

Monsanto Seed Patent Case Gets U.S. Supreme Court Review - mhb
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-05/monsanto-seed-patent-case-gets-u-dot-s-dot-supreme-court-review

======
chris_wot
_"If it’s overturned, it will have cataclysmic repercussions for the business
model in the seed biotech industry," Benbrook said by telephone. "It would
basically end the agricultural biotech industry as we know it, certainly for
soybeans."_

Two things:

1\. Someone will still make money from it. Innovation will still occur.

2\. Indeed, the industry will change, to a better and fairer one. Oh woe be to
humanity!

~~~
pixelbath
I was talking about this exact quote with my wife yesterday. "...will end [x]
as we know it" is the most fatalistic way of wording anything, without
actually stating whether it's a good or bad thing.

Monsanto, you already ended farming as we knew it, and that seemed to work out
pretty well for you.

~~~
talmand
"Gutenberg's printing press will end lack of knowledge as we know it!"

"Tesla's radio will end communication as we know it!"

You're right, we could do this all day.

I agree on Monsanto, I think what we have today was intended from the
beginning.

------
amalag
Monsanto wants to argue that seeds are patentable because they are unique and
involve human intelligence endeavour which should be protected. They also
argue that GMO foods do not need to be labeled as such for the consumer
because they are not significantly different from 'regular' foods. Any
contradictions?

~~~
mhb
No. An analogous example would be if you invented a way to produce an
artificial (human) organ (e.g., liver) that was indistinguishable from a
natural one.

~~~
talmand
You are talking about having a patent on the method to create the organ, not
the organ itself.

It seems to me that if Monsanto can have a patent on a "unique" seed that at
the same time is indistinguishable from a natural one then it can be argued
their patent covers the natural one as well. Especially if nature takes its
usual course where the natural seed slowly takes on the characteristics of the
patented seed due to cross pollination. Which cannot be easily controlled in
an open field unless Monsanto wants to crack down on all the insects involved
in pollination.

Oh yes, make the wind illegal as well.

Based on articles I've read about Monsanto's behavior in this industry it
seems they think they do indeed own the rights to soybean seeds in the US.

If the patent covered the process of creating said seed then I can understand.
But I don't agree that one can claim to be unique and generic at the same
time. Plus if the resulting seed is indistinguishable from a natural one and
the patent was on the seed itself then it would seem that the natural seed is
the prior art to counter the patent in the first place.

In your example, a proper comparison would be if the new organ is resistive to
aging or whatever other common human failing that would cause one to replace
the organ. Therefore, it is not indistinguishable from the natural one. It
would indeed have a distinguishable characteristic that makes it different
than a natural one. Then you can have the patent on the organ. But don't tell
me you own the liver of the child of the parent who received your organ
because somehow the characteristics of your special organ was passed down to
said child.

~~~
mhb
OK. Thanks.

------
DirtyCalvinist
This is one of those cases where the rights and interests of patent holders
need to be balanced with the rights and interests of the public at large.
Biotech crops are probably key to our survival and prosperity as a species on
this planet and if anyone can simply grow some seeds and sell them, that will
reduce/destroy the monetary incentive for creating new varieties of plants.
(In some cases this does not matter, like corn and apples, because these
plants do not breed true. But this is apparently not true of soybeans.) That
incentive is what the patent system is ideally supposed to protect.

That said, Monsanto's ability/propensity to sue any farmer who breathes in a
bit of their genetically modified plant material needs to be curtailed.

~~~
RobAley
Can you substantiate your claim that "Biotech crops are probably key to our
survival and prosperity as a species"? There is little evidence supporting
that that I can find.

Globally, we currently produce more food than we need. The problems we
currently have around starvation and malnutrition appear from my limited
research to be centred on distribution, comoditization and other socio-
economic factors.

How do biotech crops (current or future) tackle these issues?

~~~
rmc
_Globally, we currently produce more food than we need. The problems we
currently have around starvation and malnutrition appear from my limited
research to be centred on distribution, comoditization and other socio-
economic factors._

Remember some "produced food" is fed to other food to make meat. What would
you say if vegetarianism was legally required?

~~~
pyre
That in general, we might be better off for it?

That said, it really has no bearing on this discussion. Currently companies do
things like destroy perfectly good grains in an effort to prevent the price
from dropping due to over-supply. Why? Because it costs money to store, so
better to just destroy it. If we come up short later, then it's even _more_
beneficial to the company because the price actually goes _up_!

