SJ MN: Monsanto suing farmers over piracy issue

[DBoon]

Link:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/10637910.htm?1c

Quote:

SAN FRANCISCO - Monsanto Co.'s "seed police" are constantly prowling the nation's farm belt in search of growers using genetically engineered seeds they haven't purchased.

They found Mississippi soy farmer Homan McFarling in 1999. He said the company is now demanding he pay $1.2 million for allegedly "pirating" its technology. In doing so, Monsanto is attempting to protect its business in much the same way the entertainment industry does when it sues underground digital distributors exploiting music, movies and video games.

McFarling, 62, is in court for saving seed from one harvest and replanting it the following season, a revered and ancient agricultural practice. But saving Monsanto's seeds, genetically engineered to resist weed sprays, violates provisions of Monsanto's licensing contracts with farmers.

McFarling is hardly alone on this new frontier of piracy lawsuits, a legal assault critics say is radically altering farming habits around the world.

[moindependent]

1. Somewhat old news

Or at least a very old topic. If you want to change this, you'll have to alter US patent law. This lawsuit addresses Roundup Ready soybeans. The Roundup Ready trait was initially patented by Monsanto, and extended a few times by playing around within the patent system. However, the patent protections are getting thin on the technology.

The next level of protection is the patent held on every single genetic line that breeders come out with. It's as enforcable as the Roundup Ready patent is, so even if Monsanto was wiped off the map today, farmers still couldn't legally save their soybean seed, with the exception of some lines released from University breeding programs (commonly known as "public" lines).

Only solution to this issue is to effect a change in rulings from the early 80's that allowed patents on genetic material.

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Or, if you buy an organism, you are buying its progeny too.

As far as I know, if I buy some Burpee marigold seeds and grow flowers, I can save the seed from those flowers.

[moindependent]

5. Not it's progeny, if it's patented

The way it works now is that buy purchasing the seed, you are licensed to use the patented material to produce one, and only one, generation of progeny. If Burpee patented a marigold variety, you could be sued quite successfully if you saved its seed and replanted it. You might have a way out if you weren't doing this for any commercial purpose, but I'm not absolutely certain.

[achtung_circus]

9. You not only buy the seed from Monsanto,

You buy the herbicide, sign a contract not to use the harvest for seed purposes and pay a technology transfer fee. It's a licence to print money for Monsanto. The way out is to not use their package of products.

[Solon]

11. Imagine how dangerous this can get...

Because I would imagine that soon, when genetic treatments become widespread, for diseases and stuff, that similar contracts will be signed by those who want to live. Imagine a child, whose parents signed for a rare genetic defect to be corrected, and then the child has a normal happy childhood, and eventually 20 years later, wants a family, the day after there first child is born, they are sued for patent infringement. Think it can't happen? Think again, companies like Monsanto will do what they can maintain the bottom line, and that is the truth.

[Just Me]

23. I seriously oppose anyone "patenting" a potential seed of life!!!

I agree with you that this is very dangerous particularly considering that the driving force has everything to do with profits/power and nothing to do with "LIFE".

:scared:

I can't even bring myself up to speed with respect to whether or not genetic food production is good or bad for humanity or the earth because it's moving way too freakin' fast for anyone to chew on the consequences.

[AngryAmish]

32. Kinda silly analagy

We fought a war so people cannot be the property of other people. Abe Lincoln had something to do with it. You can look it up.

[Solon]

34. Yeah, so?

Monsanto owns the patent on a gene that potentially can cause breast cancer in women. So you were saying?

[AngryAmish]

35. No person or corporation can have an interest in the body of another

At least in this country.

[Solon]

37. I know of no such law...

in fact the patent law, as I said in a previous post, only restricts patents in regards to fully developed, living breathing humans, but not specific parts of our genetic code. Really, what is the difference of having a human being who was genetically modified by a retro-virus inserted gene, being sued for patent infringement for having unauthorized offspring, and a farmer being sued for keeping and replanting the offspring of another GM organism?

The only thing I can think of that would be close to what you are talking about is the Roe v. Wade decision. As far as I know, that pertains to privacy, and to government action only. The Amendment freeing slaves also only applies to owning full fledge human beings, not their genetic code. This is about patents, not morals, if you ran a company like Monsanto, how can you hope to keep profits for more than a generation if you don't try to make patients sign contracts similar to what they are doing to farmers right now?

[AngryAmish]

38. Article XIII.

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

There is a long line of cases where this actually figures. For example, person service contracts cannot be enforced (with exceedingly rare exceptions) through specific performance.

A person cannot be owned. It is a silly analagy.

