it's not a foregone conclusion either.
 
2012-10-16 09:12:42 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Monsanto doesn't do that. What happens in those cases, as it comes out later in discovery and the media has already moved along to the next story, is that the farmer was actually planting Monsanto seeds and planted them. In the cases of actual wind spreading, Monsanto was required to file lawsuits because the farmers refused to allow them to investigate whether or not it was a case of cross-contamination or IP infringement. In the instances of cross-contamination, Monsanto would move to voluntarily dismiss the cases.

This all gets lost along the way because it isn't a sexy story for the media to cover.
 
2012-10-16 09:13:30 PM  

cuzsis:
/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.


Even better, DNA should not be patentable.
If you design a strain of plant or animal, and want full control of it and its future offspring, make it sterile so you are the only one who can produce or sell seed. Otherwise, fark you, too bad.
 
2012-10-16 09:14:02 PM  

KrispyKritter: you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet


Cool. Go for it. Then, when your neighbor's monsanto crop contaminates yours you'll get sued by Monsanto. Because they DO keep tabs on farmers. All farmers. And they WILL sneak onto your farm and take samples. And they WILL sue you for "using" their GMO without a license. And you WILL lose.
 
2012-10-16 09:15:46 PM  
all this talk about GMO food being unsafe is laughable. There is zero scientific evidence to support those claims.
 
2012-10-16 09:16:43 PM  

Honest Bender: KrispyKritter: you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet

Cool. Go for it. Then, when your neighbor's monsanto crop contaminates yours you'll get sued by Monsanto. Because they DO keep tabs on farmers. All farmers. And they WILL sneak onto your farm and take samples. And they WILL sue you for "using" their GMO without a license. And you WILL lose.


Holy hell, this post is so devoid of any actual factual basis it isn't even funny.
 
2012-10-16 09:23:18 PM  

dbrunker: Here's a clue to how the decision will come out.

Michael R. Taylor
Former Monsanto executive, current Obama administration FDA executive


Hell, the Obama administration didn't even think this guy should get his day in court.

The Supreme Court took up the case against the advice of the Obama administration, which said the Federal Circuit reached the right conclusion in the case.

The "right" conclusion being whatever their wealthy donor friends wanted, of course. For once, subby's headline is accurate.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-16 09:32:30 PM  
The SC is stacked with conservative fascist GOP fargotts, so I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of the corp.
 
2012-10-16 09:33:38 PM  
i.qkme.me 

/fark Monsanto.
 
2012-10-16 09:36:09 PM  

BullBearMS: dbrunker: Here's a clue to how the decision will come out.

Michael R. Taylor
Former Monsanto executive, current Obama administration FDA executive

Hell, the Obama administration didn't even think this guy should get his day in court.

The Supreme Court took up the case against the advice of the Obama administration, which said the Federal Circuit reached the right conclusion in the case.

The "right" conclusion being whatever their wealthy donor friends wanted, of course. For once, subby's headline is accurate.

[dl.dropbox.com image 423x600]


This. Despite what the retards on the Politics tab tell you, the Democrats are not your friends, either.
 
2012-10-16 09:48:18 PM  

Honest Bender: Go watch this movie. It's available to stream from netflix. What Monsanto does isn't just criminal, it's practically agricultural terrorism. They should be scorched from the surface of the Earth.


Greedy, single-minded middle-aged white men, wearing suits.
These are the true enemies of the human race. They'll deplete all the resources, pollute the air and water, and be sending the young men off to die so they can squabble over whats left.
They can be "left" or "right", but they all share the common respect for other old, rich, white dudes just like them. (Judges fall into that rich old white dude category) and all share contempt for anyone who is not like them.
 
2012-10-16 10:40:09 PM  
on most topics, i'm inclined to go with the scientists...

but when it comes to dicking around with genetic codes that developed over billions of years, i'm inclined to side with "god" being the most reliable to not fark up our ecosystem. it's all fun and games until the bees all die or some other unexpected shiat happens

monsanto has proven they're just a bunch of greedy bastards who only care about money through their lawyers

they also did a helluva job creating agent orange
 
2012-10-16 10:43:38 PM  
sprgrss
The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.

Well, by all means, link to some appropriately-misleading articles for us to base our opinions on.
 
2012-10-16 10:46:16 PM  

sprgrss: Honest Bender: KrispyKritter: you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet

Cool. Go for it. Then, when your neighbor's monsanto crop contaminates yours you'll get sued by Monsanto. Because they DO keep tabs on farmers. All farmers. And they WILL sneak onto your farm and take samples. And they WILL sue you for "using" their GMO without a license. And you WILL lose.

Holy hell, this post is so devoid of any actual factual basis it isn't even funny.


You're either trolling (I hope) or colossally ignorant.

A quick Google search can cure the latter.
 
2012-10-16 10:47:27 PM  

JerkyMeat: The SC is stacked with conservative fascist GOP fargotts, so I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of the corp.


You mean like the ones that extended Eminent Domain to be "whatever the government wants" ?

/Go over to the debate thread, you farktard
 
2012-10-16 10:50:57 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.


Yeah, this does seem pretty much open and shut.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

If that actually happened (as stated) and the case wasn't immediately thrown out with prejudice, then the judge who allowed it should be impeached. There is no act of infringement, nor is there any agreement in place to prohibit it.

cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?


How did all the other seeds become unusable?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

What made all non GMC go extinct?

Also, patents shouldn't last as long as they do.
 
