The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of biotech giant Monsanto, ordering Indiana farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, to pay Monsanto more than $84,000 for patent infringement for using second generation Monsanto seeds purchased second hand—a ruling which will have broad implications for the ownership of 'life' and farmers' rights in the future.

In the case, Bowman had purchased soybean seeds from a grain elevator—where seeds are cheaper than freshly engineered Monsanto GE (genetically engineered) seeds and typically used for animal feed rather than for crops. The sources of the seeds Bowman purchased were mixed and were not labeled. However, some were "Roundup Ready" patented Monsanto seeds.

The Supreme Court Justices, who gave Monsanto a warm reception from the start, ruled that Bowman had broken the law because he planted seeds which naturally yielded from the original patented seed products—Monsanto's policies prohibit farmers from saving or reusing seeds from Monsanto born crops.

Farmers who use Monsanto's seeds are forced to buy the high priced new seeds every year.

Ahead of the expected ruling, Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), asked in an op-ed earlier this year, "Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?":

Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life' | Common Dreams

__________________
You're a daisy if you do.
__________________________________
84 Euro 240D 4spd. 220.5k sold
04 Honda Element AWD
1985 F150 XLT 4x4, 351W with 270k miles, hay hauler
1997 Suzuki Sidekick 4x4
1993 Toyota 4wd Pickup 226K and counting

The only statement above that I take issue with is, "Farmers who use Monsanto's seeds are forced to buy the high priced new seeds every year."

Though factually correct, it implies that farmers have no alternative to Monsanto. Clearly, a farmer can buy seeds from whomever is willing to sell, given whatever restrictions the retailer may require.

Also, did the farmer know that the seeds contained Monsanto's patent? If he did, then he knowingly broke the law.

Is the law bad? I think so. But that is a separate issue to be brought before the appropriate deliberative body -- Congress.

How many unanimous decisions from the justices this term?

Farmer's aren't "forced" to buy Monsanto seeds, are they? Of course not, they can easily obtain "legacy" seeds from sources around the country.

If Monsanto was serious about protecting against people using second generation seed they would simply make their original seed hybrid ~ only fertile for one generation. It has been done previously. Monsanto are more interested in making $$$$$$$$$ from litigation !

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

$84,000 cant be much of a profit going all the way to the supreme court

I wonder what the evidence consisted of and how he ended up in a lawsuit to begin with. How did anyone know what he planted?

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

They would have got legal costs as well

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

They just do tests on his produce when he sells it. If it has the gene he is in trouble. Strange thing is, if you plant a crop of non Monsanto seed next to a crop of Monsanto stuff you will probably be in trouble from the cross pollination.

__________________
Grumpy Old Diesel Owners Club group

I no longer question authority, I annoy authority. More effect, less effort....

1967 230-6 auto parts car. rust bucket.
1980 300D now parts car 800k miles
1984 300D 500k miles
1987 250td 160k miles English import
2001 jeep turbo diesel 130k miles
1998 jeep tdi ~ followed me home. Needs a turbo.
1968 Ford F750 truck. 6-354 diesel conversion.
Other toys ~J.D.,Cat & GM ~ mainly earth moving

Probably not. All one would have to do is prove that the seed came from one's own field. Open pollination is not under the farmer's (or Monsanto's) control.

Indeed, perhaps the farmer might consider suing Monsanto for contaminating his pristine natural homeopathic, macrobiotic, organic soya with the dreaded GM genes, ruining his chances for selling to consumers who dread GM products and prefer nature's pure bounty.

or probably not, not.
Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers - CBS News

Organic Farmers Lose Right to Protect Crops | Rodale News

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

In the first instance Monsanto dropped its suit.

the second link took me to a list of articles. Is there one in particular or is this a sort of shotgun approach?

FWIW, I generally agree with or at least sympathize with, and hope to follow "Organic Gardening" (Rodale Press).

People who aren't farmers really shouldn't comment about things they know little of. If this if indicative of other topics around here then most of what I read here is pure opinion and speculation. Of course, I kind of knew that anyway.

Monsanto makes a lot of money from selling their products. Like anything with a copyright or patent, they protect it. I buy RR seed each year not only because I have to but also because it's better seed. Part of the program involves better yield potential or I wouldn't use it.
I could use non RR ready seed and use herbicides that aren't as effective as Roundup. The diference in cost between RR seed and the chemicals needed to kill weeds in non RR beans is very close to the same. ( the patent on Roundup has expired and it's really cheap now ) If these sprays don't work, then conventional cost more. Also, some herbicides don't fit into a no-till program and require the fields to be prepared so the spray can be worked into the soil. Since there are many different types of sprays, it's not that easy to predict which ones will work properly due to dry or wet weather. Roundup generally works over a wider window of application on a wider selection of weeds. There is also no carry over when considering sensive crops such as sugar beets or tomatos.

Do I like the program? No, but I'm used to it and there's enough benifit that it's not a big deal any more. Anyone growing corn understands hybred seed. Monsanto was going to install a terminator gene into their seed but I'm pretty sure that was blocked early on.

As for the guy that got caught....... I'm sure he sprayed Roundup on his crop, which is how it usually happens. It's not hard to tell conventional fields from RR - just look for weeds.

with custom e-tape grip....

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Infringement of patents and copyrights is not a criminal offense. A patent is only a method to allow the holder to sue. The holder must prove damages which could include lost sales of the patented product. If the patent holder does not sue, no law has been broken.

I seem to recall when this first came up that people were worried about selling ANYTHING second hand would give the original manufacturer some windfall benefits.

__________________
MB-less

But that would interfere with Monsanto's monopoly on injury regarding their seed.

__________________
1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K