birdog1960 Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 a very important case in my view http://rt.com/usa/news/supreme-court-monsanto-patent-615/. kagen brought up the likelihood of seed spreading spontaneously. what happens when all or most seed is patented if monsanto wins here (which is looking to likely be the case). thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 i dont even understand the farmers point if the crops he grows come from seeds engineered and licensed by monstanto then he should owe the company money what difference does it make where he got the seeds? if a monsanto truck crashed on his property and the seeds grew on their own does he then own them forever? if a flock of birds eat seeds from a hundred miles away and poop them onto his property where they grow does he own them forever? perhaps im missing something but if a company owns a patent on an engineered product then they own that product no matter how or where it creates a plant. if that wasnt the case, then companies would simply stop spending r&d to create those innovations bc it would just get stolen by every tom dick and harry with a shovel and a pickup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 your examples are part of the point. by monsanto's reckoning, if the seeds blow into a neighbors field and grow, then the neighbor farmer can be accused of stealing from monsanto (hence kagan's line of questioning). also, monsanto didn't specifically produce the seed the farmer used a season later. it was produced by plants he grew.ie: one can make the argument that the farmerproduced the second generation seeds. does their patent last for infinite plant generations? what if they self mutate or dehybridize? the real question is whether the law is keeping up with technology advances. if monsanto wins and "natural" or heirloom seeds get more and more scarce, one can envision a country where companies like monsanto have nearly absolute say over what is grown and ultimately eaten in the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 your examples are part of the point. by monsanto's reckoning, if the seeds blow into a neighbors field and grow, then the neighbor farmer can be accused of stealing from monsanto (hence kagan's line of questioning). also, monsanto didn't specifically produce the seed the farmer used a season later. it was produced by plants he grew.ie: one can make the argument that the farmerproduced the second generation seeds. does their patent last for infinite plant generations? what if they self mutate or dehybridize? the real question is whether the law is keeping up with technology advances. if monsanto wins and "natural" or heirloom seeds get more and more scarce, one can envision a country where companies like monsanto have nearly absolute say over what is grown and ultimately eaten in the country. If the seeds maintain the properties designed by Monsanto, so the crop from this year drop seeds next season that are the same, then the protection stay in tact in would suspect. The question outside of protecting their intellectual property, which under the law they protected to do so, does Monsanto have motives to have this happen to competitors, small farmers, suck them dry in court and consolidate most farms essentially cornering seed and other commodity markets? Are they any consequences to genetially modified seeds, will the public even know they have such products on their dinner tables because Lobby interests get politicians to forgo lableing requrements? I assume Monsanto and other corporate Ag compaines have former employees or friends in the USDA, EPA, you name it. I don't know for sure, but this farmer is screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Seems pretty cut and dry to me. He infringed on the patent, so therefore he will lose. Having said that, Monsanto is a punching bag that liberals love to pound on, so the fact that the good doctor is a super duper lefty who happened to bring this up to our attention, doesn't surprise me one iota. Edited February 20, 2013 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 If the seeds maintain the properties designed by Monsanto, so the crop from this year drop seeds next season that are the same, then the protection stay in tact in would suspect. The question outside of protecting their intellectual property, which under the law they protected to do so, does Monsanto have motives to have this happen to competitors, small farmers, suck them dry in court and consolidate most farms essentially cornering seed and other commodity markets? Are they any consequences to genetially modified seeds, will the public even know they have such products on their dinner tables because Lobby interests get politicians to forgo lableing requrements? I assume Monsanto and other corporate Ag compaines have former employees or friends in the USDA, EPA, you name it. I don't know for sure, but this farmer is screwed. we'll see. the lower court found for monsanto. the supremes agreed to hear it so at least some there think it's not cut and dry.. the legal experts i listened to on both sides last night on pbs admitted the complexities and myriad implications of the decision and the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 i dont even understand the farmers point if the crops he grows come from seeds