2012-10-16 10:52:49 PM  
Gee, I wonder how Obama appointed Supreme Court Judge Kagan will rule on this. I think she'll just rubber stamp everything in favor of Monsanto as usual. Good ole liberal judges, right?
 
2012-10-16 10:55:05 PM  
Seems like a straightforward "doctrine of first use"
 
2012-10-16 10:57:02 PM  

Carousel Beast: A quick Google search can cure the latter.



And as I said earlier. If you bothered to actually read the court cases on the issues and the filings, you'd see that what is being reported by the media is bollocks.

Hell, the darling of the anti-Monsanto crowd, Percy Schmeiser, didn't get in trouble for cross pollination, but got in trouble because he planted Monsanto crops without paying for them and then used round-up to kill all the non-monsanto rapeseed.
 
2012-10-16 10:58:06 PM  

dervish16108: Gee, I wonder how Obama appointed Supreme Court Judge Kagan will rule on this. I think she'll just rubber stamp everything in favor of Monsanto as usual. Good ole liberal judges, right?


So you think she should magically create her own law from the bench and not interpret the statutes that are at issue? If she did that, she wouldn't be fit to be a judge.
 
2012-10-16 11:03:50 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


These are the problematic cases. Unfortunately, Monsanto isn't actually to blame here. Rather, blame our legal system. Monsanto doesn't have the option to ignore such innocent infringement because to do so would leave their patents unenforceable.
 
2012-10-16 11:09:09 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Wouldn't matter: it's a patent case. Patent law means it doesn't matter how you managed to obtain an infringing product: if it violates the protected claims of the patent (even if you developed it yourself while the patent was still secret) you can't sell it.

Using round-up could very well be "willful infringement" that triples the damages given, but IANAL.
 
2012-10-16 11:19:29 PM  

JerkyMeat: The SC is stacked with conservative fascist GOP fargotts, so I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of the corp.


You mean the 5/4 SCOTUS split that famously upheld ObamaCare as Constitutional, favoring the government over corps?
 
2012-10-16 11:24:51 PM  

yet_another_wumpus: Wouldn't matter: it's a patent case. Patent law means it doesn't matter how you managed to obtain an infringing product: if it violates the protected claims of the patent (even if you developed it yourself while the patent was still secret) you can't sell it.


Exactly why patent laws should not apply or cover living organisms.
You cannot control what your "invention" will do in the wild. It's a living thing, it will do what it wants.

Monsanto farked up by not making this breed sterile, they should not have any rights to go after anyone who has offspring of this breed, or even 2nd/3rd/4th-hand seeds of this breed. It's out there now, it's out of their control.
 
2012-10-16 11:31:27 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Actually, I think this is a myth. I have attempted to look up such cases, and have never been able to find any. From what I have seen, Monsanto only tries cases where there is evidence people have *intentionally* planted seed that they knew would contain their patented genes.

There have been a couple of cases where somebody *claimed* that their crop resulted from accidental cross-pollination, but when I looked at the facts, it really seemed like they were lying and had intentionally planted roundup-ready crops.
 
2012-10-16 11:42:46 PM  
They can have my food when I'm done with it. I'll leave it in their lobby.

/bet they have some good magazines in the lobby. Some sudoku. Laws yes.
 
2012-10-16 11:44:37 PM  

cs30109: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

Actually, I think this is a myth. I have attempted to look up such cases, and have never been able to find any. From what I have seen, Monsanto only tries cases where there is evidence people have *intentionally* planted seed that they knew would contain their patented genes.

There have been a couple of cases where somebody *claimed* that their crop resulted from accidental cross-pollination, but when I looked at the facts, it really seemed like they were lying and had intentionally planted roundup-ready crops.


Winner Winner chicken dinner
 
2012-10-16 11:46:05 PM  

Saturn5: The most outrageous case from Monsanto I've heard of it a farmer using non-Monsanto seed (that are not round-up-proof)
Monsanto see from a passing truck allegedly has some blown into his field and it mixed in with his seeds. When Monsanto found out they said all of his seed, whether round up ready or not, was subject to their patent because some of the seed had been mixed in. It was either pay Monsanto for seed he already paid someone else for, or throw it out.


I say we take off and nuke Monsanto from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
 
2012-10-16 11:55:58 PM  
Monsanto created a soybean that was resistant to their herbicide. The farmer knew that the seed he bought was Monsanto's because he sprayed that herbicide on his crop instead of some other one that would kill the weeds and the soybean equally well which is a pretty good indication of guilt. Patents only last 17 years and the patent has already expired on Roundup and it will expire on Roundup resistant soybeans eventually but in the meantime they have the right to enforce the patent and recoup their R&D costs for what is clearly a very valuable and useful product given that it has a 94% market share. Can anybody think of another product that has a 94% market share?
 
2012-10-17 12:04:01 AM  
SCOTUSblog's got the details of the case.

Their summary:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion - a doctrine which eliminates the right to control or prohibit the use of an invention after an authorized sale - in patented seeds that were sold for planting; and (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.

See also Wikipedia's summary of the exhaustion doctrine. Given that the Court had already accepted a case covering copyright's first-sale doctrine, it is not surprising -- or in any way indicative that they'll be overturning the lower decision -- that they'd take an analogous patent case too.
 
2012-10-17 12:16:47 AM  
not quite relevant but vaguely topical

nice chart, bro
 
2012-10-17 12:28:44 AM  
*sigh*

Can we please, as a society, move on from the damn Monsanto-seed-lawsuit issues? They're such terrible examples to use, where the FAIL is thick on all sides. Continuing to use these cases just ends up degrading into these useless conversations, caught forever in an argument over useless details and justified name-calling.

