วันจันทร์ที่ 25 กุมภาพันธ์ พ.ศ. 2556

148. เกษตรกรฮึดสู้ยักษ์มอนซานโต ยื้อยุดสิทธิ์ในเมล็ดพันธุ์


Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
Indiana soybean farmer takes on corporate agriculture in defense of 'essential question'
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
ใครมีกรรมสิทธิ์ครอบครองชีวิต?  เกษตรกร ปะทะ มอนซานโต ต่อหน้าศาลสูงสหรัฐฯ
เกษตรกรถั่วเหลืองชาวอินเดียนา ท้า บรรษัทเกษตร เพื่อปกป้อง ‘คำถามพื้นฐาน’
-          ลอเรน แมคคอเลย์

Indiana soybean farmer, Hugh Bowman, is taking his one-man-war against agriculture giant Monsanto to the Supreme Court on Tuesday where both sides will present their arguments (.pdf) to the high court. The suit calls into question essential patent rights and, more importantly, challenges whether anyone can legally "control a product of life."
เกษตรกรถั่วเหลือง ชาวอินเดียนา, ฮิวจ์ โบวแมน, กำลังทำสงคราม ระหว่าง ชายหนึ่งคน ปะทะ ยักษ์ใหญ่เกษตร มอนซานโต ที่ศาลสูงสุด เมื่อวันอังคาร ณ ที่ทั้งสองฝ่ายจะนำเสนอข้อโต้แย้งต่อศาลสูง.  ผู้ร้องทุกข์ ตั้งคำถามต่อสิทธิ์ในสิทธิบัตร และ, ที่สำคัญยิ่งกว่า, ท้าทายว่า ใครๆ สามารถจะ “ควบคุมผลิตภัณฑ์แห่งชีวิต” ได้ตามกฎหมายหรือไม่.
75-year-old soybean farmer, Hugh Bowman, appears before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/ AP)

A Monsanto customer for years, 75-year-old Bowman devotedly bought and planted their genetically modified (gm) 'Roundup Ready' soybean seeds each year. He crossed the corporation in 2007 when they accused Bowman of infringing on their seed patents after he planted an unmarked mix of soybeans which he purchased from a local grain elevator that supposedly contained the Monsanto gene.
ในฐานะลูกค้าของมอนซานโตมาหลายปี, โบวแมน อายุ 75 ได้จงรักภักดีซื้อและปลูกเมล็ดถั่วเหลือง “ราวด์อัพเร็ดดี้” ที่ได้รับการตัดแต่งทางพันธุกรรม (จีเอ็ม) ทุกๆ ปี.   เขาก้าวข้ามบรรษัทในปี 2007 เมื่อถูกกล่าวหาว่า ละเมิดสิทธิบัตรเมล็ดของพวกเขา หลังจากที่โบวแมนได้เพาะปลูกถั่วเหลืองผสมกับเมล็ดธรรมดาที่เขาซื้อจากคนขายธัญพืชท้องถิ่น ที่น่าจะมียีนส์ของมอนซานโต.
After being ordered to pay $84,000,Bowman is appealing the charge and bringing his case to the high court where he will present before the chief justices, including former Monsanto attorneyJustice Clarence Thomas.
หลังจากที่ถูกสั่งให้จ่ายเงิน $84,000, โบวแมนได้อุทธรณ์ต่อศาลสูง ที่ๆ เขาจะนำเสนอต่อหน้าหัวหน้าผู้พิพากษา, รวมทั้ง อดีตอัยการของมอนซานโต ผู้พิพากษา Clarence Thomas.
"Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law," writes Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), in an op-edpublished Tuesday, "but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?"
“ศึก โบวแมน ปะทะ บรรษัทมอนซานโต จะถูกตัดสินด้วยการตัความของศาลในโยงใยซับซ้อนของกฎหมายว่าด้วยสิทธิบัตรของเมล็ดพันธุ์และพืช,” เด็บบี้ บาร์เกอร์, ผอ Save Our Seeds (SOS) และ ยอร์จ คิมเบรล, อัยการของ Center for Food Safety (CFS), ใน op-ed วันอังคาร, “แต่คดีนี้ ก็สะท้อนบางอย่างที่พื้นฐานกว่านั้นมาก: สมควรหรือที่ใครๆ, หรือบริษัทใดๆ, จะควบคุมผลิตภัณฑ์แห่งชีวิตได้?”
They continue:
[Monsanto's] logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.
ตรรกะของมอนซานโตทำให้หลายคนห่วงกังวล พวกเขาบอกว่า เมล็ดพันธุ์และสิ่งมีชีวิต, ไม่ว่าจะจดสิทธิบัตรหรือไม่, ย่อมผลิตซ้ำตัวเอง.  เมล็ดพันธุ์, ไม่เหมือนชิปคอมพิวเตอร์ ยกตัวอย่าง, เป็นส่วนสำคัญของชีวิต.  หากประชาชนถูกปฏิเสธสิทธิ์เหนือชิปคอมพิวเตอร์, พวกเขาไม่ต้องอดอยาก.  หากประชาชนถูกปฏิเสธเมล็ดพันธุ์, ผลที่เป็นไปได้น่ากลัวมากกว่ามาก.
The case has garnered national attention as it touches upon an essential debate between corporate ownership versus essential rights and sustainability. 
คดีนี้ ได้รับความสนใจทั่วประเทศ เพราะมันแตะหัวใจการโต้วาทีระหว่างกรรมสิทธิ์ของบรรษัท กับ สิทธิพื้นฐานกับความยั่งยืน.
In a supporting brief filed by the sustainable food advocacy group, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), they argue that intellectual property rules have spurred the privatization and concentration of the world’s seed supply with only ten companies controlling nearly two-thirds of all commercial seed for major crops, effectively driving up prices and dangerously limiting the variety of seeds planted. 
ในประมวลข้อมูลสนับสนุน ที่ยื่นโดยกลุ่มรณรงค์อาหารยั่งยืน, ศูนย์อาหารปลอดภัย Center for Food Safety (CFS), พวกเขาอ้างว่า กติกาของสิทธิทางปัญญา ได้กระพือให้เกิดการรวบสิทธิเป็นของเอกชน และกระจุกตัวของแหล่งผลิตเมล็ดพันธุ์ของโลกในมือของเพียงสิบบรรษัท ที่ควบคุมเกือบสองในสามของเมล็ดพันธุ์พาณิชย์สำหรับพืชหลัก, ซึ่งดันราคาให้พุ่งสูงขึ้นอย่างเบ็ดเสร็จ และจำกัดสายพันธุ์ของเมล็ดที่ถูกปลูกอย่างหมิ่นเหม่.
Bowman's pro-bono representation Mark Walters, from the firm of Frommer Lawrence and Haug, is reportedly prepared to argue on the principle on "patent exhaustion" that the second-hand seeds are lawfully owned by the purchaser, not by the original patent holder.
ตัวแทนของโบวแมน มาร์ค วอลเตอร์, จากสำนักงานของ ฟรอมเมอร์ ลอว์เรนซ์ และ ฮอก, ตามรายงานว่า ได้เตรียมโต้แย้งด้วยหลักของ “การสิ้นสภาพของสิทธิบัตร” ที่ว่า เมล็ดที่ผ่านมือสองแล้ว เป็นสมบัติของผู้ซื้อตามกฎหมาย, ไม่ใช่ของผู้ถือสิทิบัตรเริ่มต้น.
As Walters explained to NPR, if you buy something that's covered by a patent, you own it, outright. "You're allowed to put it on Craigslist and sell it, you're allowed to use it for your 'ordinary pursuits of life' is the quote from some of the old cases that we're relying on. Imagine how commerce would work if patents owners could come out of nowhere and surprise purchasers and tell them, 'Oh, you need to pay me a royalty, because I own a patent on this thing that you just bought.'"