engineered and licensed by monstanto then he should owe the company money what difference does it make where he got the seeds? if a monsanto truck crashed on his property and the seeds grew on their own does he then own them forever? if a flock of birds eat seeds from a hundred miles away and poop them onto his property where they grow does he own them forever? perhaps im missing something but if a company owns a patent on an engineered product then they own that product no matter how or where it creates a plant. if that wasnt the case, then companies would simply stop spending r&d to create those innovations bc it would just get stolen by every tom dick and harry with a shovel and a pickup If birds drop Monsanto seeds on my property I should be able to sue Monsanto- If Monsanto seeds cross pollinate and adulterate my natural seeds again I should be able to sue Monsanto, and any civilization anywhere who has ever practiced agriculture should be able to sue Monsanto over prior art- ie Monsanto should have to start with strictly wild seeds not from previously domesticated seeds. Really genetically modified plants when it is done by inserting genes from different species (as opposed to hybridization or trait selection) should be only grown in controlled environments - if you grow gm corn and your corn cross pollinates my non-gm corn I'd consider that as your freak corn damaging my normal corn for which you owe me damages . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 He bought seeds from a grain elevator that contained "some" of Monsanto's seeds. I don't think it's his responsibility to have them tested to find out if SOME were Monsanto seeds. It should be Monsanto's responsibility to make sure those who by their seeds don't allow them to be re-sold. If birds drop Monsanto seeds on my property I should be able to sue Monsanto- If Monsanto seeds cross pollinate and adulterate my natural seeds again I should be able to sue Monsanto, and any civilization anywhere who has ever practiced agriculture should be able to sue Monsanto over prior art- ie Monsanto should have to start with strictly wild seeds not from previously domesticated seeds. Really genetically modified plants when it is done by inserting genes from different species (as opposed to hybridization or trait selection) should be only grown in controlled environments - if you grow gm corn and your corn cross pollinates my non-gm corn I'd consider that as your freak corn damaging my normal corn for which you owe me damages . Here, here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 (edited) Can you not engineer a seed to produce no seeds? I know next to nothing about this and I'm sure there are some complications for certain seeds/crops...but I know my seedless oranges are good...for engineered IP that self replicates is there not always the ability to some extent to engineer the IP so that it does not self replicate? It would protect the patent...and a neighbors field from cross pollination and potential law suits as well as just generally wanting his own seed uninfringe by engineered design not found in nature... Edited February 20, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meathead Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 well i dont think any company should have the patent on seeds forever but they need to have some way to recoup their investment and make money. they could handle it like perscription drugs, have so many years that the patent is exclusive, then allow other companies to produce the same product perhaps under some license agreement for a few more years the question of cross polination is interesting. if a patented product naturally cross breeds with another farm i wonder how they handle that. same thing for the question on damages to existing crops, idk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 well i dont think any company should have the patent on seeds forever but they need to have some way to recoup their investment and make money. they could handle it like perscription drugs, have so many years that the patent is exclusive, then allow other companies to produce the same product perhaps under some license agreement for a few more years the question of cross polination is interesting. if a patented product naturally cross breeds with another farm i wonder how they handle that. same thing for the question on damages to existing crops, idk damages to existing crops happens anyway and I'm not sure but they may patent the gene that makes it resistant to round up since they invent it/it's novel...and in any event the patent time limit expires anyway it's just that seed time/life is shorter than drugs....and I think the drug companies got that expiration pushed back recently....not sure tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) Can you not engineer a seed to produce no seeds? I know next to nothing about this and I'm sure there are some complications for certain seeds/crops...but I know my seedless oranges are good...for engineered IP that self replicates is there not always the ability to some extent to engineer the IP so that it does not self replicate? It would protect the patent...and a neighbors field from cross pollination and potential law suits as well as just generally wanting his own seed uninfringe by engineered design not found in