FARK.com: (7584440) "Bowman denies that he has found an ingenious loophole around Monsanto's restriction. 'As far as I know, I'm the only damn dumb farmer around', that tried"

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.

		"Bowman denies that he has found an ingenious loophole around Monsanto's restriction. 'As far as I know, I'm the only damn dumb farmer around', that tried" (washingtonpost.com)		218
		More: Cool, Monsanto, supreme courts, Roundup, supreme court cases, genetically modified crops, loopholes, farmers, end table

• • •

25796 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Feb 2013 at 11:46 AM | Favorite | share:

Share this link:

URL:

http://fark.com/go/7584440

Bookmark:

Article Comments close

218 Comments (+0 »)

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl		2013-02-10 08:21:29 AM

Psa: Linked to page 3 of the article. Bad Subby.

EvilEgg		2013-02-10 11:00:00 AM

Monsanto is in violation of the DMCA by selling a product which enables copying of a patented product.

/I am very clearly not a lawyer.

encyclopediaplushuman		2013-02-10 11:51:08 AM

I like this guy. Getting a law suit Monsanto v. Anything to an appellate level is impressive, but the Supreme Court is astounding.

Guuberre		2013-02-10 11:51:38 AM

All these fields are yours, except Europa. Attempt no planting there. Use them together. Use them for peas.

rappy		2013-02-10 11:52:18 AM

What f*cking tool, pretending to be a hero or something.

jake_lex		2013-02-10 11:52:56 AM

Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now. I expect them to change their name to Weyland-Yutani any day now.

Britney Spear's Speculum		2013-02-10 11:54:36 AM

Companies like monsanto are the ultimate result of overpopulation and a government that doesn't want riots over food supply stability. They're a 'necessary' evil.

Britney Spear's Speculum		2013-02-10 11:55:18 AM

jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now. I expect them to change their name to ~~Weyland-Yutani~~ Umbrella any day now.

ftfy

mesmer242		2013-02-10 12:00:28 PM

I hope he wins, and the textbook selling guy wins. Basically, I want first sale doctrine to win.

jaytkay		2013-02-10 12:00:35 PM

In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.

BitwiseShift		2013-02-10 12:01:20 PM

Next, Monsanto will be invent itself as a religion and claim tax free status since they have a patent on creation. Hand me that non genetically modified popcorn.

ModernLuddite		2013-02-10 12:01:23 PM

I don't like that, legally, if 1 item in a group of [very large number] items is under a set of rules, then all items in that group are under the same set of rules because it's too hard to differentiate between types.

But I guess you can do whatever the fark you want if you have an ass load of money.

Champion of the Sun		2013-02-10 12:01:34 PM

Weird case, can you purposely do an end around the copyright by buying feed soy and planting it? If 90% of the feed soy is Monsanto, it makes the practice in violation of the copyright. Sounds like a restriction on trade. Longstanding business practice calls for planting feed soy for your second crop.

Both sides have a compelling argument. One side is a huge business conglomerate. Wonder who is gonna win? I'm guessing 5-4 Monsanto.

This guy is probably a bad representative though, if he stopped buying the official seed in 2007 and has been doing the feed soy replanting thing. Looks like he's purposely avoiding the copyright as opposed to incidentally violating it based on the impossibility of buying non Monsanto feed.

ClavellBCMI		2013-02-10 12:01:48 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: I like this guy. Getting a law suit Monsanto v. Anything to an appellate level is impressive, but the Supreme Court is astounding.

Indeed, that usually means that there is something in Bowman's argument that the Supremes liked, and want to hear argued before them in greater detail. Monsanto probably figured that the Supremes would do the whole "refuse to hear, therefore let stand" deal, and got a rude awakening when they put the case on the docket for verbal arguments instead.

TV's Vinnie		2013-02-10 12:03:09 PM

Monsanto legal staff:
images2.wikia.nocookie.net

PanicMan		2013-02-10 12:03:39 PM

I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

StrikitRich		2013-02-10 12:04:56 PM

Guuberre: All these fields are yours, except Europa. Attempt no planting there. Use them together. Use them for peas.

Is the loophole full of stars?

derpy		2013-02-10 12:05:10 PM

The My Little Pony Killer		2013-02-10 12:10:18 PM

PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

This. It's even more frightening when it's food. Necessary evil, my ass. They could just as easily be a seed bank, but instead they feel the need to own everything.

DoomPaul		2013-02-10 12:10:50 PM

On the one hand, I understand why a company would want to protect its investment. What's the point in spending hundreds of millions or billions in R&D and other costs to develop a seed, sell it one time, then everyone can just plant the progeny from the first crop and never have to buy more seeds from the original company. On the other hand, there is going to far and being complete pricks by pulling an RIAA.