ดังที่ วอลเตอร์อธิบายในรายการวิทยุ NPR, หากคุณซื้อของที่ได้รับการคุ้มครองด้วยสิทธิบัตร, คุณก็เป็นเจ้าของทันที.  “คุณได้รับอนุญาตให้วางมันในรายการ Craigslist และขายมันได้, คุณได้รับอนุญาตให้ใช้มันได้เพื่อ ‘การยังชีพทั่วไปของคุณ’ เป็นการยกคำจากคดีเก่า ที่พวกเราอ้างอิงอยู่.  ลองจินตนาการดู การค้าขายจะทำงานได้อย่างไร หากเจ้าของสิทธิบัตรสามารถโผล่หัวออกมา สร้างความประหลาดใจแก่ผู้ซื้อ และบอกพวกเขาว่า ‘โอ, คุณต้องจ่ายค่าลิขสิทธิ์มให้ผมนะ, เพราะผมเป็นเจ้าของสิทธิบัตรเหนือสิ่งที่คุณเพิ่งซื้อไป’.”
The ramifications of this argument are widespread, as evidenced by the numerous other industries which have come to Monsanto's defense including the biotech and computer software industries.
การแตกสาขาของข้อโต้แย้งนี้กระจายไปทั่ว, ดังปรากฏให้เห็นในอุตสาหกรรมมากมายที่ออกมาปกป้องมอนซานโต รวมทั้ง อุตสาหกรรมไบโอเทค และคอมพิวเตอร์ซอฟต์แวร์.
According to the Indiana Star, the Department of Justice is also siding with the corporate patent holders, reportedly asking the Supreme Court not to hear Bowman's appeal on the basis that "the court’s decision could have repercussions for man-made cell lines, DNA molecules, some nanotechnologies and other technologies that involve self-replicating features."
ตามรายงาน Indiana Star, กระทรวงยุติธรรม เข้าข้างบรรษัทผู้ถือสิทธิบัตร, ได้ขอให้ศาลสูงสุดไม่รับฟังคำอุทธรณ์ของโบวแมน บนพื้นฐานของ “คำตัดสินของศาลสามารถจะมีผลย้อนกลับต่อสิ่งที่มนุษย์สร้าง เช่น เซลต่างๆ, โมเลกุล ดีเอ็นเอ, นาโนเทคโนโลยีบางประเภท และ เทคโนโลยีอื่นๆ ที่มีลักษณะผลิตซ้ำตัวเองได้.”
Ahead of Tuesday's hearing, CFS and SOS issued a report, "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers,"(.pdf) which examines how the "current seed patent regime has led to a radical shift to consolidation and control of global seed supply and how these patents have abetted corporations, such as Monsanto, to sue U.S. farmers for alleged seed patent infringement."
Some of the reports findings include:
ก่อนการฟังคำให้การในวันอังคาร, CFS และ SOS ได้เผยแพร่รายงาน, “ยักษ์ใหญ่เมล็ดพันธุ์ เผชิญ เกษตรกร,” ที่ศึกษาว่า “ระบอบสิทธิเมล็ดพันธุ์ปัจจุบัน ได้นำไปสู่การควบรวบและบงการแหล่งเมล็ดพันธุ์ในโลกอย่างไร และ สิทธิบัตรเหล่านี้ ได้กระตุ้นให้บรรษัท, เช่น มอนซานโต, ฟ้องร้องเกษตรกรในสหรัฐฯ ด้วยการกล่าวหาว่าละเมิดสิทธิบัตร.”   สิ่งที่รายงานพบบางประการ รวม...
·         As of January 2013, Monsanto, alleging seed patent infringement, had filed 144 lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 different states.
·         Today, three corporations control 53 percent of the global commercial seed market.
·         Seed consolidation has led to market control resulting in dramatic increases in the price of seeds. From 1995-2011, the average cost to plant one acre of soybeans has risen 325 percent; for cotton prices spiked 516 percent and corn seed prices are up by 259 percent.
-          มกราคม 2013, มอนซานโต, ผู้กล่าวหาการละเมิดสิทธิบัตร, ได้ยื่นฟ้อง 144 คดี ซึ่งรวมเกษตรกร 410 ราย และ ธุรกิจเกษตรขนาดเล็ก 56 ราย ในอย่างน้อย 27 รัฐ.
-          วันนี้, สามบรรษัทควบคุมตลาดเมล็ดพาณิชย์โลกถึง 53%.
-          การควบรวบเมล็ดพันธุ์ได้นำไปสู่การควบคุมผูกขาดตลาด ยังผลให้เกิดการเพิ่มราคาแบบก้าวกระโดด.  จาก 1995-2011, ต้นทุนเฉลี่ยในการเพาะปลูกถั่วเหลืองหนึ่งเอเคอร์ ได้เพิ่มขึ้น 325%; สำหรับราคาฝ้าย ก็พุ่งขึ้น 516% และราคาเมล็ดข้าวโพด สูงขึ้น 259%.
“Corporations did not create seeds," said the reports lead author Debbie Barker, adding that their assertion of seed patents threatens a resource "that is vital to survival, and that, historically, has been in the public domain.”
บรรษัทไม่ได้สรรสร้างเมล็ด,” เด็บบี้ บาร์เกอร์ กล่าว, พร้อมเสริมว่า การยืนหยัดอ้างสิทธิบัตรเมล็ดพันธุ์ คุกคามทรัพยากร “ที่สำคัญยิ่งต่อการอยู่รอด, และนั่น, ในทางประวัติศาสตร์, ได้เป็นปริมณฑลสาธารณะมาตลอด.”
Published on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/19-6, 2-25-13

·         Steve Woodward • 5 days ago
Well, at least Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas will be up to speed on the case, since they both previously represented Monsanto. What could possibly go wrong?
As Yves Smith would say, Quelle Surprise!
Wouldn't Thomas and Kagan have to recuse themselves?
If Kagan does, it won't be a surprise.
I remember that when Kagan's appointment was approved, it was widely seen as a great victory for the left. Before the ink was dry, however, the announcement was made that kagan would be recusing herself from approximately 50% of the upcoming Supreme Court cases!
Of course, democratic propagandists ignored the planned recusals and cheered, saying THIS is why we need to support Obama. 'Supreme Court! Supreme Court!' became one of the most widely used lines of propaganda and one of the most effective ways to sway voters.
Perfect example of the gift of a Trojan horse that is obama...and the willingness of his base to idolize that trojan horse and ignore what's inside.
You would think so, but judges for the most part stand above the law in their pristine purity. Kagan didn't actually represent Monsanto directly, but rather she argued in Monsanto's favor as Obama's solicitor general after the Center for Food Safety had won in the lower courts.
Kagan will vote for Monsanto, as will Obama's other "liberal" appointee, Sonya Sotomayor, a former prosecutor and former corporate lawyer.
This is falling off the news cycle, but you may be interested in this, Tom.
The Obama administration showed up, well-prepared, as a friendly witness for Monsanto and argued strongly in Monsanto's favor. I suspect that is why the progressive and liberal blogosphere dropped the topic like a hot potato.
Here are some post-hearing comments from Bowman -
"You can run me over but I am not getting out of the road," he said.
Bowman wanted to use the company's seed to plant double crops - wheat and then soybeans. The company said he could not do that and it said he
couldn't buy outbound grain from the local seed bin, either.
"They said the elevator could not sell us seed out of those bins. That's illegal but we could buy outbound grain and then use it as seed. We had that right long before Monsanto had their patent right," Bowman argued.
"They should be looking for current justice and not future problems. They said if I would win it, it would bankrupt Monsanto. That is no reason to be against me if I am right," said Bowman.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5089...
maureen it's not the 1950's anymore. Congress is corrupt as hell. The only thing that works in Congress is the Israeli lobby. And the United nations small arms treaty
A international start to complete gun control.
Hitler never had it this easy when he confiscated the small arms from the people and then the Holocaust began.
They sold us out with passing Citizens United do you really think they care.
Unbelievably outrageous. Been following this problem for years. Shocking education in corporate greed.
Fuck Monsanto ...I say starve the corporation. Of cash of course.
Oh wait ,since it's a person maybe withholding quality organic food would be a better idea.
Starve the beast and boycott its products.
their food should be taxed and dividended straight to individual citizens (the real kind).
Quality organic food? Part of the point of the article is that life and seeds are self-replicating, and it must not be forgotten that all our food plants cross-pollinate if of the same species. It is impossible for even organic farmers to guarantee that Monsanto's patented genes have not been cross-pollinated into their seed stocks.
