Monsanto's case against Indiana farmer goes to Supreme Court

[dm1986]

I work for a competitor, but I have to say, this is clearly Monsanto's case to win. He looked for a loophole, which is a way to circumvent the law. There are better examples of how Monsanto does not hold the most ethical standards.

 

[dross]

Monsanto may indeed be evil incarnate.

Whether they are or not, there's one poster here who knows what he's talking about in the specific. In the general, Monsanto may be evil, but in the specific, there's a guy here worth listening to. He doesn't seem to have a particular axe to grind, either.

Why not listen to his expertise and then apply that new information to what you already "know"? Perhaps you are still right in the general, but why not add some of these specifics to your total knowledge? Monsanto can still be evil but not be evil in this particular situation that someone is clearly expert is trying to school you about.

 

[Liberty1911]

Monsanto may indeed be evil incarnate.

Whether they are or not, there's one poster here who knows what he's talking about in the specific. In the general, Monsanto may be evil, but in the specific, there's a guy here worth listening to. He doesn't seem to have a particular axe to grind, either.

Why not listen to his expertise and then apply that new information to what you already "know"? Perhaps you are still right in the general, but why not add some of these specifics to your total knowledge? Monsanto can still be evil but not be evil in this particular situation that someone is clearly expert is trying to school you about.

You're asking way too much from some people, who already "know" everything.

 

[jonboy]

If monsanto can win a lawsuit against a farmer for having pollen from nearby fields pollinate their natural corn than this guy never stood a chance. Not to mention one of the justices used to work as an attorney for monsanto.

 

[wagyu52]

This is real life....this has happened. Farmers are being sued all over the nation.

Do you enjoy having only one option for purchasing the things you need? Or would you rather have some competition? Maybe an actual free market?

This is why there isn't a free market.

I am not defending Monsanto for being sue happy, it is ridiculous. At the same time many of the cases are just like the one in the OP. Someone looking for a loop hole and just as guilty of abusing the court system, causing even more innocent people to be scrutinized by an already paranoid Monsanto.

Yes, give me another option, what have I been saying. Here is the catch and a majority of the farmers agree, we want GMO. Why do you think so many farmers are willing and eager to work with a paranoid nut job company like Monsanto? Because the technology works in the field. I will not go back to conventional beans, RR beans flat out work. Herbicide application in conventional beans is a nightmare, you have to be a chemist to figure it out. Poor weed control and a yield hit because the chemicals retard bean growth, no thank you.
In corn, to go back to using such harsh insecticides like Counter that have to be incorporated in the soil because if left on the top it kills birds and small animals that ingest it. We have a ground squirrel outbreak along our pasture fence, they like to dig up the newly sprouted corn and eat it. I realized last year that it happened since we switched to triple stack corn and away from Counter. We were poisoning them.
GMO is not without it's problems too, which we have all read from the anti Monsanto web sites on the net. This is just my prospective as a farmer. I think a majority of the farmers in this country are saying the same thing, that we have no desire to give up GMO to go back and start using chemicals from 1993. We have to continue to use the best technology we have.

 

[steveh_131]

Monsanto may indeed be evil incarnate.

Whether they are or not, there's one poster here who knows what he's talking about in the specific. In the general, Monsanto may be evil, but in the specific, there's a guy here worth listening to. He doesn't seem to have a particular axe to grind, either.

Why not listen to his expertise and then apply that new information to what you already "know"? Perhaps you are still right in the general, but why not add some of these specifics to your total knowledge? Monsanto can still be evil but not be evil in this particular situation that someone is clearly expert is trying to school you about.

What makes you think I am not listening? I haven't dismissed his knowledge or expertise. He hasn't yet told me anything that I didn't already know, but if he had, I would have added it to my knowledge base.

I cited a case that happened in Canada, where what I'm talking about did actually happen. In the 'specific', Monsanto was evil. In the case cited by the OP, I have complaints for different reasons.

I am not defending Monsanto for being sue happy, it is ridiculous. At the same time many of the cases are just like the one in the OP. Someone looking for a loop hole and just as guilty of abusing the court system, causing even more innocent people to be scrutinized by an already paranoid Monsanto.

He purchased the seeds, fair and square. He had no contract with Monsanto that covered these particular seeds. They became his property, and he can plant them where he darn well pleases. That isn't a loophole. That is basic property rights.

