5 ms·

> It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that Schmeiser had

by gergles 13y ago

> It's also very tiresome to have Percy Schmeiser trotted out over and over again. What's not mentioned here is that it came out in the trial that Schmeiser had very deliberately infringed the patent by using Roundup to select the Roundup-Ready plants, saving their seed and planting them separately. Schmeiser made a very good job of rousing the media in his support, but he definitively broke the law. I'm sorry you find his story inconvenient to your Monsanto cheerleading, but I (and I feel many others) don't think this should have violated any law. Someone contaminated his property with Roundup-Ready canola. He chose to take advantage of that, isolate it, and replant it. He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. The idea that a patent can exist on a lifeform is utter nonsense to me; I think a lot of the outrage comes in discovering that Monsanto's patent is on the actual lifeforms themselves, not on the process for turning a regular seed into a roundup-ready seed.

tptacek 13y ago
Just to be clear: glyphosphate pesticides (Roundup) kill normal crops. Roundup-Ready plants resist Roundup. If you treat a normal crop with Roundup, you kill the crop. You would only do that knowing that the crop germinated from patented, Roundup-Ready seeds. You can't do it by accident. That's what Schmeiser did: he was sued by Monsanto not for planting unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds, but for using Roundup on them. It's also worth mentioning that the court did not find credible Schmeiser's claim that his original run of Roundup-Ready seeds were the product of accidental contamination --- upon determining that he was germinating Roundup-Ready plants, Schmeiser applied Roundup to the whole field, and 60% of the field survived. Furthermore, upon learning that he had a field consisting entirely of Roundup-Ready plants, he proceeded preserve and reuse the whole crop for future plantings.
- dionidium 13y ago
  We've actually discussed this on here before and I still don't understand how you've concluded that he was sued for using Roundup. From Wikipedia [0]: "The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells." And: "Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally" He was sued for using their seeds. It has nothing to do with whether or not he applied Roundup. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
  - dionidium 13y ago
    Just to preempt, I acknowledge that this language is odd: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." However, I don't think you can conclude that "use" arises when Roundup is applied. "Use" in this context is broader than that.
    - jjoonathan 13y ago
      I can't find the citation right now, but last time I looked into this case I found that the court intended to set an explicit precedent that accidentally planting Roundup-ready plants does not constitute "use" of the patented gene ("use" happens when you use Roundup to select for Roundup-resistant plants). The language is not odd when considered in the context of setting such a precedent.
  - randomdata 13y ago
    Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle? As I understand it, he was sued after purposefully isolating cross-poniated plants (presumably by using roundup) and using them to regrow his crop the following season.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    The court determined that he sprayed the crop with Roundup, and also determined that Monsanto's patent applied regardless of whether Roundup was used, mooting one argument in the trial. If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it.
    - dionidium 13y ago
      If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it. I doubt such a case exists, but that doubt is based on my belief that Monsanto isn't as aggressive as they're often characterized, not on the necessity of that component in the case.
jjoonathan 13y ago
> I'm sorry you find his story inconvenient to your Monsanto cheerleading It's hardly "inconvenient." Not only was he guilty of A) acknowledging Monsanto's value-addition by isolating the seeds and B) using but not paying for that value-addition, but he then went on a media tour to cash in on the Monsanto hate by lying repeatedly about the case to cast himself in a positive light. And then he used the media attention as a springboard for his political career. He's a scumbag, which is hardly "inconvenient" for people who don't hate Monsanto. > I (and I feel many others) don't think this should have violated any law. How do you propose to allow those who engineered the value-addition to capture a share of the societal benefit they created? > The idea that a patent can exist on a lifeform is utter nonsense They didn't patent the lifeform, they patented value-adding modifications to the life-form. If you spent the time and effort to remove Monsanto's additions, the life-form would no longer be patent-encumbered. The idea that they were patenting a lifeform is utter nonsense.
- mcv 13y ago
  > They didn't patent the lifeform, they patented value-adding modifications to the life-form. If you spent the time and effort to remove Monsanto's additions, the life-form would no longer be patent-encumbered. The idea that they were patenting a lifeform is utter nonsense. They still enforced that patent on the lifeform itself, not just on the modification. The point of a patent is to restrict the reproduction of your invention. The point of a lifeform is that it reproduces itself. Putting your patented thing in something that reproduces itself, means you are releasing control over the reproduction of the thing you patented. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing a gene patent should protect is taking the patented genes and putting them in a lifeform. Not the reproduction of the lifeform itself, since that is an automatic thing, inherent to life itself.
- manicdee 13y ago
  We certainly need a better system than patents on genes to allow people to pursue genetic engineering for the sake of money. This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products: in fact they are a net detriment to society since the continual use of glyphosate will select for Roundup resistant weeds. Then there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply. You can put away your pom-poms and the "all Monstanto haters are liars" cheer line, and come join the rational debate. If GMOs cause my non-GM crops to be contaminated with GM genes, who owns my crops? More importantly, who pays for the cleanup when the value I offer to my customers is crops free of GMOs? If a GM wind- or bee-pollinated crop is planted within a few kilometres of my crop without my permission, who owns the genes that get transferred to my crops due to cross-pollination? Don't trot out the canard of "societal benefit" when the only people who actually benefit from GMOs are the companies who own the patents and manufacture the herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers that the GMO crops depend on.
Blahah 13y ago
I am in no way a Monsanto cheerleader, I would very much like them to disappear completely so I could get on with my career. As it is, they are so thoroughly hated that every plant biologist is tarnished if they so much as attend a conference where Monsanto have a stall. I have to be extremely careful not to interact with Monsanto, and it's really quite annoying. If they could just handle their own PR properly I could spend more time doing my job and less time correcting poor genetics education on the internet. > He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. That's not how the law works. I never agreed with anyone not to commit murder or (more relevant) not to pirate music. But I can still be prosecuted for it. And if I have a problem with that, it's the law that I have a problem with, not the people who made the music.
- manicdee 13y ago
  Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Whether or not a farmer encourages a particular seed to grow, the seeds would have sprouted and grown of their own accord. That is the fundamental difference between copyright violation and gene patent violation.
  - Blahah 13y ago
    That is not the difference. If a farmer doesn't knowingly violate, he will not be prosecuted. Having read a large number of court summaries from Monsanto cases, I haven't yet found one where they brought a case against someone who was simply dealing with accidental contamination. If copyright infringing files were to end up on my computer by genuine accident, I would not be prosecuted for copyright infringement. For example, if I downloaded a zip file that was supposed to contain an album that I had paid for, but also accidentally contained an extra mp3 of a file I hadn't paid for, no court would find me in violation of copyright law. There has to be intent, which nullifies the argument that it matters that seed self-replicates.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    > Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Plants may grow, but fields of plants don't spray Roundup all over themselves either.
coin 13y ago
> Someone contaminated his property with Roundup-Ready canola. He chose to take advantage of that, isolate it, and replant it. He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. An analogous situation is someone tosses a movie DVD on your yard. You take that DVD, make thousands of copies, and then profit from them.
- hyperpape 13y ago
  Someone tosses a patented DVD seed into your patch of DVD plants, and it grows there. You see that it's a good DVD plant, so you replant it. Someone claims you can't do that, even though it's a DVD seed that grew from a DVD plant that grew on your land, and you never signed any kind of agreement not to do that. Analogies are hard!