Not all crops are propagated by cross-pollination. This is an important distinction because naturally occurring strains and varieties are being privatized.
Its NOT outrageous. This farmer deliberately bought seeds from unauthorized sources to save money, and then EXPLOITED THE GMO FEATURES. This is a GMO farmer who tried to scam Monsanto.
The farmer has no case.
I hate Monsanto as much as anyone, but they are in the right here.
but the farmer buy unlabeled seeds expecting to benefit from the Monsanto gene that may or may not have been present? Intent is important I think. He bought seed from a grain elevator. What percent of the seed contained the patented gene? How was he to know that percentage?
Natural pollination ensures that genetics can change from generation of plant to generation of plant. If Monsanto had patented the entire genome top to bottom of that seed the next generation would have different genetics and therefore no patent protection. Since Monsanto patented only one or a few of the (what? millions) of genes in their original seed, should they be able to sue FOREVER even if that gene is reproduced by nature. What if that gene somehow transfers to another strain or variety of soybean that Monsanto never sold seed for? Monsanto is claiming their patent would still apply.
He bought unlabeled seeds but fully expected they would be GMO, which he determed by spraying them with roundup. He then proceeded to take advantage of the GMO features.
Patents dont last forever-they last for 20 years from the filing date.
If the farmer had not used the GMO features he would have a case. But he DID use the GMO features.
I think the problem here is that if he bought seeds from a public source that did not label these seeds as Monsanto patent seeds. Honestly he should have the right to use them as he feels fit from that source.
"Seeds" being the key words here. Seeds are by definition: "A small embryonic plant enclosed in a covering called the seed coat." Selling a "seed" by it's very definition assumes that this item will be planted. If the seeds were not labeled I think the man would have been good to go. The tricky part is his selecting them out by seeing which were resistant to round-up then saving those seeds for the next planting. That's the gray area which Monsanto is desperate to set a precedence for.
I knew a man who was sued because his field backed up to a Monsanto field and Monsanto seeds became dispersed in this man's seed yield. These guys are real asses so I tend to side with the rebel and feel that Monsanto's goals are more to control the food source seeds then any sort of real benefit to agriculture.
IF you create a product such as a necessary renewable food source that over powers all other of the same product via it's innovation, popularity, etc., thus making the availability of other products greatly reduced or eliminated I strongly feel you should NOT be able to patent it. This just makes sense from a safety concern. Who is to say that these seeds 15 years from now will not mutate back to heirloom seeds or worst mutate into nonviable seeds. Thus I digress to the need for limits on certain free enterprise.
Any farmer that has his property or crops contaminated with GMOs should be able to sue the manufacturer.
But my understanding is that this does not apply to this case. My understanding is that this farmer WANTED to plant GMOs. I think thats why he lost.
He wanted to use GMOs, and he thought he could avoid paying the licensing fees by buying the seeds secondhand. Its akin to buying pirated software.
Yes they should, but it has been the other way around hasn't it?
Honestly the farmer's intent has no baring here. The question is whether Monsanto can patent the subsequent generation of replicated seeds from its initial created technology. You think Yes and I think NO.
I believe that Monsanto CAN patent the initial first generation seeds because they could not occur in nature on their own without the gene alteration technology that Monsanto created. However the plants thus can replicate this technology on their own in nature with no interference from Monsanto after that thus classifying the resulting generations of seeds as a physical phenomena.
Patent law classifies physical phenomena as products of nature. Thus, if your invention occurs in nature, it is a physical phenomenon and cannot be patented.
IF Monsanto could control this product of nature and stop the natural replication of future generations then it could protect its initial patent. Once a plant or animal replicates itself in nature with no interference from man, that produce is considered a natural phenomena.
The court will have to redefine physical phenomenon/product of nature to uphold this patent claim.
It's also worth noting that nature adapts. Since RoundUp has been so widely used farmers are now seeing the RoundUp resistant "super weeds". How are we to know (or was this farmer to know) whether unlabeled seeds would contain Monsanto's patented gene or whether the unlabeled seeds might contain natural genetic variations in the soybeans as had happened with the "super weeds" that were NATURALLY resistant to RoundUp.
Also, please point out where it indicated the farmer intentionally applied RoundUp to the crop of unlabeled seeds? I don't see that in the Common Dreams post above. Is that statement something you can cite please?
Thank You!
The farmer is intentionally taking on Monsanto, and provoking a test case, yes. If you find those intentions disreputable, and relevant to the case, so be it.
I understand that you are seeing this as akin to "buying pirated software,"and I will address that in another response to you.
No, MONSANTO is taking on the FARMER! So you have a genetically engineered bird! YOU let the bird loose & it mates with a WILD bird, YOU DO NOT OWN THE OFFSPRING of THE WILD BIRD! As much as you would like to! YOU CANNOT OWN OR CONTROL NATURE! Monsanto buys into the government with each election, and you can see how many former high officials have worked FOR Monsanto BEFORE & After they have held office. Monsanto HAS passed their IDEALS through the main bodies of OUR government, past & present! We NEED to pass legislation that NO ONE who has EVER worked FOR Monsanto can hold office in which they can control legislation in regards to Monsanto. AND IF ANY former high government official procures a job within a BIG Corporation, then THAT corporation is NOW subject to High & intensive scrutiny & and CENSURE from any present & FUTURE passes under the FDA guidelines & regulations. Abet: NO PASSING of ANY legislation as to their competence and/or any special legislation! IF they have ANY ONE on board who HAS ever or IS ever on their side, in office, they should be TURNED INSIDE OUT!!!
I agree with you completely. (No need to shout, by the way.)
You're the second person who mentioned that he knew he was buying GMO seed and sprayed them with roundup. How do you know that? I've read this article twice and another one, too, and haven't seen that bit of info. Can you direct me to a more complete source of info?
That is from a NYT article and a Des Moines paper article - the "Register" if I remember. I will fetch links. I will look a little deeper as well, since those sources could be unreliable.
However, the fact that the "accusations" against the farmer are true make him a hero in my book, not the bad guy. He could have easily pleaded ignorance and gotten out of paying and it would have been difficult to prove otherwise. He decided to make a case out if it, and I support him in that,
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...
snippet:
Vernon Hugh Bowman, who had signed such contracts for his main crop, thought he had discovered a loophole for a second, riskier crop later in the growing season: he would buy from a grain elevator filled with a mix of seeds in the reasonable hope that many of them contained the Roundup Ready gene.
Such seeds are typically sold for animal feed, food processing or industrial use. Mr. Bowman planted them and sprayed them with Roundup. Many of the plants survived, and he saved seeds for further plantings.
Bowman, in a PBS interview:
"I didn't look at it as a loophole because I had always been able to go to the elevator and buy the seed, you follow me? So I just looked at it that when they dumped it in there that they had abandoned their patent. If they want to protect their patent, then it looks to me like it would be required -- they'd be required to have to separate it at the elevator and keep it separate."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...
Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. "They made sure they didn't sell it as seed. Their ticket said, 'Outbound grain," says Bowman.
He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene in them, because that's mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn't think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto's seed business. "I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind," he snorts.
Bowman told his neighbors what he was doing. It turned out that Monsanto did, in fact, care.
"He wanted to use our technology without paying for it," says David Snively, Monsanto's general counsel.
Monsanto took Bowman to court, and Bowman was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000 for infringing the company's patent.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesa...
Exactly. This is why this farmer is an idiot, who had no chance of winning and deserves to LOSE.
This will be a 9-0 decision. Very easy case to decide.
Is it all about winning and losing for you, then? Very sad.
The fact that he got the Supreme Court to hear this, and that we are all therefore talking about it, is a tremendous achievement, a massive victory, perhaps a victory that is outside of your ability to fathom.
Sure. The text below is from the respondents arguments. I have not seen anywhere that the farmer denies that he sprayed his crops with roundup. The ONLY reason to spray crops with roundup is to make use of the GMO properties and obtain pure-GMO seed.
From everything I have read, this farmer is a GMO farmer, trying to find a way to use the GMO seeds without paying a royalty to Monsanto. Therefore, Monsanto should win, no matter how one feels about GMOs.
