5 ms·

Is this question what it seems? Can gardeners really get into patent trouble from planting a seed?

mmagin 14y ago
I don't think there's been any lawsuits over small-scale non-commercial infringement, but there have definitely been lawsuits against farmers regarding the propagation of patented crops.
- mikeash 14y ago
  Note that plants aren't special in this regard. If you buy a computer or a car or a lamp or soda that contains unlicensed patented technology, then you're in violation of the patent and are theoretically liable for damages. (Note: not a lawyer, I could be wrong, etc.) This rarely comes up, because it's rarely worth going after individuals, but patent law is pretty broad. When you buy something that is legally licensed, you're covered because the manufacturer obtained a license that covered all users of the product, not just themselves.
  - ghayes 14y ago
    Also worth mentioning you may be covered by the first-sale doctrine[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
    - mikeash 14y ago
      As that page says, that's about copyright, not patents. The analogous concept for patents is "exhaustion doctrine": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine According to that page, it only applies to sales that were originally authorized. The way I read it, it means that is Ford licenses a patent for its buyers, the patent holder can't then go after buyers of used Fords, even though Ford may not have explicitly licensed used buyers. It does not, however, protect any Ford buyers, new or used, if Ford failed to license the patent at all.
  - belorn 14y ago
    A computer or a car or a lamp or soda is different from a plant because they do not propagate and create new versions of themselves. Well, maybe the soda but I am rather sure neither the car of computer can do it. Well, a 3rd printed computer could but lets just say that self-propagating patented products are legally messy things. As a consumer or business owner, there is not much one can do beyond keeping ones eye close and hope no one will sue. If they do sue, hope that the judge is a fair minded person that will consider intent and what is human possible regarding patent knowledge.
    - a_bonobo 14y ago
      >A computer or a car or a lamp or soda is different from a plant because they do not propagate Which is why Monsanto and other companies tried to introduce "terminator seeds": plants who are sterile, so they a) guarantee more profits and b) the IP becomes easier to protect. The technology hasn't been introduced because protests were too large. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds
      - belorn 14y ago
        There is nothing stopping Monsanto in selling those in the US or markets outside of India. However, in lands commonly plagued by famine, I could see the argument that terminator seeds would impose a serious security risk to the population. If for some reason the harvest fail, then the farmers is out of both money and seeds to survive for the next year. There would be nothing to fall back on. Terminator seeds would become de-facto time-bombs that are triggered during bad years, and I would understand a government depended on farming to outlaw such seed. Correction: Below commenter is right that there might be legal issues in using the seeds even outside countries that has explicitly outlawed it. My fault for just reading the sources and not the whole Wikipedia section.
        a_bonobo 14y ago
        On the legality of terminator-seeds: >Initially developed as a concept by the United States Department of Agriculture and multinational seed companies, Terminator seeds have not been commercialized anywhere in the world due to opposition from farmers, indigenous peoples, NGOs, and some governments. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity recommended a de facto moratorium on field-testing and commercial sale of terminator seeds; the moratorium was re-affirmed in 2006. India and Brazil have passed national laws to prohibit the technology. [1] How binding is a moratorium? I have no clue. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology#Opposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...
  - mistercow 14y ago
    The difference, of course, is that your neighbor's patented computer/car/lamp/soda won't spray pollen out that hits your computer/car/lamp/soda, causing it to produce little baby patent-violating computers/cars/lamps/sodas that you can be sued for. Yet exactly that can happen with crops.
    - Pitarou 14y ago
      You've just given me a horrible, horrible idea. patent trolls & viruses
charonn0 14y ago
A number of commercially farmed crops are grown using genetically modified seeds. The farmers license the seeds from the company that holds the patents to the various gene modifications (principally Monsanto.) These licenses tend to obligate the farmer to not use the seeds produced by their crops, but rather to buy a whole new bag of seeds each year. I doubt they'd go after a private gardener, but they could. Further reading: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Why-Does-Monsanto-Patent-Seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Why-Does-Monsanto-Pa... >"The first time growers purchase Monsanto seed, they sign a stewardship agreement and contract agreeing not to save and replant seeds produced from the crops they grow from Monsanto seed." --- Even further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con... http://rense.com/general38/saver.htm http://rense.com/general38/saver.htm http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-monsanto-soybean-case http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-...
- mbetter 14y ago
  If their crops are producing unlicensed copies of themselves, shouldn't Monsanto be suing the crops?
arikrak 14y ago
There's a supreme court case on this issue going on now: http://rt.com/usa/supreme-court-monsanto-patent-615/ http://rt.com/usa/supreme-court-monsanto-patent-615/ The question is how far the licensing terms reach. The software companies support Monsanto's seed claims because they don't want people pirating software.
Lazare 14y ago
Short answer: No. Long answer: The question is sparked by a recent court case where a farmer - named Bowman - purposefully used unlicensed technology on a commercial scale. If you are doing it by accident, or aren't doing it on a commercial scale, you're perfectly safe. (Some reporting in the popular press makes it sound like Bowman was unaware of his infringement or that it was an accident - a lot of people are freaking out at the idea of Monsanto suing a farmer because some patented seeds happened to be found on his property. If you read the court case, it becomes clear that nothing of the kind happened, and that if it had the case would have been thrown out.) Really, it's just like every other bit of patented tech. If you're operating a factory pumping out unlicensed Rolex watches, you've got some potential legal liability. If you bought a fake watch in Bangkok, you don't. While I personally have some very serious qualms about the patents on GM crops, the current legal situation is, honestly, pretty sane. Hobbyists are perfectly safe, as are farmers acting in good faith (ie, they plant seeds believing them to be unpatented, or their seeds are contaminated by patented seeds blown across their property line). Activists like to construct scary hypotheticals, but the truth is rather more prosaic.
- windexh8er 14y ago
  I think your first paragraph would likely be relegated to spin. While your oversimplification of the problem makes it seem acutely cut and dry the short response is: it's not that simple. Like all other constraints of life in general, I think going lax on things like a separation of an ill corporation and the direct corollary effect it poses to something nature has originally derived is treading in unknown territory. The fact that this simple question would have been laughable at best 15 years ago showcases the downward spiral into everything being a legal matter in the not so distant future. You may think this is counterproductive activism but skim the history books. Look around you and reflect on the choices that others have made to put your in your first world situation. That can quickly change if there aren't people who keep those ideals in check and balance out the corporate tendencies that often times spins out of control when left to its own device. That is a path where morals take a back seat to suits and dollars more often than not.
- cmccabe 14y ago
  > If you are doing it by accident, or aren't > doing it on a commercial scale, you're perfectly safe. Sigh. I wish people would stop repeating this. It's not true. If you infringe a patent "willfully" (i.e., you know about it, and have reason to believe it applies to you) you can be subject to triple damages. But you aren't safe just because you didn't know about the patent. And doing something "non-commercially" means little. We all know that estimates of commercial harm can be manipulated-- looking at the damages that are routinely awarded in copyright infringement cases should be enough to convince you of that.
trotsky 14y ago
Technically yes, practically no, unless you're selling the result and have previously signed a license agreement for the patent.