[moindependent]

18. You've almost got it

You don't have to use their complete package, as you have other chemical options besides those produced by Monsanto. However, the industry is now structured to give the greatest reward to the technology captured in the plant, as opposed to the technology in the chemical jug.

[Just Me]

21. Seeds AND THEIR OFFSPRING are "PATENTED"?!?!?!

"PATENTED" OFFSPRING?!?!?! What if the freakin' wind carries the seeds? Then, who do you sue,..particularly years later when someone happenstances upon the plant?

Oh, AND one MUST buy a "patented" herbicide (which does what?) in order to purchase a "patented" seed plus its,....WOW,...I must have been COMPLETELY asleep during intellectual law courses *LOL*.

Moreover, these Monsanto people are,...well,...geez,...

Have these "patents" upon "patents" with prohibitions on "lives not in being" *LOL* cases been brought before SCOTUS?

[Solon]

26. Actually this started in the late 1970's early 1980's...

GM modified a bacteria to eat oil, to clean up oil spills, so they filed for a patent, it was summarily denied by the Patent Office, they said that no life form nor its genetic material may be patented. This was in 1980-81 or so. GM filed an appeal, and the appeals court ruled in their favor, the funny thing was the justification used, to paraphrase, "this bacteria looks more like a detergent or chemical than a cow or a horse, therefore it can be patented". In other words, their own ignorance in biology allowed all this crap that we have happening now happen. The Patent Office issued the patent, but for an additional 8 years resisted it, then in 1989, they reversed their decision and said that any organism and its genetic material may be patent with the exception of fully developed human beings. That is a HUGE GAPING HOLE in regulation, don't you think?

[sarahlee]

36. It is happening

and part of what is so scary about these genetically modified crops. They are finding genetic modifications in corn and other crops in very remote areas of Central and South America - birds, other animals, wind, etc. are slowly moving the modified crops around the world. This is very dangerous for diversity and protection against crop wipe outs from instects and disease.

[AZCat]

41. The Canadian Supreme Court recently decided a case on this

Canada Rules in Favor of Monsanto over Seed Saving Farmer Percy Schmeiser

Schmeiser alleged that seed from a neighboring field blew into his own. From the article:

Mr. Schmeiser, 74, cast himself as a farmer of the old school who habitually used seeds from previous crops to plant new canola. No fan of chemical herbicides, Mr. Schmeiser used Roundup sparingly in 1997 to eliminate weeds around some power poles and ditches.

He has steadfastly insisted that the seed somehow blew onto his fields from passing trucks or from neighbouring farms, which had paid Monsanto Canada Inc. the licensing fee of $15 an acre to use it.


The court sided with Monsanto, but reduced the damages to zero (changing a prior ruling giving Monsanto financial awards).


On Edit: Whoops, I just noticed that proreality had also mentioned this case and provided links in post #30. Sorry for the repeat.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. The GM Seed Co's are doing this in the Third World too.

Imagine hitting up those really really poor farmers for licensing fees or to re-purchase their crop seeds every year.

It should be noted that if you are farming anywhere near these GM crops, some pollen with the engineered DNA might cross with your "public domain" crop (via wind, insects, etc).... Will Monsanto come after you for using those seeds (the DNA is still their intellectual property)?

[evolvenow]

6. Yes, including Indonesia, where Monsanto was sued for Bribery,

1 million for bypassing environmental procedures.

G_R_O_S_S!!

Dangerous technology, very outside the realm of the way the Nature protects and continues.

[Maine-i-acs]

4. This is now the law in Iraq too.

One of Bremer's installations.

"Freedom is on the March" at the point of a gun, but you're not free to plant crops the way you have for 2000 years.

[Lisa]

7. remember what happened in Canada

Some Monsanto genes got into one farmer's crop by accident, and they went after him for theft. Never mind that their plants had contaminated a heritage strain of canola that he was trying to perpetuate.

[proReality]

30. Yes, the Percy Schmeiser case...

Manitoba Canada. Pretty frightening reading. Their Supreme Court ruled that he didn't owe them money, but they did come down on the side of Monsanto.

http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/layout/media/04/05-21-04.asp

Here are a few more URLs for information:
www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
www.non-gm-farmers.com/news_details.asp?ID=1022
www.umanitoba.ca/afs/fiw/040617.html

[scarletlib]

8. This is insane in my opinion

It just rubs me the wrong way big time. I think farming is or should be a sacred calling. Farmers need to be protected and farms nurtured. This is just another move to corporatize every effing thing on earth. It has got to stop.

I really worry about losing all the family farms. Most people in our urbanized life style don't seem to understand where food comes from.

We need farmers. We need to retain tried and true farming methods for the sake of us all.