From arguments:
"Petitioner’s creation of considerable quantities of glyphosate-resistant soybeans resulted from his application of systematic and deliberative agronomic efforts to duplicate the specific Roundup Ready® patented trait, including systematic planting, cultivating, and harvesting techniques applied to the commodity seed. In particular, by planting and then applying a glyphosate herbicide, he eliminated all of the inferior, weed-susceptible seeds and transformed his “undifferentiated,” “impure,” and “dirty” mixture (Pet. Br. 5) into purely glyphosate-resistant seeds containing the Roundup Ready® trait to which herbicide could safely be applied."
Your accusations against the farmer are accurate. That makes him a hero in my book.
He went through a dumpster and sorted out some CDs he could use, to employ your analogy.
The fact that the "product" replicates itself is not an invention by Monsanto, nor is that the farmer's fault.
If Monsanto does not want their patented products to replicate themselves, then perhaps they should look elsewhere for products to patent, rather than trying to control living organisms. Why should any of us have to pay for their stupid business decision? Why doesn't Monsanto take Mother Nature to court, and sue her for making things that reproduce?
By the way, these crops that Monsanto is tinkering with are themselves the product of hundreds of years of work and innovation by thousands of people, all in the public domain. They have no right to expropriate that work.
Also, crop varieties are being privatized that are not genetically modified, and crop varieties are being privatized when the only genetic modification that is going on is the insertion of a "marker gene" to brand the life form as "private property." What say you to that?
Well I guess you dont have any respect for people that create new ideas, inventions or other creative works.
Someone who rips off other peoples ideas and creative works is a "hero"?
I dont like GMOs either, and I hate Monsanto. But this line of attack makes absolutely no sense.
Your arguments make no sense.
Monsanto's patents cover ONLY the plants that contain the gene sequences they added. Nothing else.
You have a very poor understanding of the patent system.
Read my posts more carefully.
I said that the same protections that should apply to the creator without means - to protect him or her from the ravages of the wealthy and powerful and for the benefit of the entire population - should not apply to the wealthy and powerful - in this case, corporations.
Re: marker genes. You are wrong about that. Something must be USEFUL to be patentable. A gene added only to mark a plant is not useful and would not be patentable. it would also be a huge waste of time and money.
Nope. The new crop varieties do have usefulness, potentially, possibly. That is not the question. All crops could be called "useful" - potentially.
Wait, trait or gene? They patented the gene they created in the lab. If nature (look at the RoundUp resistant weeds) develops (gasp, "evolve") RoundUp resistant weeds why couldn't soybeans be able to evolve the same trait.
Is Monsanto saying they patented that TRAIT, or did they patent the gene they spliced into soybeans?
I am merely repeating what the other poster wrote, I am not reading any minds.
I misdirected my post to you, instead of dodanimal to whom it was intended. You must have been surprised. I apologize, and commend you on the restraint of your response.
Thanks. No problem, It is an easy mistake to make.
dodanimal, Hugh Bowman farms in a commercial market, where he must recover his costs through the marketplace, in order to continue serving the population with food, a human essential. Monsanto, Dow & other food corporations, as evidenced by California's Proposition 37 do not wish to reveal, exercise or publicize their patent rights before this same commercial marketplace.
By insisting that their product not need to be identified or labelled, agri-food corps forego their patent rights as do any patent holders who on one hand would want to reap profit & on the other hand yet to not be identified with their products & the claimed patentable properties. In order for food corporations to insist upon their patent rights, they must do so publicly with their products clearly marked for commercial discernment by farmers, store-houses, processers, transformers, marketers & consumers.
The reality is that; 2-dimensional 'agriculture' (Latin 'ager' = 'field' is only 1/100th as productive per area, energy invested & labour as is 'indigenous' (L 'self-generating') 3-D Polyculture Orchards for food, materials, energy & water-cycle. Human-kind's first obligation as primate stewards of the earth's orchards is to replant abundance for ourselves & all species. https://sites.google.com/site/...
If Monsanto wishes to keep these genes to itself, then it must make them incapable of crosspollination.
I've wondered about this case. Not enough information is ever provided. Grain elevators often sell seed grown by farmers...or at least is used to be that way. Was the seed GMO or was it grown by a local farmer who didn't use GMO seed. I recognize that almost all corn and soy are GMO due to contamination if not deliberately.
So if the elevator sold seed that was known to be GMO, then they are as much at fault. Anyone know where to get more information?
Yes, grain elevators sell grain grown by farmers. Yes, GMO grain gets into that mix. That would be hard to control, and impossible to know once the mixing had occurred.
Yes, the farmer bought seed in the reasonable expectation that some of it might be glyphosate resistant. He found that some of it was, because it survived treatment with glyphosate in the field.
The farmer then collected grain from those plants and planted that. Monsanto claimed that he had infringed on their patent, and billed him $84,000.
So, the farmer is in the "wrong" in this case, if we are going to accept and embrace the idea that DNA sequences can be privately owned under all circumstances. If we do accept and embrace that idea, then the logical and inevitable outcome is that in the very near future all life will be privately owned and traded on Wall Street.
Those who have no problem with life itself being privately owned through corporations and traded on Wall Street can make their "intellectual property rights" argument.
Those who do have a problem with life itself being privately owned through corporations and traded on Wall Street are required to look at the commonly held assumptions and conventions about "ownership" and so-called "private property rights."
"Private property rights" were originally used for a few people to be able to control and devastate the land itself, to forcibly remove human beings from it. This process continues around the globe as resources are exploited, millions of people are displaced, and communities and traditional livelihoods are destroyed.
So it should not surprise us that it has come to this.
and Dow had to have know this from the get go:
Yes, GMO grain gets into that mix. That would be hard to control, and impossible to know once the mixing had occurred.
me adding, or the GMO seeds falling off trucks=
Therefore a a prudent person test, should be applied, and the shiitiest part of this is people who have their field accidnetly contaminated by Dow's little round "slaves" genes have lost family farms to these pests lawyers for patent infringement...this is administrative murder - look at India's farmer suicide rate...Dow/DuPont and their shareholders are murders and should be in international jails not arguing anything at the SCOTUS.
the "features" don't work quite like they advertise, btw, and he is not wrong when he claims monsanto didn't invent seeds.
see numerous searches on drought resistant failures just last corn, wheat and milo
Kansas
did he buy it to exploit gmo features or because there's no longer any choice besides planting nothing and losing the farm?
... but still doesn't answer the question going forward, of who 'owns' the rights to 'nature'? Understanding how convoluted this all is, there's already also a human gene 'rights' issue in the courts, which will inevitably impact each & every human on earth, if it comes down to it. So do we really want to go down this road & have to 'defend' our own natural biology against corporations? People aren't thinking thru this Democracy situation, as it's being sacrificed at the corporate money 'alter', by our elected representatives. We had this debate over a century ago & Democracy 'apparently' won. But that was B4 the mass, 'corporate' media age. Our priorities are all screwed up & compromised & yes, Thomas & Kagan should recuse themselves, but if they don't, who'll make them? So-called 'Liberal' appointments are 1 thing, but the Liberal/Progressives we elect have different orientations, which we should be familiar w/in any such case. We need to surround this President w/them, if we plan that he keep his word as spoken in his November 6th victory speech: (I'm paraphrasing here)... "... the role of citizen doesn't end when elections are done; the job... is ongoing, in putting our energy, ambition, sacrifice & ENGAGEMENT w/representative in getting our Democracy correct..." The real question is, will increase our intelligence enuff to put the above words to action & elect Liberal/Progressives of like minds w/the citizenry in 2014, to correct this mess?!
Nonsense. The question"who owns teh rights to nature" has already been answered: nobody. Patents on naturally occurring things are not allowed. Thats settled law.
This concern about gene patents and living organism patents is unfounded paranoia. Read up on patent law. Learn the details of how the requirements for patentability are applied. There is nothing to worry about.
There are many examples of how corporations have too much power, how privatization is creating huge problems and injustices, but patents are not one of them.
…………………...........................................