I don't think there's been any lawsuits over small-scale non-commercial infringement, but there have definitely been lawsuits against farmers regarding the propagation of patented crops.

mikeash 14y ago
Note that plants aren't special in this regard. If you buy a computer or a car or a lamp or soda that contains unlicensed patented technology, then you're in violation of the patent and are theoretically liable for damages. (Note: not a lawyer, I could be wrong, etc.) This rarely comes up, because it's rarely worth going after individuals, but patent law is pretty broad. When you buy something that is legally licensed, you're covered because the manufacturer obtained a license that covered all users of the product, not just themselves.
- ghayes 14y ago
  Also worth mentioning you may be covered by the first-sale doctrine[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
  - mikeash 14y ago
    As that page says, that's about copyright, not patents. The analogous concept for patents is "exhaustion doctrine": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine According to that page, it only applies to sales that were originally authorized. The way I read it, it means that is Ford licenses a patent for its buyers, the patent holder can't then go after buyers of used Fords, even though Ford may not have explicitly licensed used buyers. It does not, however, protect any Ford buyers, new or used, if Ford failed to license the patent at all.
- belorn 14y ago
  A computer or a car or a lamp or soda is different from a plant because they do not propagate and create new versions of themselves. Well, maybe the soda but I am rather sure neither the car of computer can do it. Well, a 3rd printed computer could but lets just say that self-propagating patented products are legally messy things. As a consumer or business owner, there is not much one can do beyond keeping ones eye close and hope no one will sue. If they do sue, hope that the judge is a fair minded person that will consider intent and what is human possible regarding patent knowledge.
  - a_bonobo 14y ago
    >A computer or a car or a lamp or soda is different from a plant because they do not propagate Which is why Monsanto and other companies tried to introduce "terminator seeds": plants who are sterile, so they a) guarantee more profits and b) the IP becomes easier to protect. The technology hasn't been introduced because protests were too large. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Terminator_seeds
    - belorn 14y ago
      There is nothing stopping Monsanto in selling those in the US or markets outside of India. However, in lands commonly plagued by famine, I could see the argument that terminator seeds would impose a serious security risk to the population. If for some reason the harvest fail, then the farmers is out of both money and seeds to survive for the next year. There would be nothing to fall back on. Terminator seeds would become de-facto time-bombs that are triggered during bad years, and I would understand a government depended on farming to outlaw such seed. Correction: Below commenter is right that there might be legal issues in using the seeds even outside countries that has explicitly outlawed it. My fault for just reading the sources and not the whole Wikipedia section.
      - a_bonobo 14y ago
        On the legality of terminator-seeds: >Initially developed as a concept by the United States Department of Agriculture and multinational seed companies, Terminator seeds have not been commercialized anywhere in the world due to opposition from farmers, indigenous peoples, NGOs, and some governments. In 2000, the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity recommended a de facto moratorium on field-testing and commercial sale of terminator seeds; the moratorium was re-affirmed in 2006. India and Brazil have passed national laws to prohibit the technology. [1] How binding is a moratorium? I have no clue. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology#Opposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technol...
- mistercow 14y ago
  The difference, of course, is that your neighbor's patented computer/car/lamp/soda won't spray pollen out that hits your computer/car/lamp/soda, causing it to produce little baby patent-violating computers/cars/lamps/sodas that you can be sued for. Yet exactly that can happen with crops.
  - Pitarou 14y ago
    You've just given me a horrible, horrible idea. patent trolls & viruses