Yes, give me another option, what have I been saying. Here is the catch and a majority of the farmers agree, we want GMO.

I don't care if you buy GMO seeds. It's your property, do what you want. I don't even know what point you're trying to make.

Monsanto's frivolous lawsuits and bribery going on throughout the government is the reason you have to deal with this monopoly when you purchase seeds. Oh, and the absolutely absurd patent law that gives them complete ownership of a replicating life form, even once they sell it to someone else.

Once we get rid of all that, a free market can return.

 

[.458socomhunter]

There are better examples of how Monsanto does not hold the most ethical standards.

Like the carcinogenic dioxins produced in agent orange?

 

[VERT]

I find this thread interesting. Probably should just stay away.... My background. I wrote my Masters thesis on transgenic sugarbeet, I worked for Bayer and Monsanto, I sold seed for Channel, I currently manage a Precision Ag program, I am a registered technical service provider, certified crop advisor & one of the few certified professional agronomists in the country. So some of my comments are fact and some are opinion but take all with a grain of salt.

I do not speak for Monsanto. I left that company years ago. I do not agree with all their philosophies but they are neither good or evil. Monsanto is a company.

The reason GMO foods are not labeled is because almost everything contains GMO products. It is DNA and protein, no different then anything else we consume. There is no reason to label it because there is really nothing different to label. If something is marketed as GMO free and the consumer is willing to pay then I support the efforts.

Biotechnology has revolutionized farming. The technology is cleaner and safer. Yes there are agronomic issues that have risen due to the changes in cultural practices as a result of the adoption of this technology, but that is true for any technology.

Yes, I know that. But in this case, it's about questioning the premise, not the conclusion. Can Monsanto hold a farmer responsible for a wild animal cross-pollinating? t as one can get.

No

I have an uncle who farms around 2500 acres and just this last year finally gave in and bought round up ready corn. He finally reached a point where he couldn't find enough of the non GMO seed that he needed. Dad gave up and went that route about 6 or 7 years ago.

That is because the top line genetics now have transgenic traits inserted. This was an industry response based on the feedback of the consumer. The technology works plain and simple. If farmers wanted non-GMO corn the seed companies would produce it.

This was a case study that we were assigned in my earlier college years. I only wish I could remember the names to specifically cite as Monsanto admitted in court that the farmer had not stolen or used his seeds, rather that it was naturally carried into that farmers field. The farmer was trying to counter sue them because he was trying to maintain an organic operation. The farmer lost the case and had to pay Monsanto even though their product ruined his field.

Monsanto Canada vs Schmeiser

This guy was double cropping beans where he harvested wheat in the summer, two crops in one year, very risky as you can loose the bean crop to a early frost. To minimize his risk and save money he planted bin run beans. Anybody that has experience with a Monsanto tech fee agreement knows that what he did is a no no.
He could have just a easily raised some non GMO beans and planted his own "cheap" seed and avoided this all together. I have no sympathy for him, he took advantage of havering a Roundup ready product without paying for it, which ends up costing all of us who abide buy Monsanto's agreement more money and more legal crap from Monsanto.

Correct. The problem is not that he bought the seed. The issue at hand is that he utilized the technology. Just because a person owns a Kindle does not give them the right to read an authors works for free.

I use "Round Up soybeans" for my crop, and do follow the agreement.
I have NO problem with that.

But what if MY soybeans cross pollinate with my neighbor's Non-GMO soybeans?

Then he harvests them, takes them to the elevator to sell them, and they test positive as GMO soybeans.
OR he does like he has in the past and holds back some of his harvest to plant next year's crop.

It's WRONG to penalize him for something he had no control over.

THIS is the issue that isn't being addressed.

Better example would be identity preserved corn, but yes I see where you are going. This is not an issue of the presence of the gene. In this case the farmer used the technology without permission. Now lets say that a grower is trying to produce a non-GMO crop for a speciality market and pollen from a neighboring field resulted in the grain testing positive. Yes that would be a problem. But no different then any other production of an identity preserved crop, or neighbors letting weed seed spread, or herbicide drift. These are not new issues.

His point is that a farmer can have Monsanto patented crap growing in his fields that he did not plant and didn't even know that he had.

And he can then be sued for having it.

Nope and I am not aware of this happening.

