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

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#31

Post by pionar »

r00fus wrote: post #9
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.

The ruling punted the issue of blown seeds, it was specific to this case - that the farmer knew and exploited a loophole to get 2nd gen crops while still agreeing not to. Now, I disagree with the decision, but only on ideological grounds. From a rights standpoint, this ruling won't really answer the question of the canadian farmer and wind-blown Monsanto seeds.

Why would they comment on a case that not only is not in front of them, but in another country?

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#32

Post by hayksaakian »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #20
jessaustin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

but isn't the main crux of the case the fact that monsanto changes roundup every year such that only the new strain soybeans is resistent to it?

if roundup was readily copy-able, how could this be possible?

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#33

Post by jacoblyles »

I'm concerned that one of the only companies working on the efficiency of food production has such bad PR. Is there anyone else inventing innovative crop technologies like Monsanto? For the future of the human species, I hope the anti-corporation types don't gather enough power to drive them into the ground before capable competitors pop up.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#35

Post by aplusbi »

kvb wrote: post #18
aplusbi wrote: post #11

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. 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?

I got my information from the documentaries "The Future of Food" and "Food, Inc" both of which have an obvious bias. I'm having trouble tracking down any other citations at the moment.

Here is a [again, biased] citation about Monsanto suing people for saving seeds, allegedly going so far as to forge documents: http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#36

Post by kens »

josh2600 wrote: post #28
jerrya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

A couple people have mentioned that the Roundup formula changes every year. Where did that idea come from? Roundup's active ingredient is glyphosate, aka N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine, and it's been that way since Roundup was introduced in the 1970s.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#37

Post by jerrya »

josh2600 wrote: post #28
jerrya wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

Oh I'm sure I am probably in the legal wrong.

I think that if cable companies broadcast encrypted signals in through my house, I should legally be able to decrypt them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)

I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)

I think that if an Apple employee leaves an iPhone 6 in a bar, I should legally be able to break it apart. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)

It might be ethically wrong for me to do so, but it should be legal for me to do so.

If Monsanto can't keep its products out of a community silo, and Farmer John wants to go fishing for their seeds by spraying them all with a commonly obtained chemical and seeing what survives, I think that should be legal too.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#38

Post by Natsu »

axus wrote: post #15
tptacek wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They discuss it at length to point out that he should have known he was doing something wrong, but it does not appear to be a requirement as such. They found that he was not protected by exhaustion and that he was creating new patented articles, so it's hard to see how they could come to a different conclusion even without that part.

Of course, IANAL and you should get one if it's important to be sure of that.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#39

Post by AnIrishDuck »

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…

> 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.)

No, they can't plant elevator seeds, spray them with Roundup, and then do the whole "aw shucks, looks like your seeds were the only ones that survived, who would've guessed?" routine when Monsanto comes a knocking.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#40

Post by jcampbell1 »

hayksaakian wrote: post #32
jcampbell1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

but isn't the main crux of the case the fact that monsanto changes roundup every year such that only the new strain soybeans is resistent to it? if roundup was readily copy-able, how could this be possible?

Everything you wrote is completely confused. Monsanto doesn't invent a new strain of herbicide resistant crops every year. Roundup doesn't change. It is a trade name for a chemical with an expired patent, and many different companies make it.
Post reply on HN