Who Can Own Life? Farmer vs. Monsanto Before US High Court
Indiana soybean farmer takes on corporate agriculture in defense of 'essential question'
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
ใครสามารถมีกรรมสิทธิ์ครอบครองชีวิต?  เกษตรกร ปะทะ มอนซานโต ต่อหน้าศาลสูงสหรัฐฯ
เกษตรกรถั่วเหลืองชาวอินเยนา ท้า บรรษัทเกษตร เพื่อปกป้อง ‘คำถามพื้นฐาน’
-          ลอเรน แมคคอเลย์

Indiana soybean farmer, Hugh Bowman, is taking his one-man-war against agriculture giant Monsanto to the Supreme Court on Tuesday where both sides will present their arguments (.pdf) to the high court. The suit calls into question essential patent rights and, more importantly, challenges whether anyone can legally "control a product of life."
เกษตรกรถั่วเหลือง ชาวอินเดียนา, ฮิวจ์ โบวแมน, กำลังทำสงคราม ระหว่าง ชายหนึ่งคน ปะทะ ยักษ์ใหญ่เกษตร มอนซานโต ที่ศาลสูงสุด เมื่อวันอังคาร ณ ที่ทั้งสองฝ่ายจะนำเสนอข้อโต้แย้งต่อศาลสูง.  ผู้ร้องทุกข์ ตั้งคำถามต่อสิทธิ์ในสิทธิบัตร และ, ที่สำคัญยิ่งกว่า, ท้าทายว่า ใครๆ สามารถจะ “ควบคุมผลิตภัณฑ์แห่งชีวิต” ได้ตามกฎหมายหรือไม่.
75-year-old soybean farmer, Hugh Bowman, appears before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/ AP)

A Monsanto customer for years, 75-year-old Bowman devotedly bought and planted their genetically modified (gm) 'Roundup Ready' soybean seeds each year. He crossed the corporation in 2007 when they accused Bowman of infringing on their seed patents after he planted an unmarked mix of soybeans which he purchased from a local grain elevator that supposedly contained the Monsanto gene.
ในฐานะลูกค้าของมอนซานโตมาหลายปี, โบวแมน อายุ 75 ได้จงรักภักดีซื้อและปลูกเมล็ดถั่วเหลือง “ราวด์อัพเร็ดดี้” ที่ได้รับการตัดแต่งทางพันธุกรรม (จีเอ็ม) ทุกๆ ปี.   เขาก้าวข้ามบรรษัทในปี 2007 เมื่อถูกกล่าวหาว่า ละเมิดสิทธิบัตรเมล็ดของพวกเขา หลังจากที่โบวแมนได้เพาะปลูกถั่วเหลืองผสมกับเมล็ดธรรมดาที่เขาซื้อจากคนขายธัญพืชท้องถิ่น ที่น่าจะมียีนส์ของมอนซานโต.
After being ordered to pay $84,000,Bowman is appealing the charge and bringing his case to the high court where he will present before the chief justices, including former Monsanto attorneyJustice Clarence Thomas.
หลังจากที่ถูกสั่งให้จ่ายเงิน $84,000, โบวแมนได้อุทธรณ์ต่อศาลสูง ที่ๆ เขาจะนำเสนอต่อหน้าหัวหน้าผู้พิพากษา, รวมทั้ง อดีตอัยการของมอนซานโต ผู้พิพากษา Clarence Thomas.
"Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law," writes Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), in an op-edpublished Tuesday, "but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?"
“ศึก โบวแมน ปะทะ บรรษัทมอนซานโต จะถูกตัดสินด้วยการตัความของศาลในโยงใยซับซ้อนของกฎหมายว่าด้วยสิทธิบัตรของเมล็ดพันธุ์และพืช,” เด็บบี้ บาร์เกอร์, ผอ Save Our Seeds (SOS) และ ยอร์จ คิมเบรล, อัยการของ Center for Food Safety (CFS), ใน op-ed วันอังคาร, “แต่คดีนี้ ก็สะท้อนบางอย่างที่พื้นฐานกว่านั้นมาก: สมควรหรือที่ใครๆ, หรือบริษัทใดๆ, จะควบคุมผลิตภัณฑ์แห่งชีวิตได้?”
They continue:
[Monsanto's] logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.
ตรรกะของมอนซานโตทำให้หลายคนห่วงกังวล พวกเขาบอกว่า เมล็ดพันธุ์และสิ่งมีชีวิต, ไม่ว่าจะจดสิทธิบัตรหรือไม่, ย่อมผลิตซ้ำตัวเอง.  เมล็ดพันธุ์, ไม่เหมือนชิปคอมพิวเตอร์ ยกตัวอย่าง, เป็นส่วนสำคัญของชีวิต.  หากประชาชนถูกปฏิเสธสิทธิ์เหนือชิปคอมพิวเตอร์, พวกเขาไม่ต้องอดอยาก.  หากประชาชนถูกปฏิเสธเมล็ดพันธุ์, ผลที่เป็นไปได้น่ากลัวมากกว่ามาก.
The case has garnered national attention as it touches upon an essential debate between corporate ownership versus essential rights and sustainability. 
คดีนี้ ได้รับความสนใจทั่วประเทศ เพราะมันแตะหัวใจการโต้วาทีระหว่างกรรมสิทธิ์ของบรรษัท กับ สิทธิพื้นฐานกับความยั่งยืน.
In a supporting brief filed by the sustainable food advocacy group, the Center for Food Safety (CFS), they argue that intellectual property rules have spurred the privatization and concentration of the world’s seed supply with only ten companies controlling nearly two-thirds of all commercial seed for major crops, effectively driving up prices and dangerously limiting the variety of seeds planted. 
ในประมวลข้อมูลสนับสนุน ที่ยื่นโดยกลุ่มรณรงค์อาหารยั่งยืน, ศูนย์อาหารปลอดภัย Center for Food Safety (CFS), พวกเขาอ้างว่า กติกาของสิทธิทางปัญญา ได้กระพือให้เกิดการรวบสิทธิเป็นของเอกชน และกระจุกตัวของแหล่งผลิตเมล็ดพันธุ์ของโลกในมือของเพียงสิบบรรษัท ที่ควบคุมเกือบสองในสามของเมล็ดพันธุ์พาณิชย์สำหรับพืชหลัก, ซึ่งดันราคาให้พุ่งสูงขึ้นอย่างเบ็ดเสร็จ และจำกัดสายพันธุ์ของเมล็ดที่ถูกปลูกอย่างหมิ่นเหม่.
Bowman's pro-bono representation Mark Walters, from the firm of Frommer Lawrence and Haug, is reportedly prepared to argue on the principle on "patent exhaustion" that the second-hand seeds are lawfully owned by the purchaser, not by the original patent holder.
ตัวแทนของโบวแมน มาร์ค วอลเตอร์, จากสำนักงานของ ฟรอมเมอร์ ลอว์เรนซ์ และ ฮอก, ตามรายงานว่า ได้เตรียมโต้แย้งด้วยหลักของ “การสิ้นสภาพของสิทธิบัตร” ที่ว่า เมล็ดที่ผ่านมือสองแล้ว เป็นสมบัติของผู้ซื้อตามกฎหมาย, ไม่ใช่ของผู้ถือสิทิบัตรเริ่มต้น.
As Walters explained to NPR, if you buy something that's covered by a patent, you own it, outright. "You're allowed to put it on Craigslist and sell it, you're allowed to use it for your 'ordinary pursuits of life' is the quote from some of the old cases that we're relying on. Imagine how commerce would work if patents owners could come out of nowhere and surprise purchasers and tell them, 'Oh, you need to pay me a royalty, because I own a patent on this thing that you just bought.'"
ดังที่ วอลเตอร์อธิบายในรายการวิทยุ NPR, หากคุณซื้อของที่ได้รับการคุ้มครองด้วยสิทธิบัตร, คุณก็เป็นเจ้าของทันที.  “คุณได้รับอนุญาตให้วางมันในรายการ Craigslist และขายมันได้, คุณได้รับอนุญาตให้ใช้มันได้เพื่อ ‘การยังชีพทั่วไปของคุณ’ เป็นการยกคำจากคดีเก่า ที่พวกเราอ้างอิงอยู่.  ลองจินตนาการดู การค้าขายจะทำงานได้อย่างไร หากเจ้าของสิทธิบัตรสามารถโผล่หัวออกมา สร้างความประหลาดใจแก่ผู้ซื้อ และบอกพวกเขาว่า ‘โอ, คุณต้องจ่ายค่าลิขสิทธิ์มให้ผมนะ, เพราะผมเป็นเจ้าของสิทธิบัตรเหนือสิ่งที่คุณเพิ่งซื้อไป’.”
