The most ludicrous part of all of this is that you can patent biology.
Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
21–30 of 66 posts
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#22Earlier 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…
Well, Hipmunk (to pick a random one I've happened to use before) makes it easier to fly around, which causes increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere, which causes increased sea levels and higher global temperatures. YC is funding the destruction of the planet! > We also hate corporations that enforce patents in software because it's ridiculous to patent software - how about patenting genetic codes? Well, that'…
I would agree with your last points, but I still see almost zero connection between the actual reasons why people hate Monsanto and Hipmunk.
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#23Although many people hate to see Monsanto win, it seems clear that this case was well considered, and that the license was violated here. No one should be surprised that Monsanto won this one. However, the passage of the Farmer Assurance Provision aka. "The Monsanto Protection Act" is a much more horrific legislative end-run around the will of the people.
the license was violated here
I can see this point. Contracts should be honored.
However, the string "patent" occurs 96 times in the ruling in question. ("licens" occurs eight times.) It is difficult to credit that this was a case about licenses rather than one about patents.
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#24Earlier 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…
> 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.
Gee asshole, it's almost like there's a fucking reason I said my grandpa's farm is small.
And it's not unicorns, it's horses, beef cattle and some heifers, and the hay required to feed them (and the alfalfa needed to restore the fields while they lie fallow).
> 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.)
That might apply to this case, but that doesn't answer the general question.
Let's say some Big Pharma spends $15 billion to develop a cure for acne by using genetic manipulation techniques, but the cure has to be delivered by a refitted retrovirus and the retrovirus can be "farmed" by anyone with an incubation lamp and a supply of eggs into however many doses are desired.
No side product here, just the acne "cure". How do you allow for development and marketing of that? What's your solution?
Patent is what we have for short-term protection. I don't think any of us want to broach into the realm of infinite-length copyright. Do you have a better idea?
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, Hipmunk (to pick a random one I've happened to use before) makes it easier to fly around, which causes increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere, which causes increased sea levels and higher global temperatures. YC is funding the destruction of the planet! > We also hate corporations that enforce patents in software because it's ridiculous to patent software - how about patenting genetic codes? Well, that'…
I would agree with your last points, but I still see almost zero connection between the actual reasons why people hate Monsanto and Hipmunk.
I hope no one hates Hipmunk, it's the best way I've ever booked a flight, bar none.
I just hope the sea level holds up long enough to retire to some tropical island.
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#26Once 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…
It's a short opinion, written in fairly plain English, and worth reading: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf.
The most salient points are on page 9-10:
"Still, Bowman has another seeds-are-special argument: that soybeans naturally “self-replicate or ‘sprout’ unless stored in a controlled manner,” and thus “it was the planted soybean, not Bowman” himself, that made replicas of Monsanto’s patented invention. Brief for Petitioner 42; see Tr. of Oral Arg. 14 (“[F]armers, when they plant seeds, they don’t exercise any control . . . over their crop” or “over the creative process”). But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way,the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained, supra at 2–3, Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium. He purchased beans from a grain elevator anticipating that many would be Roundup Ready; applied a glyphosate-based herbicide in a way that culled any plants without the patented trait; and saved beans from the rest for the next season." (9)
"Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose." (10)
"We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article." (10)
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#27Earlier 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…
>> 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…
How many YC-backed companies are simply facets of the half-trillion dollar global advertising industry, which is rooted in trademark monopolies and has the effect of getting people to pay huge premiums for cheap products by creating artificial differentiation between otherwise fungible goods?
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#28Once 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…
Look I'm no proponent of Monsanto, but they do have a point here.
Roundup will kill all non-monsanto plants; they change the formula every year to make sure that you have to keep buying seeds. In this case, the farmer grabbed a ton of seeds, sprayed everything with roundup and kept only the seeds which survived; the seeds he knew to be from Monsanto.
I don't like the idea that Monsanto can go to your farm and throw seeds and suddenly you owe them money, but it seems like they might be in the right here. The farmer did go out of his way to pursue survivable seeds without paying Monsanto for the privilege.
This is different from Yogurt where you have some natural selection. He didn't introduce a chemical to the Yogurt with the intention of killing all non-chemically-protected strains.
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 mo…
This is the very definition of FUD.
Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
#30Earlier 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…
Monsanto developed a mechanism to prevent its crops from spreading by causing them to produce sterile seeds, but it pledged not to use the technology under pressure from anti-corporatist groups[1][2].
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
[1]http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/terminator-seeds.asp... [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/oct/06/gm.food2