[MisterP]

22. big agribusiness has already crushed little and medium farmers in the West

and Midwest: the only thing we have to do about the future is determine if it will be more "Shadowrun" or "Max Headroom."

[MasonJar]

10. Monsanta deserves to be boycotted and showered with disap-

proving e-mail. Does anyone have their e-address? It is outrageous that the US, while killing innocent Iraqis who never asked us to come and destroy their country, now have to buy Monsanta seeds every year. I am beginning to seriously despise this country. The audacity of the Bush admin. is off the charts. We have to get the bastards impeached. To do so we have to win in 2006; that means that we MUST have a paper trail.

[moindependent]

14. This has nothing to do with Bush

No, it really doesn't. In fact, the popularity of this line of Monsanto products exploded under the ever-watchful eye of Clinton. Shower them with all the emails you want....won't make a difference. And good luck boycotting their products. Over 95% of the soybeans and roughly 65-70% of the corn raised use their genetics and/or technology, all of which is fed into a homogenized commodities system. You aren't even in a position to boycott them, as you are an indirect consumer.

[Solon]

29. It is hard to boycott a company...

that has your entire civilization by the balls, isn't it?

[sjgman9]

12. What the fuck?

This a prime example of why we need tort reform. Goddamn corporate lawyers with their frivolous lawsuits clogging up people's courts.

If I'm a farmer and I buy a seed, I should be able to smoke it, crush it, plant it, or do whatever I want.

Lets get some Monsanto shareholders threatening action against the company for actions possibly damaging to the stock price.

Who the fuck does Monsanto think it is?

[moindependent]

15. Damaging to the stock price?

I'm really not taking Monsanto's side in this, but where is the logic in your statement? They're a juggernaut of intellectual property...their stock price relies on their defense of property rights. Their stock price moves downward when they lose ground in that endeavour, and rises when they succeed or file a new lawsuit.

[sjgman9]

39. For fucks sake, its seed!

Why should they care what anyone does with it?

I say that we should keep up negative publicity to drive their stock price downward. Remember how Sinclair was roughed up? Lets do the same to Monsanto.

OK, so Monsanto has some IP. I still think that it is absolutely fucking stupid to control what farmers do to their seed AFTER THEY BUY IT.

[fedsron2us]

13. Maybe farmers will just have to consider organic methods

then they would not need to grow genetically modified crops that are resistant to herbicides. Of course nature is no respecter of patents and some of these crops are bound to self seed and cross pollinate. If Monsanto is allowed to sue people who have effectively had their farm land genetically polluted by Monsanto's crops then their really is no justice in the USA. Of course, farmers in India and other developing countries are busily pirating all of Monsanto's much vaunted crops with no intentions of paying for the privilege. The courts in these countries have shown no sign that they are going to uphold Monsanto's patent rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2998150.stm

I am afraid that Monsanto like so many other companies such as SCO seems to increasingly rely on litigation rather than innovation for profit. It is why the USA will cease to be the world's dominant economic power within the next 25 years.

On edit - the Brazilians have already sent them an official 'fuck you' notice -

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/10637877.htm?1c

[moindependent]

17. Nature is a real mother*&@!&%

Organic methods aren't a viable solution anymore, unless you want the country to regress to a primarily agrarian state (think third-world). Output from organic acres tends to be about 20-30% of conventional acres, and total crop failure is common. Organic production fulfills the needs of a high-value niche market, and is best suited to individuals with small acreages, reliable off-farm income, lots of spare time, and a very high tolerance for risk.

In other words, the cities would have to empty, and everyone would have to pick up a hoe and go to work to raise enough food by organic means to feed our country. Exports would be eliminated, and the overgrown populations of the third world would cease to recieve foodstuffs produced from our excesses.

[NashVegas]

25. There Are Worse Things Than Picking Up a Hoe

Even if it means that's one less hour a day you'll have for Everquest.

There is something inherently wrong about imposing a forced economy justified by "intellectual property rights," knowledge that would never have been without the open source methods of the milennia.

That these so-called intellectual property rights are held by corporations with board members who've never dipped their hands in soil, and apparently don't want anyone else to, if they can't force themselves into the economy of it, is further evidence of just how messed up it is.

[AngryAmish]

33. Have you ever subsisdence farmed?

Try it for a living. Your life expectancy will fall about 10 years at least. Very Hobbesian life.

[KittyWampus]

27. Complete Nonsense OR Misinformation. OrganiC Solutions Have Been

RECOMMENDED by Scientific studies (World Bank, I believe).

Organic growing uses less energy, produces more and it is MONSATO products that are putting our nation's food supply at risk.