That's not even touching the issue of Africa, where most 'aide' that is sent
never makes it to the starving people due to political turmoil / warlords /
etc.

~~~
rmc
I'm skeptical of claims that "food problems are just distribution, we produced
enough food to feed everyone" claims, especially if it starts with "well,
first everyone must switch to vegetarianism... easy!", and would need some
convincing that it's possible to "end world hunger" without massive drastic
changes.

~~~
DanBC
Replying to this really late, but:

> _The world's second-biggest cause of child mortality, diarrhoea, kills about
> 1.5 million children every year. Three-quarters of these deaths could be
> prevented with a simple course of oral rehydration salts (ORS) combined with
> zinc tablets, at a cost of just US$0.50 per patient._

For years we've[1] struggled to get this live saving cheap stuff to little
dying children, and haven't succeeded.

Without any massive change - just a little bit of clever thinking, we use Coca
Cola's desire to sell fizzy pop to everyone, and their delivery networks, to
help ship ORS.

([http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94996/GLOBAL-Follow-the-
fizz-...](http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94996/GLOBAL-Follow-the-fizz-save-a-
life))

I agree with you about the "We just need to [...]" school of thought being
hopeless.

------
alpatters
If Monsanto want their patent to cover future generations of seeds derived
from a Monsanto seed. Would they also claim liability if one of those
generations had a mutation that caused the plant to be toxic and kill people?

~~~
talmand
Of course not, that's easy, they would fight all accusations of liability in
that case. The banning of GM crops is already starting around the world and
I'm sure companies are fighting this "unfair characterization" of their
product.

------
rayiner
To be fair, this case isn't about cross-pollination. This case is about a
grain farmer who agreed not to reuse Monsanto's seed, then bought seed from a
grain elevator that had accepted harvests from farmers using Monsanto seed. So
he reused someone else's Monsanto seed.

~~~
sjwright
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Monsanto genetics be functionally
useless when mixed with unmodified seed? If half of the seed isn't roundup-
ready, you can't reap any benefit from it because if you take advantage of its
one party trick -- herbicide resistance -- and spray your crops with
Glyphosate, half of your crop will die.

------
hugh4life
The guy bought the seed from the grain elevator... what does that have to do
with seed saving? I can see banning the former but people should be able to
reuse their seed.

(BTW, I worked like 6 summers for Monsanto detasseling corn)

~~~
talmand
From my understanding, if you purchase Monsanto seeds you explicitly agree to
not reuse seed from your crop. You have to purchase new seed from Monsanto for
the next crop. Which I don't feel I necessarily disagree with that practice.
You made the deal so you have to abide by it.

The problem is that Monsanto claims to own the rights to all resulting seeds
from their original, forever into the future. This includes cross pollination.
So they want farmers who never agreed to use their seed in their crops to pay
up because nature does its thing and everyone's crop ends up with
characteristics of Monsanto's seed.

The solution is for every farmer to pay Monsanto or ban nature.

~~~
LarryMade
Monsanto should be sued for polluting the natural bio-system and be forced to
clean up their mess. Soon the fossil fuel companies will be suing hospitals
from profiteering from their air contributions.

~~~
TheAmazingIdiot
No. Instead, each state needs to file trespass charges for every farmer who
didn't buy seed and had their field cross polinatee.

Then you count how many seeds. There's a trespass charge for each and every
one of them. After all, their seeds are their property.

------
ditojim
FTA: "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."

Is there any doubt who's side the president is on in this matter?

~~~
emehrkay
Monsanto's business practices are the perfect example of what is wrong with
the patent system/big corporate interests taking precedence. They've
successfully sued people for cross pollination; engineered seeds who do not
produce children; used their standing to get those seeds in just about every
market; and they want, and will probably get, their way when it comes to
labeling of foods grown with the genetically modified seeds. You brought up
Obama's stance on this, but I honestly haven't heard any presidential
candidate; third, fourth, or fifth party; talk about changing this nonsense.

~~~
ditojim
good point: i will assume for the sake of my previous comment that good ole'
mitt would also take the side of monsanto in this case. still, obama is
currently in power, so his actions are more critical than any other
politician's stance.

------
fpp
If you want to get some non-mainstream or non-paid for opinions on this topic,
the consequences for farmers in the U.S. and even more in developing
countries, also on how the PTO started to allow such patents in the first
place watch Food Inc - <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food,_Inc>.

------
mbell
Off topic: The snapping of the header into a fixed position on this web site
is incredibly annoying. I thought my trackpad was spazing out for a bit till i
realized they actually intended for the header to snap down to cover half the
first paragraph, losing my place in the text in the process.

------
nachteilig
Patenting genes strikes me as the only use of patents worse than patenting
software.

------
Aloisius
This never made much sense. I don't see what would keep some other company
from coming up with a patentable gene in corn, spreading it all over the US,
waiting a generation for it to cross pollinate and then demanding license fees
paid by everyone.

Heck, you might even be able to plant it near where Monsanto grows their corn
for seed and then sue Monsanto.