nature... good question. yes, i'm fairly sure "sterile", nonreproducing seeds can be engineered a la your seedless orange (watermelon) example. wonder if the any of the supremes asked this question. if not they should. i sure hope david (or everyman) wins this battle with goliath but i'm not really hopeful. Edited February 21, 2013 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Can you not engineer a seed to produce no seeds? No. Think about it. good question. yes, i'm fairly sure "sterile", nonreproducing seeds can be engineered a la your seedless orange (watermelon) example. wonder if the any of the supremes asked this question. if not they should. i sure hope david (or everyman) wins this battle with goliath but i'm not really hopeful. You're an idiot. In fact, you're both idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 No. Think about it. You're an idiot. In fact, you're both idiots. I don't have time to think about it. Educate me. I may have time to fact check your lecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 No. Think about it. You're an idiot. In fact, you're both idiots. care to explain: http://www.caes.uga.edu/publications/pubDetail.cfm?pk_id=6019. pretty sure, in this case, asexual reproduction means exclusive of seeds and requiring grafting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 If birds drop Monsanto seeds on my property I should be able to sue Monsanto- If Monsanto seeds cross pollinate and adulterate my natural seeds again I should be able to sue Monsanto, and any civilization anywhere who has ever practiced agriculture should be able to sue Monsanto over prior art- ie Monsanto should have to start with strictly wild seeds not from previously domesticated seeds. Really genetically modified plants when it is done by inserting genes from different species (as opposed to hybridization or trait selection) should be only grown in controlled environments - if you grow gm corn and your corn cross pollinates my non-gm corn I'd consider that as your freak corn damaging my normal corn for which you owe me damages . I was going to post in this thread, but you covered all of my bases. I never expected such a fantastically libertarian argument from you. Kudos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 any botanists onboard? we bought a stirped squash we really liked at the farmers market this fall. next week, we asked the grower for some hints and he said the seeds will dehybidize and revert to a boring, not nearly as good wild type. we'll experiment but i bet he's correct. what stops monsanto from engineering such a seed? i've certainly seen it happen with "volunteer" plants from other vegetable hybrids especially tomatoes that usually reemerge as cherry types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted February 21, 2013 Author Share Posted February 21, 2013 http://www.ethicurean.com/2010/04/27/backyard-seed-vault/the answer to same old bills question is an unequivocal "yes". it's called an F1 hybrid and will not reproduce "true to seed" from year to year. the example given in this article is the "early girl" tomato owned, interestingly enough, by monsanto. won't be growing those in my garden this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 (edited) well i dont think any company should have the patent on seeds forever but they need to have some way to recoup their investment and make money. they could handle it like perscription drugs, have so many years that the patent is exclusive, then allow other companies to produce the same product perhaps under some license agreement for a few more years the question of cross polination is interesting. if a patented product naturally cross breeds with another farm i wonder how they handle that. same thing for the question on damages to existing crops, idk They don't. A patent is only valid for ~20 years. The one on this particular seed is due to expire in 2014. Plant patents are only issued for asexually reproduced plants (other than tubers) that the inventor developed. Haven't read the details of the case, just read an article about it in the WSJ, it would be interesting to see how that issue was addressed in the original case. Since Monsanto requires the buyer of the seeds to agree not to replant them it's probable that the farmer signed that agreement when he bought the mix of seeds which contained the Monsanto seeds. If the grain elevator operator that sold him the seeds didn't make him sign the agreement, or didn't provide him a licensing agreement at the time; it would seem the beef is with the grain elevator operator. According to the article I read, the farmer admitted that he expected the replanted seeds to be pesticide resistant, so he probably is violating his contract. It would be interesting to hear JA's take on this. Edited February 21, 2013 by Taro T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 21, 2013 Share Posted February 21, 2013 Seems pretty cut and dry to me. He infringed on the patent, so therefore he will lose. Having said that, Monsanto is a punching bag that liberals love to pound on, so the fact that the good doctor is a super duper lefty who happened to bring this up to our attention, doesn't surprise me one iota. To a liberal, Elena Kagan siding with Monsanto has to be painful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts