Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

rt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#11

Post by aplusbi »

mpyne wrote: post #4
jessaustin wrote: post #2

IANAL but it seems especially bad that the verdict was unanimous . I guess it really is time to shutter the USDA, because any pretense that this government supports the farmer, rather than the same corporate interests that all other agencies do, is demolished at this point.

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm…

>Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all.

Monsanto is somewhat infamous for suing farmers for planting seeds from plants that were accidentally cross-pollinated with Monstanto crops. So to answer your question, you can't use non-Monsanto seeds if any of the farms around you are using Monsanto seeds.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#12

Post by jessaustin »

mpyne wrote: post #4
jessaustin wrote: post #2

IANAL but it seems especially bad that the verdict was unanimous . I guess it really is time to shutter the USDA, because any pretense that this government supports the farmer, rather than the same corporate interests that all other agencies do, is demolished at this point.

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm…

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago?

Well, they can't buy such seeds at the elevator like they could 100 years ago. And now they can't plant elevator seeds period, without paying the Monsanto tax. (I know that isn't the explicit text of the ruling, but it is certainly its result for the most marketable crops.)

My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all.

Yeah I'm sure his unicorn herd is thriving. If you actually have a family connection to agriculture, you know that outside a few sheltered crops like avocados, "family" farming has been steadily supplanted by corporate farming. I'm not against that per se, because competition, but my point was to impeach the oft-repeated lobbyists' saw that USDA is "for the farmers! [and their children!]"

what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm them and resell them at a lower cost until the end of time?

Monsanto already make a killing selling Roundup, to which these seeds are a completely complementary good. If Monsanto were good at business rather than evil at business, they would increase the price of Roundup and give the seeds away. (That would still be bad for both the environment and agriculture, but it wouldn't be as bad.)

this decision makes its harder to introduce those supposedly-evil GMOs in our American farms

News flash from the mid-90s: GMO crops are here already, in fact in many areas most farmers use them; that's why you can't avoid them at the elevator.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#13

Post by jerrya »

tptacek wrote: post #6

Once again regarding this story: to understand what's happening here, it's very important that you understand that the farmer didn't just acquire Monsanto seeds, but also used glyphospate herbicides on the crops . The point of Monsanto's invention is that it survives Roundup; if you spray Roundup on normal crops, they die. Most people who see this story play out seem to think that it implies a Monsanto seed could blo…

Since I am not a lawyer and know nothing about patent law, I have no problem with what the farmer did, up until the point I read that he had intentionally signed other agreements with Monsanto, and that, I think, poisons his intentions.

Apart from that, I can revel in my ignorance that tells me that collecting grain from a common silo and spraying it with roundup is not much more a big deal than going to a river and panning for gold, or passing a list through a filter.

Or even was growing yogurt, and intentionally subjecting his cultures to "too cold temps" in order to evolve strains that would grow at lower temps.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#14

Post by TallGuyShort »

tptacek wrote: post #8
TallGuyShort wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies) Can you name any YC-backed companies whose products are widely suspected to be causing unprecedented harm to society (or at least have the potential to) but are getting increasing legal immunity? We also hate corporations that enforce patents in software b…

What "unprecedented harm" are you referring to here?

Are you kidding? There have been a number of studies on hive collapse, organ failure and other problems that appear to implicate Monsanto that have been widely discussed on HN. To be clear I'm not saying that any one of these studies absolutely conclusively points a finger of blame on Monsanto - I'm saying that there is enough suspicion of harm that saying we hate them just because they are incorporated is an even more ridiculous accusation than any of the above.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#15

Post by axus »

tptacek wrote: post #7
mpyne wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm…

The court record strongly suggests that farmers can acquire Monsanto seeds and treat them like normal crops; I've looked for cases where Monsanto sued someone that hadn't allegedly sprayed Roundup on their crops and came up blank (but would welcome a counterexample).

Does the supreme court ruling care whether Roundup was used? All I saw was that "copying" the seeds was not allowed, because they are patented.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#16

Post by wavefunction »

mpyne wrote: post #4
jessaustin wrote: post #2

IANAL but it seems especially bad that the verdict was unanimous . I guess it really is time to shutter the USDA, because any pretense that this government supports the farmer, rather than the same corporate interests that all other agencies do, is demolished at this point.

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm…

The main criticism that resonates with me is that protected genes like this case are kind of an anti-LGPL, turning naturally open systems into closed ones just by nature of life reproducing via airborne fertilization.

Now this wasn't a great test-case since the defendant was trying to specifically rip Monsanto off, but it is my opinion that it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure their protected product doesn't spread on its own.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#17

Post by indiefan »

I don't think modifying already self-replicating seeds should give you a right to dictate what happens with subsequent generations of those seeds. Any such agreements should be rendered invalid (like non-compete agreements in California).

I realize this is an issue with the laws themselves and probably not within the purview of the Supreme Court, but I was kind of hoping they'd step in and end the madness.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#18

Post by kvb »

aplusbi wrote: post #11
mpyne wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm…

>Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. Monsanto is somewhat infamous for suing farmers for planting seeds from plants that were accidentally cross-pollinated with Monstanto crops. So to answer your question, you can't use non-Monsanto seeds if any of the farms around you are using Monsanto seeds…

I read this often in these threads, but have never seen a citation to such a case. Could you provide one?

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#19

Post by mpyne »

wavefunction wrote: post #16
mpyne wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm…

The main criticism that resonates with me is that protected genes like this case are kind of an anti-LGPL, turning naturally open systems into closed ones just by nature of life reproducing via airborne fertilization. Now this wasn't a great test-case since the defendant was trying to specifically rip Monsanto off, but it is my opinion that it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure their protected product doesn't spr…

I would certainly agree that it is in Monsanto's best interests to ensure their seeds don't spread on their own, if only because the presumption of innocence that must attach to each and every single case they'd try to prosecute.

I know that civil cases have an easier standard of proof but it would still have be difficult to prove every time that a farmer was trying to screw Monsanto over.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#20

Post by jcampbell1 »

jessaustin wrote: post #12
mpyne wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for decades, after all. I get that we're all supposed to hate Monsanto because they're a corporation (something which they apparently don't have in common with the YC-backed companies), but what's the incentive to develop "superior" seeds if the first farmer who buys them can farm…

Can't farmers still use non-Monsanto seeds like they could 100 years ago? Well, they can't buy such seeds at the elevator like they could 100 years ago. And now they can't plant elevator seeds period, without paying the Monsanto tax. (I know that isn't the explicit text of the ruling, but it is certainly its result for the most marketable crops.) My grandpa's small family farm has been doing just fine without for dec…

> Monsanto already make a killing selling Roundup,

Your information is extremely dated. The patent for Roundup expired over a decade ago, and in the last 5 years the market has been flooded with cheap chinese made Glyphosate.

Post reply on HN