The ramifications of this argument are widespread, as evidenced by the numerous other industries which have come to Monsanto's defense including the biotech and computer software industries.
การแตกสาขาของข้อโต้แย้งนี้กระจายไปทั่ว, ดังปรากฏให้เห็นในอุตสาหกรรมมากมายที่ออกมาปกป้องมอนซานโต รวมทั้ง อุตสาหกรรมไบโอเทค และคอมพิวเตอร์ซอฟต์แวร์.
According to the Indiana Star, the Department of Justice is also siding with the corporate patent holders, reportedly asking the Supreme Court not to hear Bowman's appeal on the basis that "the court’s decision could have repercussions for man-made cell lines, DNA molecules, some nanotechnologies and other technologies that involve self-replicating features."
ตามรายงาน Indiana Star, กระทรวงยุติธรรม เข้าข้างบรรษัทผู้ถือสิทธิบัตร, ได้ขอให้ศาลสูงสุดไม่รับฟังคำอุทธรณ์ของโบวแมน บนพื้นฐานของ “คำตัดสินของศาลสามารถจะมีผลย้อนกลับต่อสิ่งที่มนุษย์สร้าง เช่น เซลต่างๆ, โมเลกุล ดีเอ็นเอ, นาโนเทคโนโลยีบางประเภท และ เทคโนโลยีอื่นๆ ที่มีลักษณะผลิตซ้ำตัวเองได้.”
Ahead of Tuesday's hearing, CFS and SOS issued a report, "Seed Giants vs. U.S. Farmers,"(.pdf) which examines how the "current seed patent regime has led to a radical shift to consolidation and control of global seed supply and how these patents have abetted corporations, such as Monsanto, to sue U.S. farmers for alleged seed patent infringement."
Some of the reports findings include:
ก่อนการฟังคำให้การในวันอังคาร, CFS และ SOS ได้เผยแพร่รายงาน, “ยักษ์ใหญ่เมล็ดพันธุ์ เผชิญ เกษตรกร,” ที่ศึกษาว่า “ระบอบสิทธิเมล็ดพันธุ์ปัจจุบัน ได้นำไปสู่การควบรวบและบงการแหล่งเมล็ดพันธุ์ในโลกอย่างไร และ สิทธิบัตรเหล่านี้ ได้กระตุ้นให้บรรษัท, เช่น มอนซานโต, ฟ้องร้องเกษตรกรในสหรัฐฯ ด้วยการกล่าวหาว่าละเมิดสิทธิบัตร.”   สิ่งที่รายงานพบบางประการ รวม...
·         As of January 2013, Monsanto, alleging seed patent infringement, had filed 144 lawsuits involving 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 different states.
·         Today, three corporations control 53 percent of the global commercial seed market.
·         Seed consolidation has led to market control resulting in dramatic increases in the price of seeds. From 1995-2011, the average cost to plant one acre of soybeans has risen 325 percent; for cotton prices spiked 516 percent and corn seed prices are up by 259 percent.
-          มกราคม 2013, มอนซานโต, ผู้กล่าวหาการละเมิดสิทธิบัตร, ได้ยื่นฟ้อง 144 คดี ซึ่งรวมเกษตรกร 410 ราย และ ธุรกิจเกษตรขนาดเล็ก 56 ราย ในอย่างน้อย 27 รัฐ.
-          วันนี้, สามบรรษัทควบคุมตลาดเมล็ดพาณิชย์โลกถึง 53%.
-          การควบรวบเมล็ดพันธุ์ได้นำไปสู่การควบคุมผูกขาดตลาด ยังผลให้เกิดการเพิ่มราคาแบบก้าวกระโดด.  จาก 1995-2011, ต้นทุนเฉลี่ยในการเพาะปลูกถั่วเหลืองหนึ่งเอเคอร์ ได้เพิ่มขึ้น 325%; สำหรับราคาฝ้าย ก็พุ่งขึ้น 516% และราคาเมล็ดข้าวโพด สูงขึ้น 259%.
“Corporations did not create seeds," said the reports lead author Debbie Barker, adding that their assertion of seed patents threatens a resource "that is vital to survival, and that, historically, has been in the public domain.”
บรรษัทไม่ได้สรรสร้างเมล็ด,” เด็บบี้ บาร์เกอร์ กล่าว, พร้อมเสริมว่า การยืนหยัดอ้างสิทธิบัตรเมล็ดพันธุ์ คุกคามทรัพยากร “ที่สำคัญยิ่งต่อการอยู่รอด, และนั่น, ในทางประวัติศาสตร์, ได้เป็นปริมณฑลสาธารณะมาตลอด.”
Published on Tuesday, February 19, 2013 by Common Dreams
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/19-6, 2-25-13

·         Steve Woodward • 5 days ago
Well, at least Elena Kagan and Clarence Thomas will be up to speed on the case, since they both previously represented Monsanto. What could possibly go wrong?
As Yves Smith would say, Quelle Surprise!
Wouldn't Thomas and Kagan have to recuse themselves?
If Kagan does, it won't be a surprise.
I remember that when Kagan's appointment was approved, it was widely seen as a great victory for the left. Before the ink was dry, however, the announcement was made that kagan would be recusing herself from approximately 50% of the upcoming Supreme Court cases!
Of course, democratic propagandists ignored the planned recusals and cheered, saying THIS is why we need to support Obama. 'Supreme Court! Supreme Court!' became one of the most widely used lines of propaganda and one of the most effective ways to sway voters.
Perfect example of the gift of a Trojan horse that is obama...and the willingness of his base to idolize that trojan horse and ignore what's inside.
You would think so, but judges for the most part stand above the law in their pristine purity. Kagan didn't actually represent Monsanto directly, but rather she argued in Monsanto's favor as Obama's solicitor general after the Center for Food Safety had won in the lower courts.
Kagan will vote for Monsanto, as will Obama's other "liberal" appointee, Sonya Sotomayor, a former prosecutor and former corporate lawyer.
This is falling off the news cycle, but you may be interested in this, Tom.
The Obama administration showed up, well-prepared, as a friendly witness for Monsanto and argued strongly in Monsanto's favor. I suspect that is why the progressive and liberal blogosphere dropped the topic like a hot potato.
Here are some post-hearing comments from Bowman -
"You can run me over but I am not getting out of the road," he said.
Bowman wanted to use the company's seed to plant double crops - wheat and then soybeans. The company said he could not do that and it said he
couldn't buy outbound grain from the local seed bin, either.
"They said the elevator could not sell us seed out of those bins. That's illegal but we could buy outbound grain and then use it as seed. We had that right long before Monsanto had their patent right," Bowman argued.
"They should be looking for current justice and not future problems. They said if I would win it, it would bankrupt Monsanto. That is no reason to be against me if I am right," said Bowman.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5089...
maureen it's not the 1950's anymore. Congress is corrupt as hell. The only thing that works in Congress is the Israeli lobby. And the United nations small arms treaty
A international start to complete gun control.
Hitler never had it this easy when he confiscated the small arms from the people and then the Holocaust began.
They sold us out with passing Citizens United do you really think they care.
Unbelievably outrageous. Been following this problem for years. Shocking education in corporate greed.
Fuck Monsanto ...I say starve the corporation. Of cash of course.
Oh wait ,since it's a person maybe withholding quality organic food would be a better idea.
Starve the beast and boycott its products.
their food should be taxed and dividended straight to individual citizens (the real kind).
Quality organic food? Part of the point of the article is that life and seeds are self-replicating, and it must not be forgotten that all our food plants cross-pollinate if of the same species. It is impossible for even organic farmers to guarantee that Monsanto's patented genes have not been cross-pollinated into their seed stocks.
