5 ms·
Monsanto has sued farmers who had plants that grew from seeds that flew from a neighbor
by homero 6y ago
Monsanto has sued farmers who had plants that grew from seeds that flew from a neighbor
- pfdietz 6y agoNo, they sued a farmer who concentrated glyphosate resistant traces in his soybeans by spraying his field with that herbicide. Had he not done that, Monsanto would have done nothing (and likely could have done nothing). The courts properly recognized the farmers conduct as willful patent infringement.
- 8note 6y agoIf it weren't for the neighbors having the patented seeds I imagine they'd also have no legs to stand on?
- pfdietz 6y agoYou mean, Monsanto? No. Monsanto's patents were valid regardless of how the farmer got those seeds. The action of willfully concentrating the resistance genes is what got him in trouble.
- dheera 6y agoSounds like a pretty ridiculous system. Plants are living beings, and never needed humans in the first place to thrive on the planet. Wind and birds just do their thing. The courts can sue the birds and the weather gods if they want to.
- pfdietz 6y agoYou seem to be objecting not just to plant patents, but to agriculture itself. One of the first changes made to grain plants back in the neolithic was selection for plants that did not shed their seeds, so they could be harvested. These plants became dependent on humans to thrive.
- Dylan16807 6y agoThat's not really a "no". And even with the full story it still doesn't make the law look great. It's fine to infringe on the patent with as many plants as he wants, as long as he doesn't change the concentration of plants that have the gene in them? What if he had a field that was entirely contaminated via the wind? Would he be free to use glyphosate on that field? I feel like they still would have sued.
- pfdietz 6y agoIf the field were contaminated to that extent, he could have presented evidence that that happened, and used that to defend himself. But that's not how this contamination worked. He amplified traces far beyond what mere contamination would cause.
- Dylan16807 6y agoBut apparently he was allowed to amplify those seeds in an even mixture with other seeds. The distinction is that he wasn't allowed to amplify only those seeds, while removing the normal seeds. And that's... a weird way to interpret the idea of a patent.
- pfdietz 6y agoWhat he did only made sense as a an attempt to obtain seeds with the patented genes, and the courts properly interpreted it that way.
- Dylan16807 6y agoBut he already had those. He just wanted to remove the other seeds.
- pfdietz 6y agoIntentionally propagating patented genes without a license violates the patent. It doesn't matter that he was in possession of the seeds.
- im3w1l 6y agoInteresting, never heard the other side of that story before.