4 ms·

The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patent

The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patents. I doubt anyone without a decent lab could produce any of Monsanto's patents. I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds, the only reason people buy that stuff is to improve yield.

Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
Do some more study before living stupid comments - all Monstanto DNA patents are code fragments from living organisms. This corporation is insanely evil, get a clue and stop defending it.
kaybe 14y ago
True, but also, Apple is not active in a critical industry. If they control or even mess up the computer industry, it's not the same as agriculture.
- veemjeem 14y ago
  So companies producing IP in a critical industry like agriculture have no access to IP protection? If anyone is allowed to sell 2G seeds, then Monsanto will make no money, and no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research if they know they cannot make money from it. GMO seeds enable greater crop yields which would actually be better for humankind, so making money on GMO seeds is important. The great potato famine in Ireland wiped out a million people. We use more advanced fungicides now, but the chemicals used have a greater chance of causing liver damage than GMO plants. Obviously it would have to be a fair and balanced decision, but we can't throw out common sense because it affects a "critical industry". Monsanto is an easy company to hate, but we can't make the wrong decision here or else it will affect future generations of companies who want to improve crop yields via GMO products.
  - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
    You know that Ireland was a net exporter of food during the great famine, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#Food_exports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#Food... Famines these days tend to be more economic than agricultural.
  - jrs235 14y ago
    I disagree. Monsanto's original business model was: "We have a patent on a herbicide called Round Up, if we can find a way to create seeds that result in plants resistant to our own chemical herbicide then we can sell the seeds too! If we convince farmers using our seeds and chemicals results in better yields and profits we can increase our market share of both." That was the original reason to create the modified seeds. Do you think they are researching and investing in finding seeds/plants that don't have a tie-in to their chemicals? EDIT: Their problem is that the patent on Round Up expired so we have other companies that can make and sell the herbicide generically now. Their original business model made sense and was reason enough for them to innovate and create GMO seeds. Question: Can we now say that modifying genes to make organisms resistant to certain chemicals is no longer non-intuitive?
  - jrs235 14y ago
    Having a non-diverse gene pool increases the likelihood of a species getting wiped out. How does have a large majority of our food coming from the same gene pool help secure our future? If anything it puts us all at greater risk. While in the short term GMO seeds might help, in the long term it appears we are increasing unnecessary risks. Typical current day view: shortsightedness and sacrificing the future for gaining today.
  - belorn 14y ago
    If we want to take a look at the big picture, lets do that then. Whats the cost-benefit of having patents on GMO seeds? Whats the increased cost to society vs disclosure of information? Patents are an barging, where the state gives a state protected monopoly in return for disclosure of information. Lets make a cost-benefit analyze and see where it points (hint, not even with imaginary numbers would patents on GMO seeds ever come up on top). > no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research What a lie. Sorry, but I am going to call it what it is. A lie or a serious form of disillusioning. If you can create a better method to farm: vegetable oils, soy, rapeseed, jatropha, mahua, mustard, flax, sunflower, palm oil, hemp, field pennycress, Pongamia pinnata, or algae, you are going to earn serious money. The military would very much like to be able to producer cheaper biofuel, as would a never ending list of companies. Corn is an other, where a better seed would easy earn you billions if sold to the highest bidder. Sure, you can't go around suing farmers who never heard of your company, but that is a good thing.
pvaldes 14y ago
Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial well... the fact is that a seed is not trivial also, and was not trivially changed in thousands of years by a lot of farmers and other people. Then you change one or a few parts in this seed and you can claim that all the "seed software" is yours. Even if you changed a single line. Maybe we need a GPL for living creatures?
- cbr 14y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the "seed software" as it existed before you is still free for all to use. The software license analogy would be BSD (any non-copyleft license).
  - pvaldes 14y ago
    I wonder... if you simply don't use Roundup, the entire process shouldn't be claimed as fair use?. You are not gaining a profit on the Monsanto work, Those seeds are not provided by Monsanto and as you can not avoid to use genetically contaminated, and identical to other seeds otherwise, you should not face a trial for this.
    - bcoates 14y ago
      My understanding is that is exactly how it works in practice. Farmers aren't getting sued for accidentally having a few roundup ready plants in their field; they're getting sued for selecting for roundup ready seeds and then using roundup on their fields. That's what happened in this case: That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second- crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. Unlike his first- crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional secondcrops in later years. He also supplemented his secondcrop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto’s representatives. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1607718.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1607718.html ("glyphosate" is the active ingredient in roundup, "glyphosate resistance" is the trait developed and patented by Monsanto.)
pmorici 14y ago
"I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds" Traditionally farmers would save a portion of their crop to plant for the next year. There is even a special machine that prepares seed for planting called a "seed cleaner". Enter patented GMO seed which gets planted in a field next to regular seed and is cross pollinated by nature. Now the farmer who didn't plant GMO seed has a crop that contains the GMO patented gene. So if he cleans that seed he is at risk of being sued the next year for patent infringement by monsanto. In fact they have been systematically been suing seed cleaners to to get their client lists and then sue the farmers. Since it is nearly impossible to ensure your crop hasn't been cross pollinated with a GMO crop Monsanto has essentially shut down the traditional way farmers have worked. additionally they are reportedly very aggressive in pursuing farmers and frequently trespass on their fields to take seed samples. That is why they say that they have "ruined" family farming. Food Inc. is one good documentary where this is discussed in detail among other food related issues. http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/blog/policy/monsanto-destroying-farming-communities/ http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/blog/policy/monsanto-des...
- ScottBurson 14y ago
  Yes. As glad as I am to see this farmer apparently have some chance of prevailing in this case, I would greatly prefer to see a Supreme Court test of the idea that a farmer whose crop was involuntarily contaminated by wind could then be sued for patent infringement. That's just nuts.
- Aardwolf 14y ago
  Shouldn't it be possible to sue Monsato or neighbors for polluting your field with their genetically manipulated pollen? After all, they are, without you asking for it, polluting your field with something that reduces your abilities (the ability to use your own seeds).
  - amalag 14y ago
    Something similar was attempted: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/class-action-lawsuit-against-monsanto-is-dismissed/ http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/class-acti...
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
> The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patents. I doubt anyone without a decent lab could produce any of Monsanto's patents. Way to judge inventions based on your personal scales. So the requisite for patents is having big labs? Just because something looks simple it doesn't mean it doesn't has value, or didn't had talent and R&D behind it. Do you realize there can be research even behind something as simple as the shape of a device, because there's someone thinking how millions of people will interact with it everyday? That's the perverse thing about patents. Who has the right to judge if an invention is trivial or not.

Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago

Do some more study before living stupid comments - all Monstanto DNA patents are code fragments from living organisms. This corporation is insanely evil, get a clue and stop defending it.

kaybe 14y ago

True, but also, Apple is not active in a critical industry. If they control or even mess up the computer industry, it's not the same as agriculture.

veemjeem 14y ago
So companies producing IP in a critical industry like agriculture have no access to IP protection? If anyone is allowed to sell 2G seeds, then Monsanto will make no money, and no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research if they know they cannot make money from it. GMO seeds enable greater crop yields which would actually be better for humankind, so making money on GMO seeds is important. The great potato famine in Ireland wiped out a million people. We use more advanced fungicides now, but the chemicals used have a greater chance of causing liver damage than GMO plants. Obviously it would have to be a fair and balanced decision, but we can't throw out common sense because it affects a "critical industry". Monsanto is an easy company to hate, but we can't make the wrong decision here or else it will affect future generations of companies who want to improve crop yields via GMO products.
- disgruntledphd2 14y ago
  You know that Ireland was a net exporter of food during the great famine, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#Food_exports http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_%28Ireland%29#Food... Famines these days tend to be more economic than agricultural.
- jrs235 14y ago
  I disagree. Monsanto's original business model was: "We have a patent on a herbicide called Round Up, if we can find a way to create seeds that result in plants resistant to our own chemical herbicide then we can sell the seeds too! If we convince farmers using our seeds and chemicals results in better yields and profits we can increase our market share of both." That was the original reason to create the modified seeds. Do you think they are researching and investing in finding seeds/plants that don't have a tie-in to their chemicals? EDIT: Their problem is that the patent on Round Up expired so we have other companies that can make and sell the herbicide generically now. Their original business model made sense and was reason enough for them to innovate and create GMO seeds. Question: Can we now say that modifying genes to make organisms resistant to certain chemicals is no longer non-intuitive?
- jrs235 14y ago
  Having a non-diverse gene pool increases the likelihood of a species getting wiped out. How does have a large majority of our food coming from the same gene pool help secure our future? If anything it puts us all at greater risk. While in the short term GMO seeds might help, in the long term it appears we are increasing unnecessary risks. Typical current day view: shortsightedness and sacrificing the future for gaining today.
- belorn 14y ago
  If we want to take a look at the big picture, lets do that then. Whats the cost-benefit of having patents on GMO seeds? Whats the increased cost to society vs disclosure of information? Patents are an barging, where the state gives a state protected monopoly in return for disclosure of information. Lets make a cost-benefit analyze and see where it points (hint, not even with imaginary numbers would patents on GMO seeds ever come up on top). > no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research What a lie. Sorry, but I am going to call it what it is. A lie or a serious form of disillusioning. If you can create a better method to farm: vegetable oils, soy, rapeseed, jatropha, mahua, mustard, flax, sunflower, palm oil, hemp, field pennycress, Pongamia pinnata, or algae, you are going to earn serious money. The military would very much like to be able to producer cheaper biofuel, as would a never ending list of companies. Corn is an other, where a better seed would easy earn you billions if sold to the highest bidder. Sure, you can't go around suing farmers who never heard of your company, but that is a good thing.

