Farmer Loses Battle Against Monsanto

[one...two...tree 2,762]

lowlife farmer tried to ripoff Monsanto and got his loser ####### kicked! justice prevails.

The Supreme Court ruled today against a 76-year-old Indiana farmer who had taken on Monsanto in a patent dispute over a genetically modified soybean seed.

"The question in this case," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a unanimous court, "is whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission. We hold that he may not."

Monsanto developed the seed that is resistant to a powerful weed killer called Roundup.

Farmers pay a premium price for the seeds and enter into the contract with the company promising to buy new seeds for subsequent planting seasons. Monsanto makes the requirement in order to protect the company's investment and its patented technology. The seed is now used for more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States.

Vernon Bowman has purchased the seed for years for his first crop and abided by the technology agreement. But for a more risky, second-crop planting later in the season, Bowman didn't want to invest in the expensive soy bean.

Second plantings are susceptible to the dangers of a short growing time and the threat of drought. He decided to take a risk and buy a mix of unlabeled seed from the local grain elevator hoping that most of it would be Roundup resistant. After harvesting that crop, he would save the progeny and replant it in the late 1990s.

Lawyers for Bowman argued in court that Monsanto's patent was exhausted after the first sale.

Monsanto sued the farmer in 2007.

"The court's ruling today ensures that longstanding principles of patent law apply to breakthrough 21st century technologies that are central to meeting the growing demands of our planet and its people," David F. Snively, executive vice president, secretary and general counsel of Monsanto said in a statement. "The ruling also provides assurance to all inventors throughout the public and private sectors that they can and should continue to invest in innovation that feeds people, improves lives, creates jobs, and allows America to keep its competitive edge."

Justice Kagan wrote, "In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto's patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article."

She said that under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article. But she cautioned, "Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention."

Lawyer Edgar H. Haug said today that he had yet to get a hold of his client, Bowman. "Obviously, we are disappointed in the decision which affirms the finding of infringement," he said. "But beyond that we are particularly surprised that the Supreme Court did not use this case to address the possibility of self-replicating technology, more broadly. It appears to be a narrow holding in this case that only goes to farmer Bowman."

MONSANTO - DON'T ** WITH US OR WE'LL KICK YOUR #######.

http://abcnews.com

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

lowlife farmer tried to ripoff Monsanto and got his loser ####### kicked! justice prevails.

Yep, that lowlife was just looking for a handout. Probably voted for Obama, too.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yep, that lowlife was just looking for a handout. Probably voted for Obama, too.

old farmers are right up there with crack heads - always looking for ways of cheating the real entrepreneurs of their hard earned money.

[sly_wolf 199]

old farmers are right up there with crack heads - always looking for ways of cheating the real entrepreneurs of their hard earned money.

I would have another word for Monsanto and it's not entrepreneurs.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/

[SMR 368]

This case, and particularly the farmer's story, feels suspicious to me. The thing is, the whole reason he lost is that he bought some of the seed from Monsato and signed the relevant contract. He then claimed that he later bought some unmarked seed from a grain silo as he assumed that it would probably be Monsato anyways. He then used this seed for reproducing more seed for subsequent years. Or so he claims. The problem is this doesn't make sense.

Had he not initially bought seed from Monsato and signed the contract, his strategy to use unmarked seed would probably have worked as the Monsato seed was mostly 100% of the seed around anyways. So the question becomes, why did he initially buy the seed from Monsato? Obviously the innocent explanation is that his plan developed over time. However, the more cynical explanation is that the generic seed he bought from the silo was a cover for his use of the Monsato children seeds for later years. You can't prove it, but that's the more logical explanation. The farmer got what he deserved.

Edited May 14, 2013 by SMR

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This case, and particularly the farmer's story, feels suspicious to me. The thing is, the whole reason he lost is that he bought some of the seed from Monsato and signed the relevant contract. He then claimed that he later bought some unmarked seed from a grain silo as he assumed that it would probably be Monsato anyways. He then used this seed for reproducing more seed for subsequent years. Or so he claims. The problem is this doesn't make sense.

Had he not initially bought seed from Monsato and signed the contract, his strategy to use unmarked seed would probably have worked as the Monsato seed was mostly 100% of the seed around anyways. So the question becomes, why did he initially buy the seed from Monsato? Obviously the innocent explanation is that his plan developed over time. However, the more cynical explanation is that the generic seed he bought from the silo was a cover for his use of the Monsato children seeds for later years. You can't prove it, but that's the more logical explanation. The farmer got what he deserved.

traditional copyright rules allow for, say an artist, to use an original so long as the derivative has changed by at least 30%. farmers have a tradition of using seeds from their crops to replant. One solution is to ban the patenting of seeds altogether. Monsanto could still make money from their seeds by simply making them non reproducing. An even better solution would be to ban GMO's.