by gergles 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

Just to be clear: glyphosphate pesticides (Roundup) kill normal crops. Roundup-Ready plants resist Roundup. If you treat a normal crop with Roundup, you kill the crop. You would only do that knowing that the crop germinated from patented, Roundup-Ready seeds. You can't do it by accident. That's what Schmeiser did: he was sued by Monsanto not for planting unlicensed Roundup-Ready seeds, but for using Roundup on them. It's also worth mentioning that the court did not find credible Schmeiser's claim that his original run of Roundup-Ready seeds were the product of accidental contamination --- upon determining that he was germinating Roundup-Ready plants, Schmeiser applied Roundup to the whole field, and 60% of the field survived. Furthermore, upon learning that he had a field consisting entirely of Roundup-Ready plants, he proceeded preserve and reuse the whole crop for future plantings.

dionidium 13y ago
We've actually discussed this on here before and I still don't understand how you've concluded that he was sued for using Roundup. From Wikipedia [0]: "The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells." And: "Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally" He was sued for using their seeds. It has nothing to do with whether or not he applied Roundup. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
- dionidium 13y ago
  Just to preempt, I acknowledge that this language is odd: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." However, I don't think you can conclude that "use" arises when Roundup is applied. "Use" in this context is broader than that.
  - jjoonathan 13y ago
    I can't find the citation right now, but last time I looked into this case I found that the court intended to set an explicit precedent that accidentally planting Roundup-ready plants does not constitute "use" of the patented gene ("use" happens when you use Roundup to select for Roundup-resistant plants). The language is not odd when considered in the context of setting such a precedent.
- randomdata 13y ago
  Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle? As I understand it, he was sued after purposefully isolating cross-poniated plants (presumably by using roundup) and using them to regrow his crop the following season.
- tptacek 13y ago
  The court determined that he sprayed the crop with Roundup, and also determined that Monsanto's patent applied regardless of whether Roundup was used, mooting one argument in the trial. If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it.
  - dionidium 13y ago
    If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it. I doubt such a case exists, but that doubt is based on my belief that Monsanto isn't as aggressive as they're often characterized, not on the necessity of that component in the case.

