View Single Post
Old 05-14-2013, 06:59 PM   #22
DaveNull DaveNull is offline
DaveNull's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Villa Straylight
Casino cash: $15710
Looks like you need some more sleep and some more reading time. Hell, HCF gave you an article from USA Today which is one step above Highlights for Kids. Luckily your ignorance coincides with my curiosity so I'll save you some time.

Here's what you ended up concluding:

So with this ruling, if a seed falls on the ground and a plant grows, you either pay for that "duplicate / genetic copy" or kill the plant?!?
Here's what the article says that this guy did:

After one year of going through Monsanto, he bought his second crop from a grain elevator. Then he used his own soybeans that resisted Roundup in future years -- in essence, the court said, making copies of a patented invention.
See the difference there? He bought Roundup Ready beans and then reused seed in violation of the agreement he signed when he bought them first from Monsanto and again when he bought Roundup Ready beans from the elevator.

Here's a better explanation from Cornell Law School which was written by law students instead of some hack at USA Today that doesn't even have the courtesy to link to the actual decision.

Vernon Hugh Bowman purchased seeds from Pioneer, a registered seed producer of Monsanto. As required by Monsanto, Pioneer had Bowman sign an agreement identical to Monsanto’s Technology Agreement, which limited the use of the seeds to a single season. Monsanto also sent Bowman a letter directly, which notified Bowman that he could not replant any form of Monsanto’s herbicide resistant seeds. Bowman regularly purchased seeds from Pioneer but one year, after harvesting the seeds purchased from Pioneer, Bowman also bought seeds from a local commodity seed provider and planted a second crop. Finding that the majority of seeds purchased from the local provider were herbicide resistant, Bowman also treated them with herbicide. Bowman continued to purchase Pioneer seeds for his first crop and harvested seeds from his second crops to use to replant his second crop the next year. In 2006, Monsanto became aware of Bowman’s planting practices and investigated his use of herbicide resistant seeds. Upon confirmation that Bowman’s second crops, grown from second-generation and commodity seeds, displayed herbicide resistance, Monsanto sued him for patent infringement.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Monsanto’s patent rights in the seeds were not exhausted once sold to a commodity dealer. The Federal Circuit further reasoned that although Monsanto’s patented technology can replicate itself, a buyer cannot use the product of replication because it would eliminate Monsanto’s patent rights. The court concluded that Bowman retained the right to sell second-generation seeds as feed or for any other number of uses, but he was prohibited from replanting them in any form. The court deemed that Monsanto was entitled to damages for patent infringement.
- Here's the source and some additional analysis.

If Monsanto wants to spend the money to make these genetically altered seeds, then they should do so for their own benefit alone - if they sell it, it is out of their hands.
I suspect that this was unintentionally insightful and pertinent to the other comment about Monsanto having a monopoly. To the insightful point, this is the question that was presented to the court and they ruled that their genetic traits are not completely out of their hands once they license it to a purchaser who reuses seeds. This is pertenant to the comment about monopolies because if Monsanto did what you are suggesting (owning the operation from engineering of the seeds through sale to the end user) then they're closer to a vertical monopoly. Think "owning the mining company, steel company and the railroad" kind of monopoly instead of the "we've got the market cornered on this product so we'll jack prices beyond predatory levels" monopoly.

But I digress...back to your small minded and uninformed comments.

the left can't help but find a way to **** everything up!
and this

go figure Kagan ruled on this...
You do know that there are nine justices on the supreme court...all of whom contribute to the way the case ends up...right? You do know that one justice writes the majority opinion..right? That means that all nine of the justices including Thomas and Scalia agreed with this outcome...right? For that matter, not a single justice took enough issue with Kagen's opinion that they wanted to write a concurrence.

A 9-0 ruling in any direction is a complete bipartisan smackdown of whatever argument was put forth by the loser. Plain and simple.

Is this a ringing endorsement by myself or the court of the general practices of targeting farmers for lawsuits when they unintentionally end up with GMO plants because of the trait being transferred via pollination or when they buy from a seed supplier who isn't properly separating GMO from non-GMO seed? Hell no.

This is merely the first case to hit the supreme court on this issue which has been discussed in agricultural and legal circles since the mid-90's. The more contentious cases will be those that filter their way up through the process in years to come.
Posts: 2,021
DaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby PiscitelliDaveNull 's adopt a chief was Sabby Piscitelli
  Reply With Quote