pvaldes 14y ago

Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial well... the fact is that a seed is not trivial also, and was not trivially changed in thousands of years by a lot of farmers and other people. Then you change one or a few parts in this seed and you can claim that all the "seed software" is yours. Even if you changed a single line. Maybe we need a GPL for living creatures?

cbr 14y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is the "seed software" as it existed before you is still free for all to use. The software license analogy would be BSD (any non-copyleft license).
- pvaldes 14y ago
  I wonder... if you simply don't use Roundup, the entire process shouldn't be claimed as fair use?. You are not gaining a profit on the Monsanto work, Those seeds are not provided by Monsanto and as you can not avoid to use genetically contaminated, and identical to other seeds otherwise, you should not face a trial for this.
  - bcoates 14y ago
    My understanding is that is exactly how it works in practice. Farmers aren't getting sued for accidentally having a few roundup ready plants in their field; they're getting sued for selecting for roundup ready seeds and then using roundup on their fields. That's what happened in this case: That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. In each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman treated his second- crop with glyphosate-based herbicide. Unlike his first- crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested from his second-crop for replanting additional secondcrops in later years. He also supplemented his secondcrop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of commodity seed from the grain elevator. Bowman did not attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in various correspondence with Monsanto’s representatives. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1607718.html http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1607718.html ("glyphosate" is the active ingredient in roundup, "glyphosate resistance" is the trait developed and patented by Monsanto.)

pmorici 14y ago

"I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds" Traditionally farmers would save a portion of their crop to plant for the next year. There is even a special machine that prepares seed for planting called a "seed cleaner". Enter patented GMO seed which gets planted in a field next to regular seed and is cross pollinated by nature. Now the farmer who didn't plant GMO seed has a crop that contains the GMO patented gene. So if he cleans that seed he is at risk of being sued the next year for patent infringement by monsanto. In fact they have been systematically been suing seed cleaners to to get their client lists and then sue the farmers. Since it is nearly impossible to ensure your crop hasn't been cross pollinated with a GMO crop Monsanto has essentially shut down the traditional way farmers have worked. additionally they are reportedly very aggressive in pursuing farmers and frequently trespass on their fields to take seed samples. That is why they say that they have "ruined" family farming. Food Inc. is one good documentary where this is discussed in detail among other food related issues. http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/blog/policy/monsanto-destroying-farming-communities/ http://www.slowfoodsanfrancisco.com/blog/policy/monsanto-des...

ScottBurson 14y ago
Yes. As glad as I am to see this farmer apparently have some chance of prevailing in this case, I would greatly prefer to see a Supreme Court test of the idea that a farmer whose crop was involuntarily contaminated by wind could then be sued for patent infringement. That's just nuts.
Aardwolf 14y ago
Shouldn't it be possible to sue Monsato or neighbors for polluting your field with their genetically manipulated pollen? After all, they are, without you asking for it, polluting your field with something that reduces your abilities (the ability to use your own seeds).
- amalag 14y ago
  Something similar was attempted: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/class-action-lawsuit-against-monsanto-is-dismissed/ http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/27/class-acti...

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

> The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patents. I doubt anyone without a decent lab could produce any of Monsanto's patents. Way to judge inventions based on your personal scales. So the requisite for patents is having big labs? Just because something looks simple it doesn't mean it doesn't has value, or didn't had talent and R&D behind it. Do you realize there can be research even behind something as simple as the shape of a device, because there's someone thinking how millions of people will interact with it everyday? That's the perverse thing about patents. Who has the right to judge if an invention is trivial or not.