Instead, remember that there is a giant list of reasons to hate Monsanto; this muddied and confusing seed-use issue isn't even needed.

TL;DR for links, respectively: rBST, Agent Orange, PCBs contamination, dioxin spills, antitrust
/nowhere close to an exhaustive list; that's just what I could find links for quickly in google...
 
2012-10-17 12:30:23 AM  
Monsanto owns its seeds until it sells them to you.

Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.

This seems obvious.

However, since it's the Roberts court, they'll decide that any farmer who has ever sown Monsanto brand seed is now permanently indentured to the Monsanto Corporation, any land where Monsanto seed has been sown should properly escheat to Monsanto Corporation, and any implied contract should be liberally construed to permit Monsanto executives to drop by their serf's farm to fark the farmer's wife and kids.

It's what we owe our corporate betters.
 
2012-10-17 12:36:16 AM  

tekmo: Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.


Exactly. This is a patent, not a farking copyright. The plant you bought may produce seeds. Those seeds are not derivative works of art protected by copyright.
 
2012-10-17 12:36:27 AM  

tekmo: Monsanto owns its seeds until it sells them to you.

Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.

This seems obvious.

However, since it's the Roberts court, they'll decide that any farmer who has ever sown Monsanto brand seed is now permanently indentured to the Monsanto Corporation, any land where Monsanto seed has been sown should properly escheat to Monsanto Corporation, and any implied contract should be liberally construed to permit Monsanto executives to drop by their serf's farm to fark the farmer's wife and kids.

It's what we owe our corporate betters.


I'm not sure that is true. I'll be honest and admit I know nothing about farming, but I'm fairly sure you are licensing herbicide resistant technology as opposed to buying a seed.

The real shiatstorm will happen if California passes prop 37 requiring all GMO foods to be labeled. There is no non-GMO corn or Soy in the US (no supply large enough to serve someone like Kraft or General Mills). Even if you try plant non-GMO, there is enough GMO pollen around to contaminate your fields.
 
2012-10-17 12:47:35 AM  

cuzsis: cuzsis: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.

I forgot to mention effort made to keep a viable population of plants that *aren't* GMO, for the purposes of starting over when we finally manage to fark up the first batch of GMO to the point where they become too poisonous to use consistently.

/that's a pipe dream though.


They're called "heirloom seeds" and they're quite easily available.
 
2012-10-17 12:49:15 AM  
I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.
 
2012-10-17 01:14:06 AM  

tekmo: Monsanto owns its seeds until it sells them to you.

Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.

This seems obvious.

However, since it's the Roberts court, they'll decide that any farmer who has ever sown Monsanto brand seed is now permanently indentured to the Monsanto Corporation, any land where Monsanto seed has been sown should properly escheat to Monsanto Corporation, and any implied contract should be liberally construed to permit Monsanto executives to drop by their serf's farm to fark the farmer's wife and kids.

It's what we owe our corporate betters.


Ask your representatives their view on Monsanto thievery around the world.
Ask your representatives to resign if they are pro Monsanto.
Do not vote for any candidate who has not explicitly rejected Monsanto.

Do not associate with Monsanto employees and associates.
Do not allow your children to play with Monsanto employee's children.
Point out to your friends Monsanto employees, scorn them.
Ask them to leave your neighborhood.

If you find a patron in your restaurant works for Monsanto, do not serve them.
Make them wait, and then ask them to leave.
Do not do business with anyone associated with Monsanto.

Unless, of course, you think it is OK to be charged every single time you hear a song.
If you think it is OK for your cars manufacturer to charge you yearly for driving their car.
If you think it is OK for the breeder you bought your dog from to own your dogs offspring.
If you believe these things then please exit the USA, abandon your citizenship, and GFTO.
 
2012-10-17 01:14:18 AM  

namatad: This could be ever so interesting.
I predict that if Monsanto loses, that they quickly will come out with a sterile hybrid.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

sigh


Won't matter, the farmers will have the current non-sterile seedstocks and will use them endlessly if they can, rather than purchase sterile seeds from a mostly detested company.
 
2012-10-17 01:17:21 AM  

OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.


Don't worry. They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.

Link
 
2012-10-17 01:19:10 AM  
Are you allowed to take a portion of the crops and hold them over for seed for next season?

Seems like you should be able to.
 
2012-10-17 01:27:04 AM  

RogermcAllen: I'm not sure that is true. I'll be honest and admit I know nothing about farming, but I'm fairly sure you are licensing herbicide resistant technology as opposed to buying a seed.


I'd presume that would be Monsanto's argument, but that's making a mockery of the concept of a lease. Indeed, if Monsanto actually licensed their ag technology to XYZ Corporation of Inner Mongolia, yes, of course they can and should assert control over their intellectual property within the bounds of ordinary lease law.

That said, if Monsanto chooses to develop plants designed to work with special efficiency with Monsanto herbicides and pesticides, then pitch the sale to the customer in terms of cost-effectiveness, convenience or whatever, well that's literally their business. Likewise, if I want to buy a Monsanto seed and NOT use a Monsanto herbicide, that's my business. Monsanto can't dictate how I manage my business merely because I purchase one of their products.

It's like Home Depot insisting they have the right to limit how I use the hammer I purchased there, then suing me for using that hammer to drive nails I bought at Lowes, or claiming they have rights to the product of my labor because I used that particular hammer.