Those seeds are ALL genetically the same. Therefore, when the blight or insect strikes them fatallly ALL will perish as NONE will have any inherent mutations that might shield.

[NickB79]

40. Totally organic solutions have generally not been recommended

Using organic seed has been embraced by many scientific studies because organic crops do usually produce more nutritious food, but the complete discontinuation of fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides has not been recommended. Let us not forget that, without the Green Revolution's innovations with synthetic chemicals in the 19790's, millions would have starved around the world. Only under ideal conditions do organic crops consistantly produce more than ones grown using chemical treatments. Areas where the soil isn't perfect, where the insect population isn't low in number, or where the weeds aren't thin, will present problems to large-scale organic farming that conventional farmers can rectify with judicious applications of chemical controls.

Furthermore, you don't seem to take into account that organic farming is VERY labor-intensive, much more so that modern farms in the US. The problem with organic farming is that many, many more people would have to become farmers or farm hands working on farms simply to feed the population of the United States. Few people in this country know what it takes to raise a successful crop any longer. Farming is not as simply as throwing on some boots and driving a tractor around all day long. Using just organic seeds but still using synthetic chemicals could maintain most of our crop yields for a time, but don't forget that when Peak Oil hits, much of those chemicals will no longer be economically viable to use. Also, with the current push towards biodiesel and other renewable energy sources, and continuing urban sprawl, more land will be taken out of production that we need to produce crops.

What we need to do is develop genetically engineered crops that are able to survive poor soils, have low water needs, can fix their own nitrogen, are perennial so they don't have to be replanted year after year, etc, before Peak Oil hits. Make this a government-run program, use state-funded universities to develop the GM crops, screw Monsanto and their patents, and make the technology widely available to farmers to combat the very real and dangerous threat to the survival of our very nation. Without this, the US could probably still feed it's own population even with completely organic farming after Peak Oil, but the rest of the world will say goodbye to the US breadbasket that feeds so many. With no other countries capable of producing as much surplus grain as the US, the results will not be pretty.

[KittyWampus]

42. Please Research No-Till Agriculture. :-) Thanks F/Your Post

And in your last post?

Crops already exist that do all those things. And Natural Selection works quite well.

Perhaps we should spend more time, effort in finding out what seeds other cultures around the world are planting or have planted.

Utilizing our existing agricultural inheritance.

And then there's all those plants in the disappearing rain forsets.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

16. It's a way to further "squeeze" the "selected" farmers off their land

"Scientists" casually remove a few specimens from a farmer's crop, have it tested, and then file a suit against the farmer.

NOW..

the farmer either has to hire a team of lawyers, and his own scientists to prove Monsanto, et al wrong, or he agrees to pay a fine, OR maybe , sell his land" to a "willing buyer"..

The few remaining 'independent' famers are mortgaged to the hilt for the fancy equipment they must have to even try to compete. They cannot afford the litigation, so the temptation is to just "get the hell outta Dodge"...

Another clever way for the big boys to eliminate the little guy..

The "evidence" need not even be REAL.. Just the insinuation of an expensive lawsuit could be enough to scare the farmers off. Monsanto has the money to fight...the little guy does not.

[Lisa]

20. they tried to take this guy's farm

The Supreme Court of Canada prevented that (on the grounds that he didn't profit from the presence of Monsanto's modified genes that had infiltrated his crop), but they did rule that Monsanto had a valid patent ... I guess they didn't have a lot of choice, because overturning that would have caused chaos in Canada's biotech industry.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

[jonnyo]

24. I believe a similar tactic was used during the Great Depression

You just basically put financial pressure on a small farmer until they just have to give up and move leaving the land free to be swept up by your allies in crime.

[moindependent]

19. One other issue that's ignored....

I'm sure some of you realize this, but farmers still have options. Monsanto hasn't captured such a huge share of the technology market by force; it's done it through market demand.

The techology is beneficial to the individual farmer, but in some ways, it's like a drug. The farmer could get by without it, but they choose not to. As a result, market demand for the technology is strong, and the price rises. The farmer then resents Monsanto for raising the cost of the technology, but continues to buy it; he's pissed off at his dealer, but he wants another hit too bad to stop buying.

[No Exit]

31. Monsanto and agribusiness: taking "let them eat cake" to

previously undreamed-of levels.

They won't be happy till every mouthful of food that is consumed in the world is accompanied by a payment to them.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

43. They're trying very hard to implement this crap in Iraq right now

I don't have a link, but I believe there was an LBN article a couple weeks back about it.

If they think a Monsanto seed-chaser will have much of a survival rate over there, then let 'em try it! I doubt they'll have much luck...