Monsanto Patent Monopoly on Soy Revoked

[nosmokes]

better a day late and a dollar short than not at all i guess, but i won't be popping any corks fromchampagne bottles over this. still, it is a tally mark in the left hand column and could prove useful in the future.
--##3--

original-etcgroup

ETC Group
News Release
3 May 2007
www.etcgroup.org

REVOKED!! Monsanto Monopoly Nixed in Munich

but little joy in foiling soy ploy at this late date

Munich – The European Patent Office today put the brakes on Monsanto’s over-the-top corporate greed by revoking its species-wide patent on all genetically modified soybeans (EP0301749) – a patent unprecedented in its broad scope. ETC Group, an international civil society organization based in Canada, won its 13-year legal challenge against Monsanto’s species-wide soybean patent when an EPO appeal board ruled that the patent was not new or sufficient (i.e., the invention claimed was not sufficiently described for a skilled person to repeat it). The patent challenge was supported by Greenpeace and “No Patents on Life!” Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of UK-based EcoNexus also joined the opposition team in Munich as a scientific expert.

The patent was vigorously and formally opposed by Monsanto itself until the company purchased the original patent assignee (Agracetus) in 1996. The technology related to the now-revoked patent has been used, along with other patents in the company’s portfolio, to corner 90% of the world’s GM soybean market. http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=616>

“It’s shameful that it took the European Patent office 13 years to kill Monsanto’s immoral patent, which was ultimately revoked on technical grounds. Though we’re relieved that the species-wide patent on all genetically modified soybeans – both seeds and plants – was not allowed to stand, the delay of more than a decade demonstrates just how broken the patent system is. The patent had barely a year to go before expiring!” said Hope Shand, who represented ETC Group in Munich today.

“It was particularly satisfying,” said Shand, “that Monsanto’s own blistering 1994 arguments against the patent were ultimately key in defeating it.” One of Monsanto’s top scientists testified in 1994 that the genetic engineering process described in the patent was insufficient to allow a skilled scientist to replicate the procedure – a necessary criterion for patentability.

ETC Group, which first challenged the patent in 1994 (as RAFI), was represented in Munich by UK barrister Daniel Alexander and patent attorney Tim Roberts of Brookes Batchellor, LLP.

According to patent attorney Tim Roberts, “It is very satisfying that the European Appeal Board has completely revoked this patent. This decision sends a message to greedy patentees – don’t claim more than you are entitled to.”

Patent expert Dr. Christoph Then of Greenpeace commented on the outcome of today’s hearing, “The EPO’s decision to throw out the patent will have implications for Monsanto and the EPO. It is now shown that the Patent Office is granting patents covering broad sectors of agricultural diversity with no real invention to back them up,” said Then.

Ruth Tippe from the European-wide initiative, “No Patents on Life!” asserts, “This is an important step against patents on seeds because it shows that civil society will keep on fighting and can ultimately succeed against powerful multinationals.”

According to Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher of EcoNexus, “Monsanto’s patent couldn’t even survive on its scientific merits. It was a thoroughly bad patent – from both a technical and moral perspective.”

Multinational firm Syngenta also made oral arguments today opposing the patent. While their technical expertise may have contributed to the patent’s ultimate downfall, their opposition is viewed by civil society as cynical. In January 2005, ETC Group reported on three Syngenta patent applications that also make breathtakingly broad claims – multi-genome patents with claims on gene sequences that extend to 40 plant species. Despite assurances from Syngenta that the company would let the patents lapse, all three applications appear to be active still at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Note to editors: The final wording of today’s ruling by the EPO appeals board will not be released for several more weeks.

For further information:

ETC Group (Carrboro, NC, USA)
Hope Shand (back from Munich on 7 May) or
Kathy Jo Wetter
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]

ETC Group (Ottawa, Canada)
Pat Mooney
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]

ETC Group (Montreal, Canada)
Jim Thomas
[e-mail]
Tel: [phone]

--###--









complete release including links to related sources here

[porphyrian]

1. Good, the greedy bastards. - n/t

[Ignacio Upton]

2. Power to the people!

09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

[Dogmudgeon]

4. Okay, what's the secret code mean?

--p!

[Ignacio Upton]

6. Here:

http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/05/google_cafepres.html#comment-68404362

[Dogmudgeon]

18. Thanks!

And, yes, I heartily approve!

--p!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. It means that Ignacio Upton is a DVD pirate

:hide:

[Ignacio Upton]

8. And so are a bunch of other DUers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=803603&mesg_id=803603

And let's not forget that tens of thousands of Digg users reposted the things ;) as well as Wired's blog for reposting it. Ironic, because I don't even know how to hack the DRM on a DVD or HD-DVD anyway.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

11. Thanks for the laugh.

That whole thread is hysterical!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. DVD pirates make and sell illegal copies of DVDs.

Ignacio just post: 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Don't make me report you to the authorities!

Starving children in Africa need 09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0 to live!

[Ignacio Upton]

15. I don't see how they would be able to copyright a set of numbers and letters

Besides, I'm not interested in pirating movies. Most of the stuff on p2p sites has terrible picture quality. HOWEVER, I'm opposed to the idea that the copyright cartel can sue people because they try cracking open DRM, even for personal use (the act of doing so itself is technically illegal). Diebold tried using this argument under the DMCA to silence whistle-blowers, and a software company backed by the RIAA tried to sue a Princeton professor from publishing a paper exposing vulnerabilities in CD DRM (use of DRM on CD's has fallen out of use ever since Sony got caught bundling a rootkit with their DRM'd CD's in late 2005).