Just...no.
 
2012-10-17 01:29:18 AM  

from my blood: Do not associate with Monsanto employees and associates. Do not allow your children to play with Monsanto employee's children.


Well NOW you tell me!

My ex's father was a Monsanto salesman, and Christ, what an asshole.

The ex turned out to be just as bad.
 
2012-10-17 01:30:57 AM  

Wise_Guy: Are you allowed to take a portion of the crops and hold them over for seed for next season?


No.
 
2012-10-17 01:34:07 AM  

tekmo: from my blood: Do not associate with Monsanto employees and associates. Do not allow your children to play with Monsanto employee's children.

Well NOW you tell me!

My ex's father was a Monsanto salesman, and Christ, what an asshole.

The ex turned out to be just as bad.


Well, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you know. And if it does, whoever picks it up gets sued.
 
2012-10-17 01:34:25 AM  
page not found.
 
2012-10-17 01:38:17 AM  
images2.wikia.nocookie.net 

/Am disappoint 
//If it's obscure your a idiot
 
2012-10-17 01:42:08 AM  

RogermcAllen: The real shiatstorm will happen if California passes prop 37 requiring all GMO foods to be labeled. There is no non-GMO corn or Soy in the US (no supply large enough to serve someone like Kraft or General Mills). Even if you try plant non-GMO, there is enough GMO pollen around to contaminate your fields.


i.imgur.com

?
 
2012-10-17 01:47:33 AM  
Doesn't Monsanto do some weird genetic terminating trick that sterilizes first gen. seeds, to force growers to buy seed more frequently? I could be wrong, though...there's a LOT of tinfoil out there when Monsanto is concerned, and finding impartial information about them can be dodgy.
 
2012-10-17 01:47:37 AM  

untaken_name: They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.


Oh ferfarksake.

A manufacturer sells a textbook in America for a much, much higher price than it sells the same textbook in Asia. Enterprising student buys the Asian textbooks for the manufacturer's asking price there, transports them here, sells them to American students, realizes a small profit.

Manufacturer sues enterprising student for interfering with their right to price-gouge Americans.

I just...ugh.
 
2012-10-17 01:53:32 AM  

tekmo: untaken_name: They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.

Oh ferfarksake.

A manufacturer sells a textbook in America for a much, much higher price than it sells the same textbook in Asia. Enterprising student buys the Asian textbooks for the manufacturer's asking price there, transports them here, sells them to American students, realizes a small profit.

Manufacturer sues enterprising student for interfering with their right to price-gouge Americans.

I just...ugh.


Apparently, "free trade" is only for registered, licensed corporations. (Yes, I realize it always was.)
 
2012-10-17 02:10:09 AM  
Perhaps not the greatest example of genetic code manipulation, it freaks me out that bananas are code 4011 everywhere.

I suppose if I move I won't have to learn new codes.
 
2012-10-17 02:26:47 AM  

ciberido: I say we take off and nuke Monsanto from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.


Assassinating their board of directors would be just as effective and much less messy.
 
2012-10-17 02:28:23 AM  

clyph: ciberido: I say we take off and nuke Monsanto from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Assassinating their board of directors would be just as effective and much less messy.


During a meeting with their lawyers, pls.
 
2012-10-17 02:39:02 AM  

OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.


I'll disagree. I think it fits a licensing model. Like when I pay for some commercial software, I haven't purchased ownership of the software itself. I have purchased the right to use their software for a set period of time on a single machine. All ownership and rights to the software are retained by the company. And making a copy, or using the software past the time period for which I have a license is illegal.

pay for antivirus software, I am purchasing the right to use it for a set period of time on a limited number of machines. After that year period, then I have to relicense or cease using the product.

When
 
2012-10-17 02:41:47 AM  
Wow, that was weird. Half my post disappeared. Oh well, you get the idea.
 
2012-10-17 02:52:23 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.

I'll disagree. I think it fits a licensing model. Like when I pay for some commercial software, I haven't purchased ownership of the software itself. I have purchased the right to use their software for a set period of time on a single machine. All ownership and rights to the software are retained by the company. And making a copy, or using the software past the time period for which I have a license is illegal.

pay for antivirus software, I am purchasing the right to use it for a set period of time on a limited number of machines. After that year period, then I have to relicense or cease using the product.


And does the software maker own your creation if you use, for example, their compiler? Same for animation software? Who owns the fruits of their labor? The tool maker or the tool user? Seeds are just another tool. They don't grow into profitable crops on their own. That takes hard work. Monsanto does not create the crops, so why should they have any say whatsoever to how those crops are used?
 
2012-10-17 02:56:31 AM  

untaken_name: OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.

Don't worry. They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.

Link


That case would only affect foreign sales imported into this country. Monsanto is an American company selling directly to American farmers. I don't see how it would apply in this case even if the courts ruled badly.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past a company like Monsanto to create a post box in another country and shift their "corporate office" over seas if that would give them more control.
 
2012-10-17 02:58:12 AM  
Nrokreffefp
namatad: This could be ever so interesting.
I predict that if Monsanto loses, that they quickly will come out with a sterile hybrid.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
sigh
Won't matter, the farmers will have the current non-sterile seedstocks and will use them endlessly if they can, rather than purchase sterile seeds from a mostly detested company.


My science knowledge is weak, but seeds migrate even if accidently. Would cross-pollenation create a problem making other non-sterile seeds sterile?
 