[SMR 368]

traditional copyright rules allow for, say an artist, to use an original so long as the derivative has changed by at least 30%. farmers have a tradition of using seeds from their crops to replant. One solution is to ban the patenting of seeds altogether. Monsanto could still make money from their seeds by simply making them non reproducing. An even better solution would be to ban GMO's.

To me, a lot of this comes down to the nature of the contract that the farmer signed when he bought the seed. It's not even an issue of patent so much as contract law. Banning the patent of seeds would just insure that no one would perform any research in that area. Banning GMOs is really tangential to the topic.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

To me, a lot of this comes down to the nature of the contract that the farmer signed when he bought the seed. It's not even an issue of patent so much as contract law. Banning the patent of seeds would just insure that no one would perform any research in that area. Banning GMOs is really tangential to the topic.

Not everything within a contract is binding, like when it violates existing laws and regulations.

Believing that Monsanto spends a lot of money on extensive research into the safety of their genetically modified seeds is if ignoring reality. They focus their money on how to dominate the seed market.

[SMR 368]

Not everything within a contract is binding, like when it violates existing laws and regulations.

Believing that Monsanto spends a lot of money on extensive research into the safety of their genetically modified seeds is if ignoring reality. They focus their money on how to dominate the seed market.

I didn't say anything about safety.

I agree not all contracts are binding. But if the farmer signed a contract that said he would continue to buy their seeds for future plantings, I don't think that violates any existing laws. If he said he wouldn't replant any seeds from the harvest, I would say that doesn't violate any laws. Like I said, a gray area might exist where he bought some of their seeds and then bought some seeds from another source that were probably also their seeds and then claimed to use the second set of seeds for replanting. He may have an argument, but, as I said before, the problem he runs into is that course of action makes little sense unless his plan was to defraud Monsanto and violate the contract.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I didn't say anything about safety.

I agree not all contracts are binding. But if the farmer signed a contract that said he would continue to buy their seeds for future plantings, I don't think that violates any existing laws. If he said he wouldn't replant any seeds from the harvest, I would say that doesn't violate any laws. Like I said, a gray area might exist where he bought some of their seeds and then bought some seeds from another source that were probably also their seeds and then claimed to use the second set of seeds for replanting. He may have an argument, but, as I said before, the problem he runs into is that course of action makes little sense unless his plan was to defraud Monsanto and violate the contract.

Allowing seed patents makes no logical sense unless one believes that humans should be able to patent nature. If we are going to allow seed patents, such patent shouldn't extend beyond first generation when someone is using them for their own personal use - farming.

[SMR 368]

Allowing seed patents makes no logical sense unless one believes that humans should be able to patent nature. If we are going to allow seed patents, such patent shouldn't extend beyond first generation when someone is using them for their own personal use - farming.

It's a complicate issue, of course. After the first generation, the genetic code of the plant has probably mutated, at least in some cases. On the other hand, the patent probably only covers a certain gene, which probably survives, at least in most of the plants.

The thing is, everything is natural (or made of natural parts). Once you start taking those natural things apart and putting them back together in a different way, you may have something that is patentable.

The thing that sells this particular case for me is the contract. The farmer understood this seed and understood its value. He signed a contract that he presumably understood. He then decided that he wanted to make more money so he decided to not honor the agreement he made. Whether or not Monsanto can patent a seed is a complicated issue that has reasonable arguments on both sides. You can't reasonably argue that the farmer behaved honestly. He was trying to defraud Monsanto.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I would have another word for Monsanto and it's not entrepreneurs.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/

Does it make you feel good to spread communist propaganda? Why do you hate freedom?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Monsanto feeds the world. Why do hippies hate food?

[mota bhai 2,675]

Monsanto feeds the world. Why do hippies hate food?

Google "depopulation agenda".

That is what the leftist environazis really want. That is their true goal.

You may think it's all about saving an eagle or some other cute critter or making sure our parks are pretty, but no.

It's about speciecide.

The speciecide of humanity.

[sly_wolf 199]

Does it make you feel good to spread communist propaganda? Why do you hate freedom?

Sometimes I wonder who the real communists are. Freedom is only based on what they want you to believe anyways.