[depakid]

3. For the Supreme court to have ever allowed patents on living organism

was a HUGE mistake in the first place.

This is good news, though unfortunately just a drop in the bucket.

[Ignacio Upton]

5. When did they rule on that?

I think we need a constitutional amendment reforming our IP laws to stop this shit. We should have an amendment prohibiting granting patents for life, and such an amendment should also enshrine fair use.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

9. It doesn't need a constitutional amendment.

We just need to rationalize and streamline the patent system. The current system is an utter mess, and not just as it relates to biological patents.

[Ignacio Upton]

12. Well at the very least, Fair Use should be in the Constitution

Recently I was listening to a debate between Larry Lessig and Jack Valenti (a few weeks before he died) and Valenti kept ranting about how fair use is not a right, but a privilege. Apparently, Valenti felt that Hollywood. with its "father knows best" attitude was giving Fair Use to the masses as a proverbial breadcrumb because they're just so damn nice. In order to prevent the RIAA/MPAA from ever getting another DMCA passed and from filing frivolous lawsuits, Fair Use needs to be in the Constitution.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. It will hardly matter where it is if it's not enforced.

How many freaking laws do we need? There's more than enough legal ammunition to go after these guys for fair use violations already, but it ain't happening.

[Ignacio Upton]

17. Good point,

but I feel like the RIAA/MPAA grip on Congress is tightening. The Proposed 2004 INDUCE Act would have overturned the 1984 Betamax SCOTUS ruling that legalized VCR's (the precedent was also used in 1998 when the RIAA sued the maker of the first mp3 player and lost). I wouldn't put it past Congress to legislate Fair Use into oblivion if the RIAA/MPAA bought them off with enough cash.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Fortunately, plenty of Senators are lawyers...

...and as such are smart enough to understand that the INDUCE act is an utter legal nightmare, which I suspect is why it hasn't gone anywhere in the past three years. I doubt RIAA/MPAA would actually push something similar again. Their tactics seem to have changed to directly targeting consumers with lawsuits. Yes, they keep on with the DRM, even though they know it doesn't work. It's just a sham so they can continue to claim that they're vigorously defending their copyrights. If anything, I'd like to work towards overturning the really vile portions of the DMCA. That's a much more achievable goal, and one that would have tangible results.

[Ignacio Upton]

20. There's the FAIR USE Act

Which was introduced by Boucher. However, it's merely a watered down version of the Digital Media Consumer's Rights Act (DMCRA) which would have gotten rid of the anti-Fair Use parts of the DMCA. The RIAA and MPAA fought tooth and nail against the proposed DMCRA, and it's never been given a vote, so Boucher simply introduced a weaker version of it (which the RIAA also opposes).

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

21. I think part of the problem here...

...is that the very nature of the individuals and groups who oppose this kind of legislation keeps them from forming any sort of collective lobbying effort (say, like the AARP) that might be able to combat the industry organizations. The EFF have come about as close as anyone to providing this, but opinions within the net community are hardly uniform, and the EFF certainly has its detractors (myself included) on many issues. If anything, I think that organized resistance to this effort will most likely come from industry - Apple and the like, whose profits are tied to fair use.

I used to work for Rio, the company that got hauled into court over their MP3 player. I worked there after that whole episode, but I can definitely tell you that the people who worked there were big advocates of copyright holders being properly compensated for their work, and they mostly found DRM and its ilk to be a useless aggravation that contributed very little with respect to copyright security, and very much with respect to creating a giant technological boondoggle.

[Ignacio Upton]

22. Had the RIAA won that case, the iPod would be illegal today

Just goes to show you how anti-technology copyright holders have historically been. Music composers and tried to sue radio into oblivion, RCA tried to destroy FM radio, broadcast networks tried to destroy cable, and Jack Valenti and the MPAA tried to destroy the VCR. The RIAA will lose in the end, if history is a guide.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. And I would like to point out that in almost every instance they have failed.

The main exceptions are the DMCA and the Mickey Mouse bullshit. Aside from that, our track record is pretty good, in the face of extremely well-funded and organized opposition. A glimmer of hope, I think, not that we shouldn't be vigilant.

[Ignacio Upton]

24. Based on this precedent, you might be right

about how the technology industry might be the one to bring down the RIAA/MPAA. However, while their industries are invested in fair use, many of them also had conflicts of interests in areas of copyright. However, I think that we may start seeing some real reforms in patent law for the reason that patent suit defendants are often large corporations, whereas copyright suits are the RIAA/MPAA against the little guy who doesn't have the cash to bribe Congress with.

[depakid]

14. The 1980 landmark case: Diamond v. Chakrabarty (5-4)

The dissenting opinion was written by William J. Brennan, who was joined by Byron White, Thurgood Marshall, and Lewis Franklin Powell.

Brennan's dissent focused on the argument that there is evidence in the legislative record that Congress did not intend living organisms to be patented.

We must be careful to extend patent protection no further than Congress has provided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty

(My guess is that Stevers regrets his vote on that one).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=447&invol=303