3 ms·

I think it’s immensely problematic that a seed can fall in your farm, and you can be sued for illegally growing Monsanto’s IP. More generally I think it’s a bad

I think it’s immensely problematic that a seed can fall in your farm, and you can be sued for illegally growing Monsanto’s IP. More generally I think it’s a bad societal outcome for one company to use IP laws to monopolize the food production economy. I think allowing this will lead to a much less robust society. I’m all for free markets for most markets, but things get very bad if people don’t have food. So I think there is a good case for the government funding research and open-sourcing the work here, and also potentially restricting eligibility of patents in this area too. I think your argument is sound in a free-market maximalist / small-government libertarian framework, I’m just less convinced that the current IP framework produces good results in this case.

pfdietz 5y ago
That scare scenario has never occurred, and it's legally doubtful that any such lawsuit by someone like Monsanto could succeed. Monsanto itself explicitly said it would never sue anyone for accidental contamination. What Monsanto DID do was sue someone whose field was contaminated, and who then repeatedly sprayed the field with glyphosate to kill all but the GMO plants, so he could selectively concentrate the interlopers to continue to propagate. It's this last step that got the farmer in trouble. > but things get very bad if people don’t have food GMO IP protection does nothing to prevent farmers from continuing to grow previously existing varieties. So this is another scare argument without foundation. > I think your argument is sound in a free-market maximalist / small-government libertarian framework, I’m just less convinced that the current IP framework produces good results in this case. I think the anti-IP argument is an underhanded way to try to ban GMOs without actually saying you want to do that.
- theptip 5y ago
  I don’t think you’re engaging with me in good faith here. I’m making my own case, and clearly; I’m not trying to make an underhanded other point. I’ll tap out here. Have a nice day.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    I view the entire anti-GMO position as being not in good faith, so I have little patience when those making the anti-GMO arguments trot out the same well-debunked (or a priori nonsensical) talking points.
- DanBC 5y ago
  There have been hundreds of lawsuits by Monsanto. I don't immediately recognise which case you're talking about. Do you have any links please? > GMO IP protection does nothing to prevent farmers from continuing to grow previously existing varieties. If they buy seed from grain elevator which comingles GMO and non-GMO seed (which is what happened in the Bowman case) the farmer can't sell what they've grown from that seed.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Here's the case I was thinking of (it was canola, not soybeans): https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991/index.do https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991... As for Bowman https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf Bowman didn't just do that. He applied glyphosate to the field. So, he bought seeds without a license to grow them, with the intent to exploit the fact they were resistant to glyphosate. This violated the patent.
jcranmer 5y ago
> I think it’s immensely problematic that a seed can fall in your farm, and you can be sued for illegally growing Monsanto’s IP. It would be problematic if that's the case. That is not the case however. What you're probably thinking of is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise..., where the farmer originally claimed to have had accidental contamination of the Monsanto seeds (this defense was dropped before the actual trial itself, and if you read the actual depositions, it's really hard to actually believe this claim). It's difficult to find any other case that comes close to falling under the claimed situation here (due to the notoriety of this one case), but I don't think that any of them actually do. Incidentally, I should point out that the underlying issues of plant patents are actually far older than GMO cases (early-mid 20th century). It's not anything actually new.

pfdietz 5y ago

That scare scenario has never occurred, and it's legally doubtful that any such lawsuit by someone like Monsanto could succeed. Monsanto itself explicitly said it would never sue anyone for accidental contamination. What Monsanto DID do was sue someone whose field was contaminated, and who then repeatedly sprayed the field with glyphosate to kill all but the GMO plants, so he could selectively concentrate the interlopers to continue to propagate. It's this last step that got the farmer in trouble. > but things get very bad if people don’t have food GMO IP protection does nothing to prevent farmers from continuing to grow previously existing varieties. So this is another scare argument without foundation. > I think your argument is sound in a free-market maximalist / small-government libertarian framework, I’m just less convinced that the current IP framework produces good results in this case. I think the anti-IP argument is an underhanded way to try to ban GMOs without actually saying you want to do that.

theptip 5y ago
I don’t think you’re engaging with me in good faith here. I’m making my own case, and clearly; I’m not trying to make an underhanded other point. I’ll tap out here. Have a nice day.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  I view the entire anti-GMO position as being not in good faith, so I have little patience when those making the anti-GMO arguments trot out the same well-debunked (or a priori nonsensical) talking points.
DanBC 5y ago
There have been hundreds of lawsuits by Monsanto. I don't immediately recognise which case you're talking about. Do you have any links please? > GMO IP protection does nothing to prevent farmers from continuing to grow previously existing varieties. If they buy seed from grain elevator which comingles GMO and non-GMO seed (which is what happened in the Bowman case) the farmer can't sell what they've grown from that seed.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Here's the case I was thinking of (it was canola, not soybeans): https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991/index.do https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/item/38991... As for Bowman https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf Bowman didn't just do that. He applied glyphosate to the field. So, he bought seeds without a license to grow them, with the intent to exploit the fact they were resistant to glyphosate. This violated the patent.

jcranmer 5y ago

> I think it’s immensely problematic that a seed can fall in your farm, and you can be sued for illegally growing Monsanto’s IP. It would be problematic if that's the case. That is not the case however. What you're probably thinking of is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise..., where the farmer originally claimed to have had accidental contamination of the Monsanto seeds (this defense was dropped before the actual trial itself, and if you read the actual depositions, it's really hard to actually believe this claim). It's difficult to find any other case that comes close to falling under the claimed situation here (due to the notoriety of this one case), but I don't think that any of them actually do. Incidentally, I should point out that the underlying issues of plant patents are actually far older than GMO cases (early-mid 20th century). It's not anything actually new.