Not all crops are propagated by cross-pollination. This is an important distinction because naturally occurring strains and varieties are being privatized.
Its NOT outrageous. This farmer deliberately bought seeds from unauthorized sources to save money, and then EXPLOITED THE GMO FEATURES. This is a GMO farmer who tried to scam Monsanto.
The farmer has no case.
I hate Monsanto as much as anyone, but they are in the right here.
but the farmer buy unlabeled seeds expecting to benefit from the Monsanto gene that may or may not have been present? Intent is important I think. He bought seed from a grain elevator. What percent of the seed contained the patented gene? How was he to know that percentage?
Natural pollination ensures that genetics can change from generation of plant to generation of plant. If Monsanto had patented the entire genome top to bottom of that seed the next generation would have different genetics and therefore no patent protection. Since Monsanto patented only one or a few of the (what? millions) of genes in their original seed, should they be able to sue FOREVER even if that gene is reproduced by nature. What if that gene somehow transfers to another strain or variety of soybean that Monsanto never sold seed for? Monsanto is claiming their patent would still apply.
He bought unlabeled seeds but fully expected they would be GMO, which he determed by spraying them with roundup. He then proceeded to take advantage of the GMO features.
Patents dont last forever-they last for 20 years from the filing date.
If the farmer had not used the GMO features he would have a case. But he DID use the GMO features.
I think the problem here is that if he bought seeds from a public source that did not label these seeds as Monsanto patent seeds. Honestly he should have the right to use them as he feels fit from that source.
"Seeds" being the key words here. Seeds are by definition: "A small embryonic plant enclosed in a covering called the seed coat." Selling a "seed" by it's very definition assumes that this item will be planted. If the seeds were not labeled I think the man would have been good to go. The tricky part is his selecting them out by seeing which were resistant to round-up then saving those seeds for the next planting. That's the gray area which Monsanto is desperate to set a precedence for.
I knew a man who was sued because his field backed up to a Monsanto field and Monsanto seeds became dispersed in this man's seed yield. These guys are real asses so I tend to side with the rebel and feel that Monsanto's goals are more to control the food source seeds then any sort of real benefit to agriculture.
IF you create a product such as a necessary renewable food source that over powers all other of the same product via it's innovation, popularity, etc., thus making the availability of other products greatly reduced or eliminated I strongly feel you should NOT be able to patent it. This just makes sense from a safety concern. Who is to say that these seeds 15 years from now will not mutate back to heirloom seeds or worst mutate into nonviable seeds. Thus I digress to the need for limits on certain free enterprise.
Any farmer that has his property or crops contaminated with GMOs should be able to sue the manufacturer.
But my understanding is that this does not apply to this case. My understanding is that this farmer WANTED to plant GMOs. I think thats why he lost.
He wanted to use GMOs, and he thought he could avoid paying the licensing fees by buying the seeds secondhand. Its akin to buying pirated software.
Yes they should, but it has been the other way around hasn't it?
Honestly the farmer's intent has no baring here. The question is whether Monsanto can patent the subsequent generation of replicated seeds from its initial created technology. You think Yes and I think NO.
I believe that Monsanto CAN patent the initial first generation seeds because they could not occur in nature on their own without the gene alteration technology that Monsanto created. However the plants thus can replicate this technology on their own in nature with no interference from Monsanto after that thus classifying the resulting generations of seeds as a physical phenomena.
Patent law classifies physical phenomena as products of nature. Thus, if your invention occurs in nature, it is a physical phenomenon and cannot be patented.
IF Monsanto could control this product of nature and stop the natural replication of future generations then it could protect its initial patent. Once a plant or animal replicates itself in nature with no interference from man, that produce is considered a natural phenomena.
The court will have to redefine physical phenomenon/product of nature to uphold this patent claim.
It's also worth noting that nature adapts. Since RoundUp has been so widely used farmers are now seeing the RoundUp resistant "super weeds". How are we to know (or was this farmer to know) whether unlabeled seeds would contain Monsanto's patented gene or whether the unlabeled seeds might contain natural genetic variations in the soybeans as had happened with the "super weeds" that were NATURALLY resistant to RoundUp.
Also, please point out where it indicated the farmer intentionally applied RoundUp to the crop of unlabeled seeds? I don't see that in the Common Dreams post above. Is that statement something you can cite please?
Thank You!
The farmer is intentionally taking on Monsanto, and provoking a test case, yes. If you find those intentions disreputable, and relevant to the case, so be it.
I understand that you are seeing this as akin to "buying pirated software,"and I will address that in another response to you.
No, MONSANTO is taking on the FARMER! So you have a genetically engineered bird! YOU let the bird loose & it mates with a WILD bird, YOU DO NOT OWN THE OFFSPRING of THE WILD BIRD! As much as you would like to! YOU CANNOT OWN OR CONTROL NATURE! Monsanto buys into the government with each election, and you can see how many former high officials have worked FOR Monsanto BEFORE & After they have held office. Monsanto HAS passed their IDEALS through the main bodies of OUR government, past & present! We NEED to pass legislation that NO ONE who has EVER worked FOR Monsanto can hold office in which they can control legislation in regards to Monsanto. AND IF ANY former high government official procures a job within a BIG Corporation, then THAT corporation is NOW subject to High & intensive scrutiny & and CENSURE from any present & FUTURE passes under the FDA guidelines & regulations. Abet: NO PASSING of ANY legislation as to their competence and/or any special legislation! IF they have ANY ONE on board who HAS ever or IS ever on their side, in office, they should be TURNED INSIDE OUT!!!
I agree with you completely. (No need to shout, by the way.)
You're the second person who mentioned that he knew he was buying GMO seed and sprayed them with roundup. How do you know that? I've read this article twice and another one, too, and haven't seen that bit of info. Can you direct me to a more complete source of info?
That is from a NYT article and a Des Moines paper article - the "Register" if I remember. I will fetch links. I will look a little deeper as well, since those sources could be unreliable.
However, the fact that the "accusations" against the farmer are true make him a hero in my book, not the bad guy. He could have easily pleaded ignorance and gotten out of paying and it would have been difficult to prove otherwise. He decided to make a case out if it, and I support him in that,
Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...
snippet:
Vernon Hugh Bowman, who had signed such contracts for his main crop, thought he had discovered a loophole for a second, riskier crop later in the growing season: he would buy from a grain elevator filled with a mix of seeds in the reasonable hope that many of them contained the Roundup Ready gene.
Such seeds are typically sold for animal feed, food processing or industrial use. Mr. Bowman planted them and sprayed them with Roundup. Many of the plants survived, and he saved seeds for further plantings.
Bowman, in a PBS interview:
"I didn't look at it as a loophole because I had always been able to go to the elevator and buy the seed, you follow me? So I just looked at it that when they dumped it in there that they had abandoned their patent. If they want to protect their patent, then it looks to me like it would be required -- they'd be required to have to separate it at the elevator and keep it separate."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb...
Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. "They made sure they didn't sell it as seed. Their ticket said, 'Outbound grain," says Bowman.
He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene in them, because that's mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn't think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto's seed business. "I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind," he snorts.
Bowman told his neighbors what he was doing. It turned out that Monsanto did, in fact, care.
"He wanted to use our technology without paying for it," says David Snively, Monsanto's general counsel.
Monsanto took Bowman to court, and Bowman was ordered to pay Monsanto $84,000 for infringing the company's patent.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesa...
Exactly. This is why this farmer is an idiot, who had no chance of winning and deserves to LOSE.
This will be a 9-0 decision. Very easy case to decide.
Is it all about winning and losing for you, then? Very sad.
The fact that he got the Supreme Court to hear this, and that we are all therefore talking about it, is a tremendous achievement, a massive victory, perhaps a victory that is outside of your ability to fathom.
Sure. The text below is from the respondents arguments. I have not seen anywhere that the farmer denies that he sprayed his crops with roundup. The ONLY reason to spray crops with roundup is to make use of the GMO properties and obtain pure-GMO seed.
From everything I have read, this farmer is a GMO farmer, trying to find a way to use the GMO seeds without paying a royalty to Monsanto. Therefore, Monsanto should win, no matter how one feels about GMOs.