charonn0 14y ago

A number of commercially farmed crops are grown using genetically modified seeds. The farmers license the seeds from the company that holds the patents to the various gene modifications (principally Monsanto.) These licenses tend to obligate the farmer to not use the seeds produced by their crops, but rather to buy a whole new bag of seeds each year. I doubt they'd go after a private gardener, but they could. Further reading: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Why-Does-Monsanto-Patent-Seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/Why-Does-Monsanto-Pa... >"The first time growers purchase Monsanto seed, they sign a stewardship agreement and contract agreeing not to save and replant seeds produced from the crops they grow from Monsanto seed." --- Even further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Legal_actions_and_con... http://rense.com/general38/saver.htm http://rense.com/general38/saver.htm http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-monsanto-soybean-case http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/scotus-hears-...

mbetter 14y ago
If their crops are producing unlicensed copies of themselves, shouldn't Monsanto be suing the crops?

arikrak 14y ago

There's a supreme court case on this issue going on now: http://rt.com/usa/supreme-court-monsanto-patent-615/ http://rt.com/usa/supreme-court-monsanto-patent-615/ The question is how far the licensing terms reach. The software companies support Monsanto's seed claims because they don't want people pirating software.

Lazare 14y ago

Short answer: No. Long answer: The question is sparked by a recent court case where a farmer - named Bowman - purposefully used unlicensed technology on a commercial scale. If you are doing it by accident, or aren't doing it on a commercial scale, you're perfectly safe. (Some reporting in the popular press makes it sound like Bowman was unaware of his infringement or that it was an accident - a lot of people are freaking out at the idea of Monsanto suing a farmer because some patented seeds happened to be found on his property. If you read the court case, it becomes clear that nothing of the kind happened, and that if it had the case would have been thrown out.) Really, it's just like every other bit of patented tech. If you're operating a factory pumping out unlicensed Rolex watches, you've got some potential legal liability. If you bought a fake watch in Bangkok, you don't. While I personally have some very serious qualms about the patents on GM crops, the current legal situation is, honestly, pretty sane. Hobbyists are perfectly safe, as are farmers acting in good faith (ie, they plant seeds believing them to be unpatented, or their seeds are contaminated by patented seeds blown across their property line). Activists like to construct scary hypotheticals, but the truth is rather more prosaic.

windexh8er 14y ago
I think your first paragraph would likely be relegated to spin. While your oversimplification of the problem makes it seem acutely cut and dry the short response is: it's not that simple. Like all other constraints of life in general, I think going lax on things like a separation of an ill corporation and the direct corollary effect it poses to something nature has originally derived is treading in unknown territory. The fact that this simple question would have been laughable at best 15 years ago showcases the downward spiral into everything being a legal matter in the not so distant future. You may think this is counterproductive activism but skim the history books. Look around you and reflect on the choices that others have made to put your in your first world situation. That can quickly change if there aren't people who keep those ideals in check and balance out the corporate tendencies that often times spins out of control when left to its own device. That is a path where morals take a back seat to suits and dollars more often than not.
cmccabe 14y ago
> If you are doing it by accident, or aren't > doing it on a commercial scale, you're perfectly safe. Sigh. I wish people would stop repeating this. It's not true. If you infringe a patent "willfully" (i.e., you know about it, and have reason to believe it applies to you) you can be subject to triple damages. But you aren't safe just because you didn't know about the patent. And doing something "non-commercially" means little. We all know that estimates of commercial harm can be manipulated-- looking at the damages that are routinely awarded in copyright infringement cases should be enough to convince you of that.

trotsky 14y ago

Technically yes, practically no, unless you're selling the result and have previously signed a license agreement for the patent.