2012-10-17 03:27:47 AM  
There is no way to sustain this planet full of people without companies like Monsanto. And while I agree that their tactics are questionable, the answer as to why the scientific community is at least ambivalent about them (if not downright positive) and why the Obama administration is in favor of them, is right there. Stop breeding, start building a wall around the West, or live with Monsanto. Those are your options.
 
2012-10-17 03:40:17 AM  

Enemabag Jones: Nrokreffefp
namatad: This could be ever so interesting.
I predict that if Monsanto loses, that they quickly will come out with a sterile hybrid.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha
sigh
Won't matter, the farmers will have the current non-sterile seedstocks and will use them endlessly if they can, rather than purchase sterile seeds from a mostly detested company.

My science knowledge is weak, but seeds migrate even if accidently. Would cross-pollenation create a problem making other non-sterile seeds sterile?



I don't think so..... not all of their products are sterile.

But if Monsanto said 'Hey, we can make your next child run like the dickens, he will win the Olympics, and this will have no other affect on him, except that he'll be especially smart!"

So, you scrounge up the $10k and they modify your unborns genetics and 20 years later he's having a child but OOPS Monsanto OWNS your grandchild and takes him away. He has their genetics and you should have studied to be a lawyer so you could understand the contract a little bit better.

They patent life. NOONE patents life in my world. Noone but GOD.
 
2012-10-17 03:59:14 AM  
Sily luddites, you can't stop progress
 
2012-10-17 04:05:06 AM  
GMO foods breed libertarianism. While the Ds and Rs are arguing about where 4 people dying in an embassy attack in Benghazi technically classifies as "terror," there are monopolistic companies suing farmers out of business or just plain intimidating them into buying their product. Where was the Libertarian Party candidate during the Presidential debate? Not invited and not welcome. Where was the Green Party candidate? Jail.

So Rombama and the bigwigs from multinational corporations like Monsanto can afford to eat all the organically grown heirloom foods they wish, prepared for them by private chefs or expensive restaurants, while the poor people of America are unwittingly buying shiat GMO Kellogg's or General Mills cereal and mass-produced bread with little nutritional value. But it's not just America, because we get to spread our "wealth" to other countries through "foreign aid" and various incentives to plant GMOs. Even if you believe that GMOs are perfectly safe and healthy, you have to admit that the tactics of companies like Monsanto and the complicity of the US government are devious and result in people being uninformed about what they are eating (failure of the US and of states to pass laws regarding GMO labeling) and people having no affordable choice in grocery stores and restaurants about the content of their food.

I'm a Libertarian. I believe that even poor people should have information and choices about the food that they eat. Monsanto does not believe that farmers should even have a choice about which crops they plant, and they don't give a damn whether people have the choice of organic or non-GMO foods. And the government can effectively make that happen through subsidies. How do corn growers make money? They have little choice but to play ball with Monsanto and to take aid and subsidies from the govt and the consumers/taxpayers are getting screwed on the back end.
 
2012-10-17 04:26:28 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: There is no way to sustain this planet full of people without companies like Monsanto. And while I agree that their tactics are questionable, the answer as to why the scientific community is at least ambivalent about them (if not downright positive) and why the Obama administration is in favor of them, is right there. Stop breeding, start building a wall around the West, or live with Monsanto. Those are your options.


You believe these are your only options. Congratulations you have achieved perfect subservience.
 
2012-10-17 04:46:56 AM  

untaken_name: tekmo: from my blood: Do not associate with Monsanto employees and associates. Do not allow your children to play with Monsanto employee's children.

Well NOW you tell me!

My ex's father was a Monsanto salesman, and Christ, what an asshole.

The ex turned out to be just as bad.

Well, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, you know. And if it does, whoever picks it up gets sued.


For whoever cuts down that tree, plausible deniability is in effect.
 
2012-10-17 05:08:55 AM  
Just for fun:

Suppose I invent magic beans. Never mind what they do, they're just magic. And I've got a patent on the magic beans, which means I'm the only one allowed to make or sell them.

Patent exhaustion means that if I sell you a bag of magic beans, then -- as of the moment the sale is complete -- my right to control sale of that specific bag of magic beans has ended. You can sell that bag of magic beans to someone else if you decide you don't want them anymore (you still can't manufacture your own magic beans, though, because this only covers the right to control sales, not the right to control making them).

But there's a twist! Patent exhaustion actually happens at an authorized sale. And "authorized" is a tricky term. Suppose I sell you a bag of magic beans, but we do it with a contract that has some extra stuff in it. Like, you agree in the contract not to use the magic beans for purposes of overthrowing the government of Liechtenstein. You sign, I get my money, you get the beans.

And then you go and use the beans to overthrow the government of Liechtenstein. And, having accomplished your purpose, you go to sell the leftover beans. I can now haul your Liechtenstein-overthrowing little butt into court, along with the butts of anybody who bought the beans from you, because by violating the terms of our contract you've turned an authorized sale into an unauthorized sale. And without an authorized sale, there's no patent exhaustion to defend you; you're just on the hook for straight up selling my magic beans in violation of my patents.

This is, very roughly, what's going on in this case. Monsanto is arguing that a violation of the terms it imposes as part of sale of its seeds means that there's no patent exhaustion going on here, and so the folks who were buying and selling the seeds are in violation of the patent. Thus far, the courts have agreed with Monsanto (and it does seem like a pretty open-and-shut case with respect to the law, no matter how you feel about Monsanto or GMO crops or whatever, plus the farmer kinda screwed himself by initially trying to defend himself against Monsanto in court without a freakin' lawyer).

