6 ms·

It's easy for the farmers to stay out of Monsanto's way - don't use Monsanto seeds, stick to the seeds they have used before Monsanto came about. A law reservi

by DenisM 12y ago

It's easy for the farmers to stay out of Monsanto's way - don't use Monsanto seeds, stick to the seeds they have used before Monsanto came about. A law reserving proliferation of GM seeds to inventors is no different than law preserving copyright in software. How can one support the latter and oppose the former?

unethical_ban 12y ago
Until you cross-pollinate with Monsanto's seeds on accident, and they sue you for IP infringement.
- hga 12y ago
  Can you dig up any cases where this has actually happened, where the farmer hadn't previously signed a contract with Monsanto WRT to those very seeds? Last time I saw a discussion about this on HN, perhaps a year or more ago, no one could. Per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff): While many lawsuits involve breach of Monsanto's Technology Agreement, farmers who have not signed this type of contract, but do use the patented seed, can also be found liable for violating Monsanto's patent. That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means." The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents. The closest you can come to that is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser in Canada of course; in this case he selected for Roundup Ready plants, like we discussed in the recent antibiotic resistance discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8852487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8852487) which is not an innocent accident. The end of the Wikipedia Monsanto article notes: "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘...none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    Let's for the moment assume that Monsanto sticks to its promise and will not sue farmers that have 'slight' (however that is defined) presence of the GMO within their otherwise normal crop. If they use roundup (which farmers tend to do, roundup use preceded roundup ready crops by decades) and the GMO is more resistant to roundup than the regular crop it stands to reason that if the farmer simply saves seed from each crop and replants the next year that after a few cycles the percentage of GMO within that population will no longer be slight. Seems like a long term problem to me.
    - skosuri 12y ago
      What? Why would a farmer spray roundup on their crop that's mostly not Roundup resistant? That makes no sense; it makes even less sense to do this season after season.
      - hga 12y ago
        It would, in fact, result in so few survivors, unless of course started out in low concentrations, that it would be evidence of mens rea. As long as Monsanto is restricting their legal actions to those with "the intending mind", I'm not worried.
        jacquesm 12y ago
        Roundup resistant crops are much more recent than widespread use of roundup.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Farmers have been using roundup long before roundup resistant crops came along. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
        skosuri 12y ago
        Yes I know, but not to do what you are implying. Specifically, why would farmers spray their non-GMO corn, soybean, canola, etc with Roundup? It would kill most of their crop/harvest.
- BillinghamJ 12y ago
  And from what I hear, this happens a LOT.
  - hga 12y ago
    If you hear such, you should be able to provide more than one case like Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (see my other comment in this subthread), which is the closest I've ever heard. Monsanto is not stupid.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      The answer to that question is here: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... In a nutshell, most farmers settle rather than that they go to court. Either because they know they're in the wrong or because they can't afford to take on a corporation the size of Monsanto.
      - hga 12y ago
        Indeed. The relevant language: When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us.... A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. That's because a lawsuit will be a slam dunk loss for the farmer. As every lawsuit actually filed has turned out to be. When you sign the contract, you are bound by its terms, you won't be able to get away with claiming ignorance afterwords. I'm curious, you feel very strongly about this. Do you have any farming background? Parents raised on farms? Grew up in a farming region?
        jacquesm 12y ago
        > I'm curious, you feel very strongly about this. Do you have any farming background? Parents raised on farms? Grew up in a farming region? I live in a farming region right now. But that has very little bearing on this, I simply think that there is something inherently wrong about copyright and/or patents on genetic sequences and/or organisms. Several of my close relationships are hip-deep in this subject both on the 'pro' and the 'con' side and my viewpoint is the result of lots of conversations and reading. I feel strongly about it because GMO could be (and possibly will be, see the C4 rice project) a huge benefit but we're actually using them on the international stage as a way to keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us in a way that they can't really refuse and we'll bribe our way there if we have to. See Shell in Africa, Bechtel in Latin America (and Monsanto too for that matter) and so on. It's the new colonialism, now 'roundup ready'.
jacquesm 12y ago
Please read the article. It's about laws specifically created to stop farmers from saving seeds so they'll have to buy them from 'approved' sources.
- dionidium 12y ago
  I read the article. I think it's being deliberately obfuscatory. It did not make clear whether the restrictions would apply to all seeds, to a particular group of banked sends, or specifically to GMOs purchased with this provision already in the contract. I suspect the reason they're waxing ambiguous is that it's the latter of that list and they want to make it sound more nefarious than it is.
- shoyer 12y ago
  Really? The article talks about what external parties think about why these laws are being written, but doesn't any provide any direct evidence. And none of those even talk about "approved" sources.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
venomsnake 12y ago
Yeah ... I love having the food security of my nation depending on a lawsuit and binding arbitrage against a corporation that has bigger GDP than that of my country. And lets not get into first sale doctrine, resale and seeds bought in good faith. Well ... do viruses have copyright? Because they are the only self replicating software I can think of. Can you link to some legal cases?

