9 ms·

I wonder if this means I can buy a product from someone that, unbeknownst to me, violates a patent, and the patent holder can come after me.

OGinparadise 13y ago
Not come after you but maybe make you stop using it.
- alyandon 13y ago
  There are no free passes like that in the US patent system as far as I'm aware. You don't have to knowingly infringe a patent to be taken to court by a patent holder and potentially held liable for patent infringement.
  - OGinparadise 13y ago
    Maybe, but they sue a few here and there to send a message, not everyone doing it.
    - alyandon 13y ago
      True, that's usually the case. However, it is still entirely up to the whim of the entity asserting a patent claim (rightly or wrongly) as to whether or not you end up with a very large legal bill. That's a huge amount of liability and personally it terrifies me.
      - OGinparadise 13y ago
        OK, that's true but in this case, he almost certainly knew what he bought, as stated on the SCOTUS ruling.
jwcooper 13y ago
I'm not a fan of patenting genes in seeds, but in this case he knew that some of the seeds he was buying contained Monsanto seeds, but figured since he was a small fish in a big pond that Monsanto wouldn't mind. In Monsanto's view, they need to protect their investments in R&D. From the article: Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. ... He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene in them, because that's mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn't think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto's seed business. 'I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind,' " he said.
- SageRaven 13y ago
  Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law: the guy at one time signed something with Monsanto stating his exclusive source of RR soybeans would be Monsanto. However, if I buy 160 acres of land, and plant that land in soybeans from a non-Monsanto granary with some RR seed in it, then how could I be culpable if I had no dealings at all with Monsanto? I am guessing a case wouldn't be a straight 9-0 SCOTUS ruling.
  - pdabbadabba 13y ago
    "Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law" Those people are wrong. Monsanto did, indeed, sue him for patent infringement, not breach of contract. The contract mentioned in the case is just his license to grow the plants from Monsanto. He was forbidden from replanting those soybeans (or other patented soybeans) by patent law because such actions exceeded the scope of his license. There is nothing at all in the opinion that refers to a contract where he agreed only to buy RR soybeans from Monsanto.
    - SageRaven 13y ago
      Point taken. But it still seems he had a direct relationship (the license). My point still stands. If I, having no relation whatsoever with Monsanto, buy random soybeans as feed, then plant them, then spray them with Roundup to weed out the non-Monsanto seeds, then save the seeds selected for resistance, I believe that the Court would not have made such an "easy" 9-0 decision, assuming they tried to sue me at all (rather than the granary or someone else). The intuitive purpose of the patent protection for RR seeds seems to be preventing a different genetic research firm from creating a similar seed and also selling "Roundup-Ready Seeds" -- not preventing some random Joe who selects some unidentified seed stock for resistance to Roundup to better his yields. The fact that we should all know there may be Monsanto seeds in the mix is (or should be) irrelevant. So it seems to me that we're still waiting for a "real" case that deals 100% with the genetics and patents.
tbrownaw 13y ago
Yes. I've heard (here, I think) of patent trolls that prefer to go after customers rather than producers of whatever is supposedly infringing, because it's easier to convince the smaller customers to settle out of court rather than fighting and getting the patents declared invalid.
jlarocco 13y ago
I don't think your question can be answered from this case. The farmer here had signed an agreement with Monsanto, and knew the second hand seeds he was buying were covered by Monsanto's patent. If the farmer had never signed an agreement with Monsanto the case may have turned out differently.

OGinparadise 13y ago

Not come after you but maybe make you stop using it.

alyandon 13y ago
There are no free passes like that in the US patent system as far as I'm aware. You don't have to knowingly infringe a patent to be taken to court by a patent holder and potentially held liable for patent infringement.
- OGinparadise 13y ago
  Maybe, but they sue a few here and there to send a message, not everyone doing it.
  - alyandon 13y ago
    True, that's usually the case. However, it is still entirely up to the whim of the entity asserting a patent claim (rightly or wrongly) as to whether or not you end up with a very large legal bill. That's a huge amount of liability and personally it terrifies me.
    - OGinparadise 13y ago
      OK, that's true but in this case, he almost certainly knew what he bought, as stated on the SCOTUS ruling.

jwcooper 13y ago

I'm not a fan of patenting genes in seeds, but in this case he knew that some of the seeds he was buying contained Monsanto seeds, but figured since he was a small fish in a big pond that Monsanto wouldn't mind. In Monsanto's view, they need to protect their investments in R&D. From the article: Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. ... He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene in them, because that's mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn't think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto's seed business. 'I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind,' " he said.

SageRaven 13y ago
Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law: the guy at one time signed something with Monsanto stating his exclusive source of RR soybeans would be Monsanto. However, if I buy 160 acres of land, and plant that land in soybeans from a non-Monsanto granary with some RR seed in it, then how could I be culpable if I had no dealings at all with Monsanto? I am guessing a case wouldn't be a straight 9-0 SCOTUS ruling.
- pdabbadabba 13y ago
  "Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law" Those people are wrong. Monsanto did, indeed, sue him for patent infringement, not breach of contract. The contract mentioned in the case is just his license to grow the plants from Monsanto. He was forbidden from replanting those soybeans (or other patented soybeans) by patent law because such actions exceeded the scope of his license. There is nothing at all in the opinion that refers to a contract where he agreed only to buy RR soybeans from Monsanto.
  - SageRaven 13y ago
    Point taken. But it still seems he had a direct relationship (the license). My point still stands. If I, having no relation whatsoever with Monsanto, buy random soybeans as feed, then plant them, then spray them with Roundup to weed out the non-Monsanto seeds, then save the seeds selected for resistance, I believe that the Court would not have made such an "easy" 9-0 decision, assuming they tried to sue me at all (rather than the granary or someone else). The intuitive purpose of the patent protection for RR seeds seems to be preventing a different genetic research firm from creating a similar seed and also selling "Roundup-Ready Seeds" -- not preventing some random Joe who selects some unidentified seed stock for resistance to Roundup to better his yields. The fact that we should all know there may be Monsanto seeds in the mix is (or should be) irrelevant. So it seems to me that we're still waiting for a "real" case that deals 100% with the genetics and patents.

tbrownaw 13y ago

Yes. I've heard (here, I think) of patent trolls that prefer to go after customers rather than producers of whatever is supposedly infringing, because it's easier to convince the smaller customers to settle out of court rather than fighting and getting the patents declared invalid.

jlarocco 13y ago

I don't think your question can be answered from this case. The farmer here had signed an agreement with Monsanto, and knew the second hand seeds he was buying were covered by Monsanto's patent. If the farmer had never signed an agreement with Monsanto the case may have turned out differently.