Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in Indiana farmer's GM seeds case

[The Straight Story]

The US Supreme Court came down solidly on the side of the agricultural giant Monsanto on Monday, ruling unanimously that an Indiana farmer could not use patented genetically modified soybeans to create new seeds without paying the company.

The case – which was cast by the farmer's supporters as a classic tale of David vs Goliath – could well dictate the future of modern farming.

In an unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that the farmer, Vernon Bowman, had infringed on Monsanto's patent for its GM soybeans when he bought some of those seeds from a local grain elevator and planted them for a second, late-season crop. Monsanto sued, arguing that Bowman had signed a contract when he initially bought the Roundup Ready soybeans in the spring, agreeing not to save any of the harvest for replanting. The seeds are genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup Ready weedkiller.

On Monday, the nine justices agreed. Kagan rejected the farmer's main argument, that Monsanto's patent was exhausted, because he had bought the seeds from a grain elevator. "Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission," she wrote.

Bowman, who is in his 70s, grew up in south-western Indiana and has farmed the same stretch of land for most of the past four decades. He had for years been faithfully signing contracts with Monsanto for his main soybean crop. More than 90% of the soybean grown in the mid-west is believed to be GM strains, like Round-Up Ready. But Bowman got into trouble when he decided to buy up junk seed from a local grain elevator and use it for a second, late-season planting. The advantage to the farmer was that such seeds were cheaper than the price demanded by Monsanto, and the late-season plantings were a riskier crop.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/13/supreme-court-monsanto-indiana-soybean-seeds

[badtoworse]

1. IP is IP and a deal is a deal.

The farmer had no right to do what he did.

[Drale]

3. So when Monsanto's soybeans mix with other soybeans through natural processes

and some of Monsanto's "patents" end up in those, is it going to be illegal to plant those new soybeans? When does it end, does a corporation have a right to patent our food supply? We need to end this monopoly that Monsanto has on our food, but that is impossible to do when the Supreme Court constantly rules in their favor.

[newfie11]

4. Exactly!

This is a problem.

[badtoworse]

6. Monsanto is not patenting our food supply. They have patented one specific strain of soybean

No one is stopping anyone from planting run of the mill soybeans. If you want to plant the Roundup Resistant strain, then you need to respect Monsanto's patent and compensate them for the time and expense it took to develop that strain.

As for mixing with other soybeans, there is no way to answer the question without reviewing the licensing agreement. I'm sure it contains language that specifies what can and cannot be done with the beans after they are harvested.

Bottom line: Nobody is forcing you to use Monsanto's beans

[FarCenter]

12. Monsanto's Roundup Ready patents expire in 2014 - but thanks to regulations, their monopoly doesn't

The last of Monsanto's patents on Roundup Ready plants expires in 2014, 20 years after application, just like most other patents. In the normal course of events anyone is free to produce and sell Roundup Ready seeds thereafter.

However, partly due to the efforts of the anti-GMO crowd, there are a thicket of USDA, EPA and FDA regulations that must be complied with. This is a multi-million dollar barrier to entry by others than Monsanto, which spends about $1.5 million per year just to continue compliance with regulations.

Therefore, inadvertent planting of seeds with the Roundup Ready genes may or may not be OK, depending on whether the farmer or the seed dealer runs afoul of the Federal government, but Monsanto no longer has patent rights.

[KittyWampus]

15. that is not the situation, though. I loathe Monsato, but what the farmer in question did has nothing

to do with any other scenario involving Monsato.

[graham4anything]

2. One can't buy a stolen Guicci bag on the street, then say they bought it in a store

[zipplewrath]

5. Not a great metaphor

Bottom line is that this has more to do with the weaknesses in our patent law than anything else. These kinds of patents/property rights were never envisioned when these laws were passed. We really need to pass laws about these kinds of "living property".

[badtoworse]

7. What difference does "living" make?

[zipplewrath]

9. A book won't reprint itself

A car won't breed. A song won't write another song.

These seeds reproduce, and mix with other plants which reproduce. And Monsanto wants ownership of all of these reproductions, long after the sale is made. It's a bit like a dog breeder wanting the offspring of a dog it sells you. The laws were written for inanimate objects.

[badtoworse]

13. If you harvest a soybean field, you need to physically plant more beans.

If you don't, you might get a few plants, but not a harvestable crop. To get an actual crop, you would need to save some of Monsanto's beans and physically plant them. Monsanto licenses you to plant one crop with beans and that's it. Go beyond that and you're violating the license.

[zipplewrath]

18. Which isn't what this guy did

And only scratches the surface of what companies are trying to enforce.

[badtoworse]

20. Maybe the farmer has a cause of action against the people that sold him the seed

Maybe Monsanto could have taken action against them as well (and maybe they still will if they have not done so already). The court's ruling was unanimous and correct: Monsanto owns the rights to those seeds and planting them without paying to do so is stealing.

If we do not protect intellectual property rights, what will motivate people to invest time and money into developing better products?

[zipplewrath]

21. Hybrids have always been with us

Hybrids predate Monsanto, and property rights laws. I do agree that there is some interest on the part of society in protecting property rights. But the nature of this product is that it can reproduce with plants that Monsanto doesn't own. Monsanto is asserting rights to those seeds based upon the presence in SOME of them of their proprietary DNA.

GMO's are apprearing in "the wild". We're going to have to think extensively about when these proprietary rights end.

[badtoworse]

22. That might be true, but these seeds were apparently leftovers in a grain elevator...

...and were clearly covered by the licensing agreement. They weren't wild seeds and nowhere in the story did I read where Monsanto was asserting rights over wild seed.

[zipplewrath]

23. "Clearly"

He bought "junk seed" i.e. seeds the grain elevator couldn't otherwise sell. Contained with in that seed (and probably the majority of the seed) was Monsanto seeds. He didn't save seed from his own crop, and the grain elevator doesn't have a contract with Monsanto.

But no, in this particular case, wild seed wasn't directly an issue, other than the issue of the mixed seed the guy apparently bought. Monsanto has asserted various rights in the case of cross pollination of other fields.

[onenote]

14. The first "Plant Patent Act" was passed in 1930

So the patent law has covered more than inanimate objects for over 80 years now.

[graham4anything]

8. theft is theft, laws are laws, one either changes the law, or obeys the law.

The 2nd amendment was never envisioned to be what a corrupt court ruled it is at the moment either.
Which is why either one upholds the law, or legally changes it.
one can't use vigilante justice and anarchy and change it by oneself.Otherwise there is nothing.

[zipplewrath]

10. Right

Property right/patent law has been antiquated for decades and needs serious overhaul. Way too many patents, way too much dubious property declarations, way too many extensions to patents, copyrights, and other "intellectual property".

[badtoworse]

17. You really need to get past firearms

There's more to life than gun control and the NRA.

[morningfog]

11. This is the kind of thing that makes me abhor IP

Law. Hate it.

[derby378]

16. Moral of the story: Don't plant soybeans that require you to sign a contract

Food is food, and food should not require you to lawyer up if you want to grow some.

[Initech]

19. When big soulless corporations like Monsanto win, we lose.