I'd love to get a moment alone deep in the woods with someone who works for monsanto.

Lub, Sweet Lub.....

No, that is not what I am saying at all. You cannot stop nature, corn produces way more pollen then it uses and it will get airborne. If you raise a specialty corn crop like seed corn, non GMO, White corn for tortilla chips, ect. You plant a border to keep contaminate pollen out. It is common sense, buyers of these products demand and expect it.
This border is not wasted, it is usually harvested separate and sold as regular field corn. These practices have been done long before GMO was ever even a thought.

Yep

This is real life....this has happened. Farmers are being sued all over the nation.

Do you enjoy having only one option for purchasing the things you need? Or would you rather have some competition? Maybe an actual free market?

This is why there isn't a free market.

Free Market is alive and well. There are plenty of companies in agriculture today. While farmers may feel as though they do not have a choice, they do in fact have alternatives. Of course these alternatives may in the end cost more and provide less profit. Farmers who steal technology from companies such as Monsanto are actually engaging in an anti-competitive manner. Farmers are always competing with each other for land and labor.

I work for a competitor, but I have to say, this is clearly Monsanto's case to win. He looked for a loophole, which is a way to circumvent the law. There are better examples of how Monsanto does not hold the most ethical standards.

A competitor? But Monsanto has no competition! Must be Bayer, Syngenta, Dow AgroScience, BASF, FMC, DuPont, AgReliant...........................

All companies can be accused of such things.

 

[wagyu52]

He purchased the seeds, fair and square. He had no contract with Monsanto that covered these particular seeds. They became his property, and he can plant them where he darn well pleases. That isn't a loophole. That is basic property rights.

Are you sure? Because Bowman's attorney stated that he purchased "outbound grain" it is against state and federal law for a grain elevator to sell seed. He used the patented trait by applying Roundup to the beans he planted and harvesting what didn't die. He used the patent exactly as it was intended but did not pay for it.

 

[wagyu52]

Monsanto's frivolous lawsuits and bribery going on throughout the government is the reason you have to deal with this monopoly when you purchase seeds. Oh, and the absolutely absurd patent law that gives them complete ownership of a replicating life form, even once they sell it to someone else.

Once we get rid of all that, a free market can return.

I'm sorry... | Daily Yonder | Keep It Rural

A quote from that article,
Attorney Mark Walters was exactly 98 words into his initial argument to the U.S. Supreme Court Feb. 19 when Chief Justice John Roberts interrupted to verbally grab him by an ear and march him to the edge of a legal cliff.

“Why in the world would anyone,” asked Roberts, “spend any money to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?”

Roberts’ question was the beating heart of Bowman v. Monsanto Co., the case before the Court: Did patented, self-replicating technologies—like Monsanto’s market-dominating Roundup Ready seeds—lose patent protection in subsequent, self-replicated generations?

Vernon Bowman, a 75-year-old bachelor farmer from southern Indiana, thought so, at least for the soybeans he bought from a local elevator and planted on his farm.

In fact, argued Walters, Bowman’s attorney, the purchase of the soybeans from an elevator to use as seed was legal because Monsanto’s “first use rights” in its patent were “exhausted” by the elevator’s intention to use the soybeans for “commercial” purposes, like animal feed.

Golly, wondered Roberts, if that theory holds why would any firm risk any investment to develop any new technology?

Walters didn’t hesitate to reply; he should have: “I agree,” he said, “no one would do that….”

And just like that—less than one minute into what would be a 70-minute hearing—the biggest test of Monsanto’s cast iron grip on the global ag seed market crumbled.



Roberts has some good points and question that Bowman's attorney was unable to answer.

 

[wagyu52]

Here is a really good article about how a farmers are interpreting the Bowman v Monsanto case. The blog is well worth the read with varying opinions.

Quick Thoughts on Vernon Hugh Bowman v. Monsanto Company | The Farmer's Life

Here is the transcript from the oral arguments of the case

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-796.pdf

 

[wagyu52]

He purchased the seeds, fair and square. He had no contract with Monsanto that covered these particular seeds. They became his property, and he can plant them where he darn well pleases. That isn't a loophole. That is basic property rights.
Oh, and the absolutely absurd patent law that gives them complete ownership of a replicating life form, even once they sell it to someone else.