So it may be the Supreme Court wants to clarify exactly when exhaustion does or doesn't happen. There is apparently some confusion on this, especially with respect to older cases which may or may not have been rendered out-of-date by newer Supreme Court decisions, and clearing up that kind of confusion is one big reason why they take cases. They may also just want to smack the lower court around since it seems to've kind of drunkenly wandered off and started inventing new things in parts of its ruling. Or maybe they want to drastically change something about how patents get handled. Right now, nobody knows.

Similarly, the copyright case involving the textbooks centers around exactly whether the initial sale met the requirements to get first-sale protection, and the reasons for the Court to take it may fall into the same sort of spectrum of possibilities.
 
2012-10-17 05:22:39 AM  
I am surprised that so far no one has pointed out that Justice Thomas used to actually work for Monsanto. Or that last time he chose to hear a case involving Monsanto he not only refused to recuse himself for conflict of interest, Monsanto actually hired his wife as a 'consultant' for a couple mil. You can guess how that case went. You can guess how the next one will go, too.

/Supreme court justices don't have any rules of ethics pertaining to their conduct. They are considered above reproach, hence why he is not in jail, as any other judge would be for similar behavior.
//As such, he doesn't have to even have to try to keep up appearances of impartiality, so he doesn't bother. He is there for life and he knows it.
 
2012-10-17 05:47:12 AM  

OgreMagi: untaken_name: OgreMagi: I think the first sale doctrine perfectly applies here. A book company can control books it sells to bookstores. Once the book is sold to a consumer, however, their control ends and the consumer can do as he pleases. The initial sale of seeds can be controlled by Monsanto, but the crops grown (which includes seeds) are not under their control. The Supreme Court prefers to base their decisions on precedence and this scenario is made to order.

Don't worry. They're going to overturn that next. Later this month, specifically.

Link

That case would only affect foreign sales imported into this country. Monsanto is an American company selling directly to American farmers. I don't see how it would apply in this case even if the courts ruled badly.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past a company like Monsanto to create a post box in another country and shift their "corporate office" over seas if that would give them more control.


They'll just pull a Halliburton. If they haven't already. Link
 
2012-10-17 05:57:43 AM  

ubernostrum: Just for fun:

Suppose I invent magic beans. Never mind what they do, they're just magic. And I've got a patent on the magic beans, which means I'm the only one allowed to make or sell them.

Patent exhaustion means that if I sell you a bag of magic beans, then -- as of the moment the sale is complete -- my right to control sale of that specific bag of magic beans has ended. You can sell that bag of magic beans to someone else if you decide you don't want them anymore (you still can't manufacture your own magic beans, though, because this only covers the right to control sales, not the right to control making them).

But there's a twist! Patent exhaustion actually happens at an authorized sale. And "authorized" is a tricky term. Suppose I sell you a bag of magic beans, but we do it with a contract that has some extra stuff in it. Like, you agree in the contract not to use the magic beans for purposes of overthrowing the government of Liechtenstein. You sign, I get my money, you get the beans.

And then you go and use the beans to overthrow the government of Liechtenstein. And, having accomplished your purpose, you go to sell the leftover beans. I can now haul your Liechtenstein-overthrowing little butt into court, along with the butts of anybody who bought the beans from you, because by violating the terms of our contract you've turned an authorized sale into an unauthorized sale. And without an authorized sale, there's no patent exhaustion to defend you; you're just on the hook for straight up selling my magic beans in violation of my patents.

This is, very roughly, what's going on in this case. Monsanto is arguing that a violation of the terms it imposes as part of sale of its seeds means that there's no patent exhaustion going on here, and so the folks who were buying and selling the seeds are in violation of the patent. Thus far, the courts have agreed with Monsanto (and it does seem like a pretty open-and-shut case with respect to the law, no matter ...



After throwing some Magic Beans at your in court, and in the face of the "justice" who is in fact from Liechtenstein and should not have heard the case...

I believe that you have a case. But. You do not own Liechtenstein because of this... I do. And when Liechtenstein goes on to conquer Biechtenstein, using the same Magic Beans, Magic Beans INC does NOT have rights over Biechtenstein, either. Biechtenstein is officially part of Liechtenstein, to everyone's consternation.

The sale terms were violated, and due to the violation of terms, you may have your Magic Beans back, with no refund. Sell them again, if you like.

Thanks.
 
2012-10-17 06:53:14 AM  

SquishyLizard: [photo.goodreads.com image 311x475]

//Beware the blister rust


The Windup Girl is a ridiculously good book.

Also, if nobody knows, Humble Bundle (http://www.humblebundle.com/) has a E Book thing going on now, pay what you want - it's worth your money just for Pablo's other book Pump Six and Scalzi's Old Man's War.
 
2012-10-17 07:15:03 AM  
Let's say I bought an iPhone. The iPhone is mine: I can do with it what I want, I can sell it, I can give it away, I can take it apart into little pieces, etc.

What I CAN'T do is use that iPhone as a basis to make another iPhone and sell it. It doesn't matter that I put work and money and time into making the other iPhone. That's still intellectual property and I can't sell it. So... Monsanto is perfectly legal. The farmer can't use the seeds to produce more seeds holding the patented DNA, the crops from which he was planning on selling, because it's the same as making knockoff iPhones and selling them.

Is my reasoning correct? IANAL & I feel I've made a mistake in there.

//Please note that I don't agree with this. I find this whole issue ridiculous, but...
 
