Shared publicly  - 
 
This is such cosmic bullshit. You can have the seed, but you can't plant it because growing a plant is creating an infringing derivative work?
14
2
Peter Edwards's profile photoFrancis Till's profile photocasey dunn's profile photoRobert Crane's profile photo
27 comments
 
Just like I can't buy Broccolini seed for the garden. I just wanna grow some veges, but The Man wont let me... gotta buy woody, cut-5-days-ago crap on the shelves instead.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broccolini to view a vegetable's registered trademark holder.
 
And people wondered why we fought tooth and nail in the EU Parliament to prevent GM seed biotech which is, basically, a con trick to screw money out of the world's poorer people, dressed up as scientific progress.
 
Nat - the farm was using patented seeds. It's not much different from using patented kernal code.
 
Saw this type of thing in Food Inc.
 
+Francis Till it is different because the kernel doesn't grow itself into a fully functional distro solely on water and sun. How come they can patent life in the first place? Indeed is a cosmic bullshit. Also, Food inc. is an inspiring documentary.
 
IP is IP. Doesn't matter if it's genetic. It's not "patenting life" it's patenting research.
 
Actually, the seed shouldn't have been in the distro.
 
Then current practices of patenting+IP is what's wrong. The world is not just in black and white, there are many grey areas in between that needs to be treated as such.
 
drug companies, for example, routinely charge huge rates in communities that they estimate can pay and then virtually give it away in communities (eg Africa) where they cannot. It's case by case. But the patent is why the drug/seed came to exist in the first place. No profit potential = no r&d = no progress.
 
If they give it away then why try and add terminator gene tech?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
I suggest the vendors behave more beneficially now because we stood up to Monsanto & co. The poor farmers still often end up having to buy specialised fertiliser or pesticides to go along with their virtually free grain, depending on the product. It's like adding a Company Store to bleed the world's poorest later on down the line - don't kid me that's not what the VC behind such research is up to.
 
Are you talking about the same drug companies that retracted hiv-infected drugs from the us market (under the public pressure, of course) and (discovering a profit potential) redistributed them in Africa? The ones that treat people in India and other poor countries as guinea pigs making all kind of sick experiments on them, without their knowledge and consent? The ones that are trying to stop marijuana legalization (along with many other herbal medicines) just because there is no profit potential? Now, i wonder why would they spend at least $300 million per year on lobby (>1200 lobbyists) in DC alone...
 
Monsanto's position on Roundup Ready has consistently been "All your seeds are belong to us".
 
Actually, drug companies routinely don't "virtually give the drug away" in poor communities until they are forced to by public exposure of their practices.

"IP is IP" is absurd since there is nothing absolute or essential about the concept of IP. It is a very modern construction, and has been reformulated over time greatly. None the less, it isn't the IP, per se, here that is at issue, it is the monopoly granted by patent. Essentially "because I got to the patent office first, I get to limit how you use this thing I sell you." Never mind that in this case the thing in question is a plant, the bulk of who's cultivation was performed over 1000s of years by poor farmers.
 
Sounds like the differentiator here is that the farmer arguably actively sought to circumvent Monsanto's license by spraying the whole field and saving seed from the crop that didn't die. If he'd never bought Roundup Ready seed in the first place, he presumably wouldn't have this particular problem.

This is better than the early days, when Monsanto sued everyone who had their DNA, regardless of whether they'd bought the seed from Monsanto or it just happened to propagate from one field to another.

Drug companies are especially fond of countries where the government is actively complicit in price-gouging its own people. I'm looking at you, Uncle Sam.
 
Monsanto is certainly due protection for their products, but, they should have been a bit clearer in their terms. Find it hard to believe that they would be unaware of the practice in general.

Having said that, as +Jeff Carroll stated, it seems obvious the farmer was trying to circumvent Monsanto.
 
+Russell Nelson In the case of AIDS drugs and Africa, the industry declined for over 13 years to "price discriminate" leaving millions in Africa to die without therapy. To this day, almost a quarter a century later, the companies still drag their feet, and less than 40% of infected individuals in Africa have access to the drugs. See: http://www.avert.org/africa-aids-timeline.htm

For a more general treatment. Please read "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Boldrin and Levin, especially the first four pages of Chapter 4 (http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinal04.pdf) which deals with price discrimination and drug companies.
 
Right. So why did they decline to make money in a free market? Profit-making companies leaving money on the table? That makes no sense. Perhaps the market isn't free enough? (I'm aware of the arguments against patents, and support them. I'm just addressing this one issue -- that drug companies only dumped drugs when they were forced to.)
 
There are no free markets: there are only markets regulated by government in the interests of government, or regulated by consumers, in the interests of consumers. Funny how consumers are happier when markets are regulated with their interests in mind.
 
you must license and constrain your growing techniques to the Montsanto epigenitic packages suitable for your commerce zone. consulting is available.
 
Decision was flat out wrong and ignores the law. However, Monsanto is too powerful in the Midwest for judges there to ignore.
 
Canada had a similar lawsuit a long time ago.
 
+Jason Pollock Not all that long ago, it happened while I was still at the Farm Bureau, which means it was 2004 at the latest. Bad decision there, too.
 
no. you can save the seeds, and you can plant the seed, but when you spray roundup on them and then save the survivors, which is whqat the defendant did, you're infringing. Monsanto doesn't have a problem with their seeds getting interspersed with normal seeds, as long as roundup herbicide ("glyophosphate") isn't sprayed to select and differentiate them.
 
+David Nicol What he did is not infringing according to the law (or at least wasn't until the courts deliberately misinterpreted it). What Monsanto wants isn't the issue, what matters is what the law allows. Plant patents simply don't persist through sexual reproduction, and the holder of a plant patent has absolutely no legal basis for imposing any conditions on the use of seeds produced by sexual reproduction.

This case is "bad" in the sense that the guy in question buys Monsanto RR seed direct as well as commingled. The true test is whether the courts will disregard the law and prohibit someone who buys commingled Monsanto RR seed, identifies the RR plants, and saves the resulting seeds.
 
but kelly, it wasn't a plant patent, it was a gene sequence patent. Also, according to my reading of the article that's exactly what the farmer did.
Add a comment...