You are missing the point He replicated and used their patent, it doesn't matter how he obtained it. It is right here read page 12-15

http://www.patents4life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Monsanto-opinion1.pdf

 

[Bunnykid68]

They should make those kind of patents just like they do for drugs, they expire after so many years and then every one can use it or make something comparable.

 

[steveh_131]

You are missing the point He replicated and used their patent, it doesn't matter how he obtained it. It is right here read page 12-15

http://www.patents4life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Monsanto-opinion1.pdf

I am not missing the point. I am aware of the patent issues. They are exactly my complaint.

Patenting a replicating life form is absurd. Once he purchased the beans, they should have been his to do as he pleased.

Instead, they've managed to get the government to excuse them from their contractual dirty work and protect their cash flow, at tax-payer expense.

You said yourself that you have almost no options. I'm simply explaining why.

 

[rambone]

He purchased the seeds, fair and square. He had no contract with Monsanto that covered these particular seeds. They became his property, and he can plant them where he darn well pleases. That isn't a loophole. That is basic property rights.

Are you sure? Because Bowman's attorney stated that he purchased "outbound grain" it is against state and federal law for a grain elevator to sell seed.

There's that "Free Market" I keep hearing about.

Golly, wondered Roberts, if that theory holds why would any firm risk any investment to develop any new technology?

Walters didn’t hesitate to reply; he should have: “I agree,” he said, “no one would do that….”

And just like that—less than one minute into what would be a 70-minute hearing—the biggest test of Monsanto’s cast iron grip on the global ag seed market crumbled.

That's an interesting question, for a legislator. Justices are not supposed to be legislators.

As further explained in the same article, the current laws do not actually support Monsanto's view, but the courts are legislating from the bench to make sure that they win the cases.

The key question was, Did 120-year-old patent law and the intellectual property rights it bestowed on inventors cover subsequent generations of the technology if it replicated like, say, vaccines, software and seeds?

Bowman, through attorney Walters, believed the old laws—under current application—did not offer protection. One-and-done, was their argument.

Monsanto, whose seed patents give the St. Louis-based firm a virtual grip on key food and fiber crops from Indiana to India, thought otherwise.

Subsequent generations of the patented seed, its attorney argued, carry the very item first patented, the germplasm that makes the crop “Roundup Ready.” As such and by extension any—every—generation thereafter would be covered by the initial patent.

The Monsanto view, however, carries a big problem: For that construction to be correct, courts need to “expand” yesterday’s old laws to fit today’s new times. Two federal courts, in Indiana and the Federal District in Washington, D.C., have done just that.

But it’s just not patent expansion, explained Peter Carstensen, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin and co-author of a “friend of the court” brief that favored Bowman’s view; it’s also antitrust issues.

​

 

[steveh_131]

There's that "Free Market" I keep hearing about.

Here's a little more 'Free Market' for you:

Michael Taylor: VP of Monsanto - Deputy Commissioner of the FDA

Roger Beachy: Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (paid for by Monsanto) - director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture

Elena Kagan: Obama Solicitor General (when she famously took Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case) - US Supreme Court justice.

Clarence Thomas: General Counsel for Monsanto - US Supreme Court justice.

Margaret Miller: Monsanto supervisor - Deputy Director of Human Food Safety

Donald Rumsfeld: Board of Directors for Monsanto’s Searle Pharmaceuticals - US Secretary of Defense

Ann Veneman: Monsanto Board of Directors - US Secretary of Agriculture

Linda Fisher: Assistant Administrator at the EPA - VP of Monsanto - Deputy Administrator of the EPA

Dr. Michael A.Friedman: Deputy Commisioner of the FDA - Senior VP of Monsanto

 

[Liberty1911]

You are missing the point He replicated and used their patent, it doesn't matter how he obtained it. It is right here read page 12-15

http://www.patents4life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Monsanto-opinion1.pdf

Yeah, he'll do that.


You're missing the larger issue here though, I think.

He doesn't believe in intellectual property rights, so anything Monsanto discovered or engineered is fair game after the initial sale of seed.

Unless you two have a common understanding of intellectual property rights, which you don't, your time would be better spent shoving bamboo under your fingernails instead of trying to explain a point of logic that he will never make the effort to understand.

 

[steveh_131]

Yeah, he'll do that.

 

[Liberty1911]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean for you to get butthurt.

 

[steveh_131]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean for you to get butthurt.