From arguments:
"Petitioner’s creation of considerable quantities of glyphosate-resistant soybeans resulted from his application of systematic and deliberative agronomic efforts to duplicate the specific Roundup Ready® patented trait, including systematic planting, cultivating, and harvesting techniques applied to the commodity seed. In particular, by planting and then applying a glyphosate herbicide, he eliminated all of the inferior, weed-susceptible seeds and transformed his “undifferentiated,” “impure,” and “dirty” mixture (Pet. Br. 5) into purely glyphosate-resistant seeds containing the Roundup Ready® trait to which herbicide could safely be applied."
Your accusations against the farmer are accurate. That makes him a hero in my book.
He went through a dumpster and sorted out some CDs he could use, to employ your analogy.
The fact that the "product" replicates itself is not an invention by Monsanto, nor is that the farmer's fault.
If Monsanto does not want their patented products to replicate themselves, then perhaps they should look elsewhere for products to patent, rather than trying to control living organisms. Why should any of us have to pay for their stupid business decision? Why doesn't Monsanto take Mother Nature to court, and sue her for making things that reproduce?
By the way, these crops that Monsanto is tinkering with are themselves the product of hundreds of years of work and innovation by thousands of people, all in the public domain. They have no right to expropriate that work.
Also, crop varieties are being privatized that are not genetically modified, and crop varieties are being privatized when the only genetic modification that is going on is the insertion of a "marker gene" to brand the life form as "private property." What say you to that?
Well I guess you dont have any respect for people that create new ideas, inventions or other creative works.
Someone who rips off other peoples ideas and creative works is a "hero"?
I dont like GMOs either, and I hate Monsanto. But this line of attack makes absolutely no sense.
Your arguments make no sense.
Monsanto's patents cover ONLY the plants that contain the gene sequences they added. Nothing else.
You have a very poor understanding of the patent system.
Read my posts more carefully.
I said that the same protections that should apply to the creator without means - to protect him or her from the ravages of the wealthy and powerful and for the benefit of the entire population - should not apply to the wealthy and powerful - in this case, corporations.
Re: marker genes. You are wrong about that. Something must be USEFUL to be patentable. A gene added only to mark a plant is not useful and would not be patentable. it would also be a huge waste of time and money.
Nope. The new crop varieties do have usefulness, potentially, possibly. That is not the question. All crops could be called "useful" - potentially.
Wait, trait or gene? They patented the gene they created in the lab. If nature (look at the RoundUp resistant weeds) develops (gasp, "evolve") RoundUp resistant weeds why couldn't soybeans be able to evolve the same trait.
Is Monsanto saying they patented that TRAIT, or did they patent the gene they spliced into soybeans?
I am merely repeating what the other poster wrote, I am not reading any minds.
I misdirected my post to you, instead of dodanimal to whom it was intended. You must have been surprised. I apologize, and commend you on the restraint of your response.
Thanks. No problem, It is an easy mistake to make.
dodanimal, Hugh Bowman farms in a commercial market, where he must recover his costs through the marketplace, in order to continue serving the population with food, a human essential. Monsanto, Dow & other food corporations, as evidenced by California's Proposition 37 do not wish to reveal, exercise or publicize their patent rights before this same commercial marketplace.
By insisting that their product not need to be identified or labelled, agri-food corps forego their patent rights as do any patent holders who on one hand would want to reap profit & on the other hand yet to not be identified with their products & the claimed patentable properties. In order for food corporations to insist upon their patent rights, they must do so publicly with their products clearly marked for commercial discernment by farmers, store-houses, processers, transformers, marketers & consumers.
The reality is that; 2-dimensional 'agriculture' (Latin 'ager' = 'field' is only 1/100th as productive per area, energy invested & labour as is 'indigenous' (L 'self-generating') 3-D Polyculture Orchards for food, materials, energy & water-cycle. Human-kind's first obligation as primate stewards of the earth's orchards is to replant abundance for ourselves & all species. https://sites.google.com/site/...
If Monsanto wishes to keep these genes to itself, then it must make them incapable of crosspollination.
I've wondered about this case. Not enough information is ever provided. Grain elevators often sell seed grown by farmers...or at least is used to be that way. Was the seed GMO or was it grown by a local farmer who didn't use GMO seed. I recognize that almost all corn and soy are GMO due to contamination if not deliberately.
So if the elevator sold seed that was known to be GMO, then they are as much at fault. Anyone know where to get more information?
Yes, grain elevators sell grain grown by farmers. Yes, GMO grain gets into that mix. That would be hard to control, and impossible to know once the mixing had occurred.
Yes, the farmer bought seed in the reasonable expectation that some of it might be glyphosate resistant. He found that some of it was, because it survived treatment with glyphosate in the field.
The farmer then collected grain from those plants and planted that. Monsanto claimed that he had infringed on their patent, and billed him $84,000.
So, the farmer is in the "wrong" in this case, if we are going to accept and embrace the idea that DNA sequences can be privately owned under all circumstances. If we do accept and embrace that idea, then the logical and inevitable outcome is that in the very near future all life will be privately owned and traded on Wall Street.
Those who have no problem with life itself being privately owned through corporations and traded on Wall Street can make their "intellectual property rights" argument.
Those who do have a problem with life itself being privately owned through corporations and traded on Wall Street are required to look at the commonly held assumptions and conventions about "ownership" and so-called "private property rights."
"Private property rights" were originally used for a few people to be able to control and devastate the land itself, to forcibly remove human beings from it. This process continues around the globe as resources are exploited, millions of people are displaced, and communities and traditional livelihoods are destroyed.
So it should not surprise us that it has come to this.
and Dow had to have know this from the get go:
Yes, GMO grain gets into that mix. That would be hard to control, and impossible to know once the mixing had occurred.
me adding, or the GMO seeds falling off trucks=
Therefore a a prudent person test, should be applied, and the shiitiest part of this is people who have their field accidnetly contaminated by Dow's little round "slaves" genes have lost family farms to these pests lawyers for patent infringement...this is administrative murder - look at India's farmer suicide rate...Dow/DuPont and their shareholders are murders and should be in international jails not arguing anything at the SCOTUS.
the "features" don't work quite like they advertise, btw, and he is not wrong when he claims monsanto didn't invent seeds.
see numerous searches on drought resistant failures just last corn, wheat and milo
Kansas
did he buy it to exploit gmo features or because there's no longer any choice besides planting nothing and losing the farm?
... but still doesn't answer the question going forward, of who 'owns' the rights to 'nature'? Understanding how convoluted this all is, there's already also a human gene 'rights' issue in the courts, which will inevitably impact each & every human on earth, if it comes down to it. So do we really want to go down this road & have to 'defend' our own natural biology against corporations? People aren't thinking thru this Democracy situation, as it's being sacrificed at the corporate money 'alter', by our elected representatives. We had this debate over a century ago & Democracy 'apparently' won. But that was B4 the mass, 'corporate' media age. Our priorities are all screwed up & compromised & yes, Thomas & Kagan should recuse themselves, but if they don't, who'll make them? So-called 'Liberal' appointments are 1 thing, but the Liberal/Progressives we elect have different orientations, which we should be familiar w/in any such case. We need to surround this President w/them, if we plan that he keep his word as spoken in his November 6th victory speech: (I'm paraphrasing here)... "... the role of citizen doesn't end when elections are done; the job... is ongoing, in putting our energy, ambition, sacrifice & ENGAGEMENT w/representative in getting our Democracy correct..." The real question is, will increase our intelligence enuff to put the above words to action & elect Liberal/Progressives of like minds w/the citizenry in 2014, to correct this mess?!
Nonsense. The question"who owns teh rights to nature" has already been answered: nobody. Patents on naturally occurring things are not allowed. Thats settled law.
This concern about gene patents and living organism patents is unfounded paranoia. Read up on patent law. Learn the details of how the requirements for patentability are applied. There is nothing to worry about.
There are many examples of how corporations have too much power, how privatization is creating huge problems and injustices, but patents are not one of them.



เขียนโดย ที่

ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:

แสดงความคิดเห็น

สมัครสมาชิก: ส่งความคิดเห็น (Atom)