> The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.
Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?
I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.
> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting"
I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.
>In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]
>The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.
I'm not sure that anybody is against the ruling itself, but more that a company would decide to institute that policy in the first place. It was well within Mylan's right[0] to raise the price of EpiPens an egregious amount for no real reason other than to increase profit, just as it's well within Monsanto's right to have you sign an agreement prohibiting you from using new seeds for re-planting, but that doesn't mean people aren't pissed off about those business practices.
Fundamentally yes, some are also angered by the fact that current IP law / court rulings allow those types of agreements to be legal, and there's potentially an argument / opportunity to change the law to prohibit that type of agreement, but primarily it's just a BS move by a company that makes people mad. To your music point, many also consider it a BS move to prohibit saving the music you "buy" on iTunes to more than N devices. It's completely legal, and you definitely agreed to those terms when you bought it, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating.
I take it as sign of failing moderation that the parent comment was moderated down and rendered harder to read by default. It's quite right--music copyright licensing is not foreseeably an issue of life and death. Any music copyright holder depending on that income can try and get another paying job, even a non-musical job to earn money. I'm not a fan of that approach (for reasons outside the scope of this discussion) but it is more practical than waiting for a license check and starving. Planting seeds, harvesting plants for food, and replanting the seeds that naturally grow was a process big agriculture had to spend effort to stymie because the natural way got in the way of profits. That's harmful to us all.
Also, the grandparent article is conflating copyright and patent laws in the language of "intellectual property" and ought not be allowed to go without comment. These laws work very differently, cost different amounts of money to acquire and defend, and conflating them is a sign of ignorance or a sham. These laws have far more separating them than they share (one sentence in the US Constitution). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellect... explains more in-depth.
> I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
The mere idea that you can license seeds is highly objectionable and seems very likely to be against the public interest. Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.
> Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.
I agree that exhaustion and first sale doctrines should apply for Monsanto seeds, but I don't think that either of those doctrines are applicable to the Bowman v. Monsanto case.
Exhaustion or first sale would apply only to the first copy; i.e., if Bowman had purchased a seed from Monsanto and then resold that same seed to someone else.
But neither would apply to the next generation of seeds, just like exhaustion and first sale don't give you the right to sell N>1 copies of a single purchased mp3.
Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?
I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.
> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.
I found this court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting"
I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.
I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.