Arthur Jumbles		2013-02-10 12:11:53 PM

jaytkay: In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.

static6.businessinsider.com

Yummy Roundup!

encyclopediaplushuman		2013-02-10 12:12:08 PM

PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

Which is probably why Britain, who has historically invaded or conquered land in 90% of all the countries currently in existence today, is nowhere near as powerful anymore.

PanicMan		2013-02-10 12:14:39 PM

encyclopediaplushuman: PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

Which is probably why Britain, who has historically invaded or conquered land in 90% of all the countries currently in existence today, is nowhere near as powerful anymore.

Sure, I'll take credit for that.

stiletto_the_wise		2013-02-10 12:15:01 PM

This photo is farking photoshopped. I've never been more certain of anything in my life.

JungleBoogie		2013-02-10 12:16:41 PM

Party 1: "If you don't do what we say, the results will result in TOTAL DISASTER." This tactic has become standard in most scientific and political debate today.

In these kinds of debates, I'd want to see a full enumeration of costs and benefits, supported with [credible] evidence, from both sides.

The My Little Pony Killer		2013-02-10 12:16:44 PM

Arthur Jumbles: jaytkay: In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]
Yummy Roundup!

I'm not defending Monsanto, but ANYTHING, with enough time, will cause giant tumors in rats.

Bondith		2013-02-10 12:17:39 PM

An adverse ruling, Monsanto warned the court in its brief, "would devastate innovation in biotechnology," which involves "notoriously high research and development costs."

Of fark off, you greedy farking farkers.

Champion of the Sun		2013-02-10 12:18:11 PM

Arthur Jumbles: jaytkay: In other news, 90% of the US soybean crop is marinated in Roundup.

Ummmmm, Roundup.

[static6.businessinsider.com image 400x300]
Yummy Roundup!

Your link already has an update in it that disputes the findings you're asserting. Yeah, round up is poison. That's why it's not sold in the beverage aisle.

MurphyMurphy		2013-02-10 12:18:31 PM

Yeah! Let's allow a corporate entity to monopolize seed production and use for the world. What could possibly go wrong?

Corporations are people, my friend.

Patented seeds that survive anything, EVEN FIRST SALE DOCTRINE! Yipeee!!

This entire planet is farking insane and we will deserve everything we get.

Enjoy the corporate "free market" jerk circle while splitting hairs over the abominations we've made out of patent and copyright law, because it's coming to a SCOTUS near you!

How will they rule?
WIll Roberts surprise everyone with another moment of sanity?
Or will Scalia wring his hands just right?
It could be Citizens United for the global food supply!

/when I was a kid they said GMO could cure world hunger
//but what fun is that when we can just sit on a mountain of farking cash, amirite? we have ~~future profits~~ I mean vital research and development to think about
///some days I really really hate our species

GhostfacedFiddlah		2013-02-10 12:18:41 PM

Champion of the Sun: Weird case, can you purposely do an end around the copyright by buying feed soy and planting it? If 90% of the feed soy is Monsanto, it makes the practice in violation of the copyright. Sounds like a restriction on trade. Longstanding business practice calls for planting feed soy for your second crop.

Both sides have a compelling argument. One side is a huge business conglomerate. Wonder who is gonna win? I'm guessing 5-4 Monsanto.

This guy is probably a bad representative though, if he stopped buying the official seed in 2007 and has been doing the feed soy replanting thing. Looks like he's purposely avoiding the copyright as opposed to incidentally violating it based on the impossibility of buying non Monsanto feed.

Unless Monsanto's singing songs about it, it's not copyright. Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights. Learn the difference. This is clearly a trademark issue.
/pet peave

gsiofa		2013-02-10 12:19:06 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now. I expect them to change their name to ~~Weyland-Yutani Umbrella~~Soylent any day now.

ftfy

Re-ftfy

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo		2013-02-10 12:19:24 PM

You always get the feeling that Monsanto would manufacture soylent green if they thought they could get away with it.

Smackledorfer		2013-02-10 12:21:29 PM

"Inventors are unlikely to make such investments if they cannot prevent purchasers of living organisms containing their invention from using them to produce unlimited copies," Monsanto states.

The truly creative, and that includes scientists, will pursue their creative outputs regardless of whether or not wealth is waiting at the end of the road. People, for the most part, are in fact LESS likely to enjoy and flourish in a task if it is tied to a monetary goal. The creative people in society don't need millions and a monopoly, they need a sandbox and the resources to play in it(and, of course, the ability to live and have a full life at the same time, so obviously some money is required).

The patent lawyers, ceos, cfos, corporate secrets, keeping new advancements until you can't sell the last one any longer, etc, are only holding us back.

I don't think monsanto is the pure evil many people say, and I don't expect it to lead to the destruction of the world as we know it, but the idea that people will only invent if given riches is retarded.

China White Tea		2013-02-10 12:22:00 PM

Oldiron_79		2013-02-10 12:22:41 PM

Incontinent_dog_and_monkey_rodeo: You always get the feeling that Monsanto would manufacture soylent green if they thought they could get away with it.