2012-10-17 07:18:53 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: I'll disagree. I think it fits a licensing model. Like when I pay for some commercial software, I haven't purchased ownership of the software itself. I have purchased the right to use their software for a set period of time on a single machine. All ownership and rights to the software are retained by the company. And making a copy, or using the software past the time period for which I have a license is illegal.


Except we're not talking about software, we're talking about seeds. And making copies is pretty much the whole damn point behind planting seeds.
 
2012-10-17 07:40:32 AM  

sprgrss: dervish16108: Gee, I wonder how Obama appointed Supreme Court Judge Kagan will rule on this. I think she'll just rubber stamp everything in favor of Monsanto as usual. Good ole liberal judges, right?

So you think she should magically create her own law from the bench and not interpret the statutes that are at issue? If she did that, she wouldn't be fit to be a judge.


How do you think Citizens United and Kelo v. New London were made into law?
 
2012-10-17 08:14:11 AM  

tekmo: Monsanto owns its seeds until it sells them to you.

Then you own the seeds. When sunshine, your toil, soil, water and fertilizer cause the seeds to grow into crops, you own those crops, not Monsanto. Because you own those crops, you also own any of the seeds of those crops. You, not Monsanto.

However, you may not duplicate Monsanto's work to arrive at a similar or identical product, nor may you represent Monsanto's product as your own.

This seems obvious.

However, since it's the Roberts court, they'll decide that any farmer who has ever sown Monsanto brand seed is now permanently indentured to the Monsanto Corporation, any land where Monsanto seed has been sown should properly escheat to Monsanto Corporation, and any implied contract should be liberally construed to permit Monsanto executives to drop by their serf's farm to fark the farmer's wife and kids.

It's what we owe our corporate betters.


Guess as soon as I buy that DVD I own the movie and can do what I wish with it, even sell it, right?
 
2012-10-17 08:21:09 AM  
No one should be eating Soy that has been sprayed with Roundup. Roundup is highly toxic and carcinogenic, and if Monsanto didn't have such an insanely powerful lobby, Roundup would be illegal.
 
2012-10-17 09:11:12 AM  
I am pleasantly surprised at the reasonableness of this thread.

A note about terminator seeds. Sterile means sterile. Means it won't interface with anything. The holy grail of selective sterility at the moment though is isolated populations. Say...if you had population X and population Y in the same area, and population X could only produce seed with population X without affecting the plant in any other way. This would be a godsend to anybody who who works with transgenics, as the permits and hassle of working with them mostly stem from the fear of 'genetic pollution'. You wouldn't have to isolate transgenic fields spatially.

Also, I find it amusing that the terminator seeds induce both reactions in the same thread.

'Holy crap they control our seeds and we are utterly dependent on getting new seeds from them next year'
and
'We can't have this GMO stuff getting out anywhere else. We need to make them sterile'

Truly shows that no matter what course you go, you get screwed here.
 
2012-10-17 10:15:31 AM  
LewDux: Sily luddites, you can't stop progress

yes cuz 'progress' is cancer and shortened life spans.
 
2012-10-17 10:37:24 AM  

ubernostrum: Just for fun:


To refine your excellent magic bean analogy a little further, there's a bit more to the whole thing than that.

Patent exhaustion used to mean that any bullshiat restriction you put on your magic beans ends once I have purchased them. You might tell me not to take over Lichtenstein with them, but that wasn't going to stop me from teaching those fake-Swiss ski-wearing bastards a lesson. And SCOTUS would've backed me up - the general idea is that once the beans were my legal property, any restrictions were null and void.

Now, in 1992, the DC Court of Appeals screwed all that up. They said that any licensor of a patent can put whatever sort of bullshiat restrictions they want on the thing, as long as it's within the "rule of reason" and not a restraint of trade, like price-fixing or tie-ins. This, obviously, is bullshiat, since it did away with the bright line rule and it's what has led to Monsanto's success in roundup-ready bean lawsuits. They basically tossed out all of the prior precedent that says a patented product can be used for whatever purpose after it's been sold to a legitimate buyer.

In 2008, however, SCOTUS finally got around to poking at this issue with a shiat-covered stick, when they looked at microprocessor patents and a 3rd party buyer's supposed infringement of same. Thomas wrote the opinion of a unanimous court that basically was worthless and just confused everybody even more - sidestepping the issue entirely and adding even more uncertainty to how to deal with after-sale restrictions on patented objects and processes.

Now, it looks like they're finally going to get some of the precedent sorted out. Ideally, they'd go back to the long line of cases that existed pre-1992 to say that any restriction placed on a product is invalid once the product is sold to a for-value purchaser. Then we'd get rid of all of this bullshiat about breaking the law by rooting your phone, replanting seeds that you grew and harvested yourself, posting instructions on hacking PS3s, and I can finally establish my icy fortress high in the Alps.
 
2012-10-17 10:39:02 AM  

Coming on a Bicycle: why the scientific community is at least ambivalent about them (if not downright positive) and why the Obama administration is in favor of them


Both know on which side their bread is buttered.

The Obama administration is full of Monsanto insiders. (As was every other administration for the last 30 years).

And, if you're a plant biologist, good luck ever getting a penny in grant money if you piss off Monsanto - if they don't control the grant directly they control the people who do.
 
2012-10-17 10:41:37 AM  

phyrkrakr: Now, it looks like they're finally going to get some of the precedent sorted out


Yeah, like that's going to happen. You know as well as I do the ruling is going to come down in favor of big corporations.
 