by DenisM 12y ago

unethical_ban 12y ago

Until you cross-pollinate with Monsanto's seeds on accident, and they sue you for IP infringement.

hga 12y ago
Can you dig up any cases where this has actually happened, where the farmer hadn't previously signed a contract with Monsanto WRT to those very seeds? Last time I saw a discussion about this on HN, perhaps a year or more ago, no one could. Per Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff): While many lawsuits involve breach of Monsanto's Technology Agreement, farmers who have not signed this type of contract, but do use the patented seed, can also be found liable for violating Monsanto's patent. That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means." The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents. The closest you can come to that is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser in Canada of course; in this case he selected for Roundup Ready plants, like we discussed in the recent antibiotic resistance discussion (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8852487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8852487) which is not an innocent accident. The end of the Wikipedia Monsanto article notes: "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘...none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" – in other words, the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was indeed inadvertent, but the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Let's for the moment assume that Monsanto sticks to its promise and will not sue farmers that have 'slight' (however that is defined) presence of the GMO within their otherwise normal crop. If they use roundup (which farmers tend to do, roundup use preceded roundup ready crops by decades) and the GMO is more resistant to roundup than the regular crop it stands to reason that if the farmer simply saves seed from each crop and replants the next year that after a few cycles the percentage of GMO within that population will no longer be slight. Seems like a long term problem to me.
  - skosuri 12y ago
    What? Why would a farmer spray roundup on their crop that's mostly not Roundup resistant? That makes no sense; it makes even less sense to do this season after season.
    - hga 12y ago
      It would, in fact, result in so few survivors, unless of course started out in low concentrations, that it would be evidence of mens rea. As long as Monsanto is restricting their legal actions to those with "the intending mind", I'm not worried.
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        Roundup resistant crops are much more recent than widespread use of roundup.
    - jacquesm 12y ago
      Farmers have been using roundup long before roundup resistant crops came along. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
      - skosuri 12y ago
        Yes I know, but not to do what you are implying. Specifically, why would farmers spray their non-GMO corn, soybean, canola, etc with Roundup? It would kill most of their crop/harvest.
BillinghamJ 12y ago
And from what I hear, this happens a LOT.
- hga 12y ago
  If you hear such, you should be able to provide more than one case like Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (see my other comment in this subthread), which is the closest I've ever heard. Monsanto is not stupid.
  - jacquesm 12y ago
    The answer to that question is here: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-sue-farmers-who-save-seeds.aspx http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/why-does-monsanto-su... In a nutshell, most farmers settle rather than that they go to court. Either because they know they're in the wrong or because they can't afford to take on a corporation the size of Monsanto.
    - hga 12y ago
      Indeed. The relevant language: When farmers purchase a patented seed variety, they sign an agreement that they will not save and replant seeds produced from the seed they buy from us.... A very small percentage of farmers do not honor this agreement. Monsanto does become aware, through our own actions or through third-parties, of individuals who are suspected of violating our patents and agreements. Where we do find violations, we are able to settle most of these cases without ever going to trial. That's because a lawsuit will be a slam dunk loss for the farmer. As every lawsuit actually filed has turned out to be. When you sign the contract, you are bound by its terms, you won't be able to get away with claiming ignorance afterwords. I'm curious, you feel very strongly about this. Do you have any farming background? Parents raised on farms? Grew up in a farming region?
      - jacquesm 12y ago
        > I'm curious, you feel very strongly about this. Do you have any farming background? Parents raised on farms? Grew up in a farming region? I live in a farming region right now. But that has very little bearing on this, I simply think that there is something inherently wrong about copyright and/or patents on genetic sequences and/or organisms. Several of my close relationships are hip-deep in this subject both on the 'pro' and the 'con' side and my viewpoint is the result of lots of conversations and reading. I feel strongly about it because GMO could be (and possibly will be, see the C4 rice project) a huge benefit but we're actually using them on the international stage as a way to keep the third world under our heel and beholden to us in a way that they can't really refuse and we'll bribe our way there if we have to. See Shell in Africa, Bechtel in Latin America (and Monsanto too for that matter) and so on. It's the new colonialism, now 'roundup ready'.

jacquesm 12y ago

Please read the article. It's about laws specifically created to stop farmers from saving seeds so they'll have to buy them from 'approved' sources.

dionidium 12y ago
I read the article. I think it's being deliberately obfuscatory. It did not make clear whether the restrictions would apply to all seeds, to a particular group of banked sends, or specifically to GMOs purchased with this provision already in the contract. I suspect the reason they're waxing ambiguous is that it's the latter of that list and they want to make it sound more nefarious than it is.
shoyer 12y ago
Really? The article talks about what external parties think about why these laws are being written, but doesn't any provide any direct evidence. And none of those even talk about "approved" sources.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

venomsnake 12y ago

Yeah ... I love having the food security of my nation depending on a lawsuit and binding arbitrage against a corporation that has bigger GDP than that of my country. And lets not get into first sale doctrine, resale and seeds bought in good faith. Well ... do viruses have copyright? Because they are the only self replicating software I can think of. Can you link to some legal cases?