Who says they aren't working on it?

Champion of the Sun		2013-02-10 12:22:46 PM

Bondith: An adverse ruling, Monsanto warned the court in its brief, "would devastate innovation in biotechnology," which involves "notoriously high research and development costs."

Of fark off, you greedy farking farkers.

How are they not right though? I hate to defend agribusiness, but they need some guarantee of ROI if we want them to keep improving our crops. They're evil for a million other reasons, like the whole pollination creep thing where they're suing farmers for cross bred crops.

Arthur Jumbles		2013-02-10 12:24:02 PM

DoomPaul: On the one hand, I understand why a company would want to protect its investment. What's the point in spending hundreds of millions or billions in R&D and other costs to develop a seed, sell it one time, then everyone can just plant the progeny from the first crop and never have to buy more seeds from the original company. On the other hand, there is going to far and being complete pricks by pulling an RIAA.

Then maybe they should invent a product that doesn't require a fleet of lawyers in order to ensure a profit. They could make the seeds self-terminating then they wouldn't have to worry other people planting the next generation. Their product self-replicates itself by design.... how can they access others of copyright infringement when their special genes makes copies of itself even without human intervention?

opiumpoopy		2013-02-10 12:24:21 PM

PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

In a sane world, Monsanto get a 20 year patent ending in c. 2016 and then any farmer can do whatever they like with the seeds.

It's IP law that sucks more than Monsanto.

FizixJunkee		2013-02-10 12:25:11 PM

jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now.

FizixJunkee		2013-02-10 12:26:50 PM

ModernLuddite:
But I guess you can do whatever the fark you want if you have an ass load of money.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Day_Old_Dutchie		2013-02-10 12:26:54 PM

jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now. I expect them to change their name to Weyland-Yutani any day now.

They have deep pockets to pay off the politicians, judges and other assorted scum in suits, who can't resist that lure of that sweet, sweet money.
They have to make sure their precious shareholders get their butts kissed in an appropriate manner.

jaytkay		2013-02-10 12:27:17 PM

GhostfacedFiddlah: Unless Monsanto's singing songs about it, it's not copyright. Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights. Learn the difference. This is clearly a trademark issue.
/pet peave

You should not capitalize "Patents, Copyrights " there.

/ Grammer Nazi

Canton		2013-02-10 12:27:26 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: PanicMan: I just don't like the idea of 90% of anything being dominated by one company.

This. It's even more frightening when it's food. Necessary evil, my ass. They could just as easily be a seed bank, but instead they feel the need to own everything.

Agreed. Just imagine what could happen if a blight of some sort hit Monsanto corn or soy. Seriously. It's bad enough when the weather does in a fruit crop. If a staple is lost, well, that could get ugly.

No seed and no corporation should have a monopoly over a food crop.

EvilEgg		2013-02-10 12:28:39 PM

Day_Old_Dutchie: jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now. I expect them to change their name to Weyland-Yutani any day now.

They have deep pockets to pay off the politicians, judges and other assorted scum in suits, who can't resist that lure of that sweet, sweet money.
They have to make sure their precious shareholders get their butts kissed in an appropriate manner.

Too bad the Supremes were off their radar. They never thought they'd have to deal with a judge that wasn't in flyover country.

Snargi		2013-02-10 12:30:13 PM

I hope this guy wins. I am against any company that genetically alters anything. To quote Malcolm from Jurassic Park, "Scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should." I don't think most people know what kind of unwanted changes can possibly happen when something is genetically altered.

utah dude		2013-02-10 12:31:02 PM

I really wish Americans would stop attacking Monsanto. Their business practices, even the sum-history of their environmental damage,is so much less than their major competitor (hint, based in Europe) - - if people only knew what was going on over there. omfg.

yanoosh		2013-02-10 12:32:02 PM

I hope he prevails, Monsanto is the poster child for evil

Champion of the Sun		2013-02-10 12:32:16 PM

Canton: No seed and no corporation should have a monopoly over a food crop.

The other side is to force farmers to use inferior seeds. Sounds like a guarantee of diminished returns year after year is worse than an unlikely possibility of a blight on Monsanto specific soy. I'm no farmer or agricultural scientist, but how likely is a blight to hit gm crops but not unmodified ones?

meat0918		2013-02-10 12:32:19 PM

I don't buy Monsanto's claim, and I'm a big biotech supporter.

Let the unis do the research if investors won't pony up the cash. They'll probably be less evil anyways.

//Monsanto's business practices have done more damage to gmo than anything else.

Valiente		2013-02-10 12:32:39 PM

jake_lex: Monsanto is about the closest thing to one of those evil corporations from science fiction we've got going now. I expect them to change their name to Weyland-Yutani any day now.

Omni Consumer Products, surely.

I wish I had the time to 'chop the ED-209 with a straw hat and a pitchfork to represent Monsanto's evil machinations, but alas, I do not.

Displayed 50 of 218 comments