~~~
bduerst
Doubtful, since the strain that goes to market isn't taken from seed from the
external test plots.

I think that if it ever came to that, all one would have to do is demonstrate
that the gene is now occurring naturally, and they'd have a bonified defense
against Monsanto.

As it stand now, though, most of the farmers who went to court with Monsanto
were found to be intentially trying to reproduce the technology.

~~~
talmand
In many cases that's where I disagree with the courts. Unless the farmer's
intentionally obtained original seeds from Mansanto outside of normal means,
then I don't fault them for taking advantage of their crops ending up with
said seeds.

Personally I would go the opposite route and do my best to prevent GM seeds
from entering my crop. But that's just me.

Plus, not reading the cases you are referring to, was that it was actually
found the farmers were doing this or that Monsanto convinced the court/jury
that this is so? Remember that requirements of proof are much different for
civil court versus criminal court.

Most of the cases I'm familiar with never got to jury, the farmers were
bankrupt before getting that far or the farmers just gave in because it was
cheaper to settle. Which I'm sure is as planned.

~~~
bduerst
That appears to be the case with the farmers though. In this article and with
the Canadian farmer some years back, they were both shown to have
intentionally taken the technology directly and tried to reproduce it for
themselves.

I don't know if there is a court case where the farmer truly had replanted
seed of their own with the technology accidently pollinating it.

Keep in mind too that these court cases are closed, and that Monsanto can be
using technology to prove their cases - technology which is not public
information.

------
mtgx
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider how patent rules apply to self-
replicating technologies.

Well, let's hope that if we ever get to have a Star Trek-like replicator, we
won't have to "pirate" food and whatnot by using the replicator.

~~~
stephengillie
I'm more concerned about the _self-replicating_ part. I don't want human self-
replication technology (aka childbirth) to become patented. Don't laugh, some
genes already are.

~~~
talmand
Considering the current path we are taking, it is almost inevitable that there
will one day be a claim by a corporation to "own" a child due to it benefiting
from its products and/or research.

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. I can already hear the
marching cry of those of us wanting to reduce the IP stranglehold in the US:

 _Think of the children!_

~~~
talmand
I think we can make the argument now that the current copyright/patent
absurdities are harming future generations. It's just that for most people, if
it doesn't affect them today then they don't care because they are likely
incapable of realizing it will affect them tomorrow.

------
joering2
dont you love that company... they offer a farmer genetically polluted product
that even bugs die of eating (and somehow magically they wont affect human
organism, now and in 40 years of constant eating), farmer says "no thank you",
then they buy a land around his, put their seeds on, wind blows them on the
farmer land, then they sue him for stealing their seeds. By the time the case
is closed, the farmer is bankrupt and in $XXX,000 debt.

Its literally like someone broke into your house, raped and killed your
daughter and in defense you knocked them off by smashing their head. Then you
are being thrown into jail because you hurt that perpetrator and they go free
because only you could technically prove they did the crime.

~~~
sxp
[Citation needed] with regards to "then they buy a land around his, put their
seeds on, wind blows them on the farmer land, then they sue him for stealing
their seeds"

If you are referring to
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser)
then you are eliding the part where "[Schmeiser] had used Roundup herbicide to
clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road
running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which
had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying
Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the
same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time,
Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was
stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed
approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola."

If there was a situation where Monsanto sued and won against a farmer
operating in good faith after accidental contamination, please cite it.
Monsanto may be an evil megacorp (See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company#1997_WTVT_news...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Company#1997_WTVT_news_story))
but evil is not directly related to their GM work.

~~~
talmand
I think the case you cited is the citation you are looking for.

The problem with that case is in the definition of operating in good faith. If
the farmer did not attempt to cause his crop to be cross pollinated with
Monsanto seed then it's not his fault that was the result. He may have known
what he was doing and took advantage of the situation, but that's irrelevant.
Unless it could be proven that he somehow obtained the seed from outside his
crop without going through proper channels then he did nothing wrong. He
claimed to have replanted seed from his own crop and I don't see where
Monsanto proved otherwise. Again, the case you cite is the citation you are
looking for.

Granted, I don't believe that Monsanto purchased the land around his farm with
the intent to infect his crop with their seed, but the outcome is the same.

The court gave Monsanto license to claim all crops cross-pollinated with their
seed as being property of Monsanto. In this case, the court was wrong.

