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?
#Monsanto wins lawsuit against Indiana soybean farmer - http://bit.ly/qQKdq1 more #genepatent insanity
14 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 16 previous comments
- Decision was flat out wrong and ignores the law. However, Monsanto is too powerful in the Midwest for judges there to ignore.Sep 25, 2011
- Canada had a similar lawsuit a long time ago.Sep 25, 2011
- 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.Sep 25, 2011
- 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.Sep 27, 2011
- 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.Sep 27, 2011
- 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.Sep 27, 2011