jjoonathan 13y ago

> I'm sorry you find his story inconvenient to your Monsanto cheerleading It's hardly "inconvenient." Not only was he guilty of A) acknowledging Monsanto's value-addition by isolating the seeds and B) using but not paying for that value-addition, but he then went on a media tour to cash in on the Monsanto hate by lying repeatedly about the case to cast himself in a positive light. And then he used the media attention as a springboard for his political career. He's a scumbag, which is hardly "inconvenient" for people who don't hate Monsanto. > I (and I feel many others) don't think this should have violated any law. How do you propose to allow those who engineered the value-addition to capture a share of the societal benefit they created? > The idea that a patent can exist on a lifeform is utter nonsense They didn't patent the lifeform, they patented value-adding modifications to the life-form. If you spent the time and effort to remove Monsanto's additions, the life-form would no longer be patent-encumbered. The idea that they were patenting a lifeform is utter nonsense.

mcv 13y ago
> They didn't patent the lifeform, they patented value-adding modifications to the life-form. If you spent the time and effort to remove Monsanto's additions, the life-form would no longer be patent-encumbered. The idea that they were patenting a lifeform is utter nonsense. They still enforced that patent on the lifeform itself, not just on the modification. The point of a patent is to restrict the reproduction of your invention. The point of a lifeform is that it reproduces itself. Putting your patented thing in something that reproduces itself, means you are releasing control over the reproduction of the thing you patented. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing a gene patent should protect is taking the patented genes and putting them in a lifeform. Not the reproduction of the lifeform itself, since that is an automatic thing, inherent to life itself.
manicdee 13y ago
We certainly need a better system than patents on genes to allow people to pursue genetic engineering for the sake of money. This is not about "societal benefit". Nobody but Monsanto benefits from Roundup Ready products: in fact they are a net detriment to society since the continual use of glyphosate will select for Roundup resistant weeds. Then there's the issue of residual glyphosate in our food supply. You can put away your pom-poms and the "all Monstanto haters are liars" cheer line, and come join the rational debate. If GMOs cause my non-GM crops to be contaminated with GM genes, who owns my crops? More importantly, who pays for the cleanup when the value I offer to my customers is crops free of GMOs? If a GM wind- or bee-pollinated crop is planted within a few kilometres of my crop without my permission, who owns the genes that get transferred to my crops due to cross-pollination? Don't trot out the canard of "societal benefit" when the only people who actually benefit from GMOs are the companies who own the patents and manufacture the herbicides, pesticides and fertilisers that the GMO crops depend on.

Blahah 13y ago

I am in no way a Monsanto cheerleader, I would very much like them to disappear completely so I could get on with my career. As it is, they are so thoroughly hated that every plant biologist is tarnished if they so much as attend a conference where Monsanto have a stall. I have to be extremely careful not to interact with Monsanto, and it's really quite annoying. If they could just handle their own PR properly I could spend more time doing my job and less time correcting poor genetics education on the internet. > He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. That's not how the law works. I never agreed with anyone not to commit murder or (more relevant) not to pirate music. But I can still be prosecuted for it. And if I have a problem with that, it's the law that I have a problem with, not the people who made the music.

manicdee 13y ago
Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Whether or not a farmer encourages a particular seed to grow, the seeds would have sprouted and grown of their own accord. That is the fundamental difference between copyright violation and gene patent violation.
- Blahah 13y ago
  That is not the difference. If a farmer doesn't knowingly violate, he will not be prosecuted. Having read a large number of court summaries from Monsanto cases, I haven't yet found one where they brought a case against someone who was simply dealing with accidental contamination. If copyright infringing files were to end up on my computer by genuine accident, I would not be prosecuted for copyright infringement. For example, if I downloaded a zip file that was supposed to contain an album that I had paid for, but also accidentally contained an extra mp3 of a file I hadn't paid for, no court would find me in violation of copyright law. There has to be intent, which nullifies the argument that it matters that seed self-replicates.
- mpyne 13y ago
  > Murder doesn't commit itself, copyright violation doesn't commit itself. Plants to seed and grow by themselves, without any outside help. Plants may grow, but fields of plants don't spray Roundup all over themselves either.

coin 13y ago

> Someone contaminated his property with Roundup-Ready canola. He chose to take advantage of that, isolate it, and replant it. He never agreed with anybody to not do this, or signed contracts to control what he does with what ends up on his property. An analogous situation is someone tosses a movie DVD on your yard. You take that DVD, make thousands of copies, and then profit from them.

hyperpape 13y ago
Someone tosses a patented DVD seed into your patch of DVD plants, and it grows there. You see that it's a good DVD plant, so you replant it. Someone claims you can't do that, even though it's a DVD seed that grew from a DVD plant that grew on your land, and you never signed any kind of agreement not to do that. Analogies are hard!