2012-10-17 10:47:08 AM  

Ahvren: The farmer can't use the seeds to produce more seeds holding the patented DNA, the crops from which he was planning on selling, because it's the same as making knockoff iPhones and selling them.


But that's what seeds do. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of planting seeds is to make more seeds.

It's like HP selling you a printer and then saying they own everything you print with it.
 
2012-10-17 10:48:14 AM  

SuburbanCowboy: No one should be eating Soy that has been sprayed with Roundup.


FTFY.
 
2012-10-17 12:28:44 PM  

clyph: Ahvren: The farmer can't use the seeds to produce more seeds holding the patented DNA, the crops from which he was planning on selling, because it's the same as making knockoff iPhones and selling them.

But that's what seeds do. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of planting seeds is to make more seeds.

It's like HP selling you a printer and then saying they own everything you print with it.


Not really, the people who buy the seeds can sell the soybeans. If you took your printer, cloned it and sold the printer would be more apt?
 
2012-10-17 01:36:19 PM  

Thunderpipes: Not really, the people who buy the seeds can sell the soybeans. If you took your printer, cloned it and sold the printer would be more apt?


Please. Seeds aren't clones of their parents any more than you are the clone of your mother.

What Monsanto is doing is far more like what those animal "rescue" douchebags do -- attach obnoxious and intrusive restrictions on the dog's ownership, e.g., you can never, ever tie the dog up outside, you can't ever give the dog to anyone else, the adoption group's representatives has some "right" to inspect your home at any time and repossess the dog at their sole discretion if they feel anything's amiss, etc.

If you want to control the dog, maintain possession of the dog. If you want to control the seeds, maintain possession of the seeds.

Yeah, but we don't actually want to maintain possession, just control!

Well of course you do, asshole --- and I want to be Lord of All I Survey. But that's not how shiat has worked since ancient people started trading goods and services. You don't get a special rule because you're you and you and your mom think you're so goddam special. 

The difference between a dog rescue and Monsanto is that, if I reject the dog rescue's terms, I can get a dog from about 50 other places in a 10 mile radius of my house, and none of them are as dickish about the transaction terms as the dog rescue. However, if I'm a soybean farmer who rejects Monsanto's terms, I'm probably out of business. 

Further, what Monsanto is doing is also not unlike exercising the "dead hand" -- an attempt by a controlling asshole with money to structure their estate to ensure perpetual control of what were formerly their assets, long after said asshole has lost actual possession.

Dead hand control and monopolies who structure their businesses to eliminate holdouts have long been viewed very dimly in American law and public policy. 

However, I expect the Supreme Court's conservative majority -- the majority that finds history and tradition so compelling an argument with respect to retarding civil rights and individual liberty -- will ignore all this history and public policy to innovate some justification of Monsanto's restraint of trade as if it's the exercise of a fundamental individual right, while dismissing the farmers being screwed as if they'd simply failed to negotiate more favorable terms.

This Rehnquist/Roberts Court is, after all, Lochner Era v.2
 
2012-10-17 02:17:49 PM  

Ahvren: Let's say I bought an iPhone. The iPhone is mine: I can do with it what I want, I can sell it, I can give it away, I can take it apart into little pieces, etc.

What I CAN'T do is use that iPhone as a basis to make another iPhone and sell it. It doesn't matter that I put work and money and time into making the other iPhone. That's still intellectual property and I can't sell it. So... Monsanto is perfectly legal. The farmer can't use the seeds to produce more seeds holding the patented DNA, the crops from which he was planning on selling, because it's the same as making knockoff iPhones and selling them.

Is my reasoning correct? IANAL & I feel I've made a mistake in there.

//Please note that I don't agree with this. I find this whole issue ridiculous, but...


First of all, I bet you agreed you wouldn't disassemble, decompile, or inspect the firmware or software on your iPhone at some point. That aside, the thing that makes plants different is they produce seed as being part of a plant. If all phones had the inherent property that they spawned off little phones a few times a year, I don't think it'd be reasonable to consider it infringing when your iPhone split off a duplicate as per its natural lifecycle.
 
2012-10-17 02:37:15 PM  

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


If by read you mean read the legal briefs and cease and desist orders...

Yes, they actually do this.

This should be a major focus of the case: you can't control pollen, so the farmer never knows exactly what he is planting.
 
2012-10-17 02:46:57 PM  

sprgrss: all this talk about GMO food being unsafe is laughable. There is zero scientific evidence to support those claims.


Except its effects on genetic diversity that put future cultivation at risk. There's always that.
 
2012-10-17 04:02:29 PM  

LewDux: Sily luddites, you can't stop progress


Tell that to American scientists trying to do stem-cell research.
 
2012-10-17 04:22:32 PM  
So basically, posession is now only around 3/8 of the law, instead of 9/10.
 
2012-10-17 06:03:41 PM  

clyph: phyrkrakr: Now, it looks like they're finally going to get some of the precedent sorted out

Yeah, like that's going to happen. You know as well as I do the ruling is going to come down in favor of big corporations.


No, I'm absolutely sure that by this time next year, the Court will have resolved all of its differences and will be ready to make bold and forward-thinking decisions that clearly resolve...

...ah, I can't do it. They'll just gridlock on the damn thing and punt again, or even worse, completely kill what little common-law protection still exists for the consumer in favor of these huge intellectual property conglomerates.

Although maybe Scalia will have a heart attack by then. Or Kennedy could retire.
 
Displayed 130 of 130 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report