(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Supreme Court to hear seed case

J

JerryS

Well-known Member
I'm not a farmer, so I don't have a dog in this fight-----not even an opinion. I am curious to see how you guys come down on the issue, however.

I read today that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning an Indiana farmer who has been saving Roundup Ready soybeans from his harvest and planting them the next year. He has apparently been doing this for several years. Monsanto says it's a clear violation of whatever patent restrictions they impose on such second-generation re-use.

I don't know enough about it to comment. Any opinions?
 
(quoted from post at 21:02:04 10/07/12) I'm not a farmer, so I don't have a dog in this fight-----not even an opinion. I am curious to see how you guys come down on the issue, however.

I read today that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case concerning an Indiana farmer who has been saving Roundup Ready soybeans from his harvest and planting them the next year. He has apparently been doing this for several years. Monsanto says it's a clear violation of whatever patent restrictions they impose on such second-generation re-use.

I don't know enough about it to comment. Any opinions?
Click to expand...

Unless that Indiana farmer was reselling the soybeans to be used as seed beans, I don't see where any patents have been infringed upon, and I think Monsanto will lose.
 
I am pretty sure that you have to sign a contract saying you will not do that.. There have been other cases like that where monsanto has one.
 
The contract you sign when you buy RR seeds specifically prohibits keeping your own seed. The farmer will lose unless the supreme court makes new law, which they have been known to do.
 
This is a pretty interesting case. The farmer bought the beans from a local elevator and planted them (it doesn't say if he knew they were Roundup resistant but I assume he did).

So I'm guessing Monsanto's contract/policy might not apply?

The big question (which the external_link administration seems to want to avoid answering since they asked the Court not to review this case) is whether Monsanto can patent the DNA of genetically modified beans.
 
Im with MN Scott..The company has won ever case here in state court. When you purchase or use the RR seed you agree not to use the product for seed. I fully suport the use of the RR products. Monsanto developed it and need to be protected.
In normal times I would say Monsanto would prevail but with things like they are now who knows..
 
In the end, it doesn't matter what any of us think. The only person or persons who matter at this point are judge and/or jury. As mentioned, there's numerous precedents, registered patents, what amounts to a contract you sign when purchasing RR technology, and last but certainly not least, a corporate giant with a relatively unlimited bank account plus a staff of lawyers who can bankrupt just about anyone who want's to stand toe to toe with them.

I know where I'd put my money if I was betting on the outcome.

That said, RoundUp Ready technology essentially pumped new life into the ag industry after Jimmy Carter and the 1980's beat the daylights out of us. They've earned the right to have their investment protected.
 
I've been retired for a few years, but I planted a lot of RR seed. I never signed any contract about the end use of the seed and don't know if any of the others farmers were doing so or not. The contract was implied and may have said so on the bags. The farmer is gonna lose........
 
If I plant non roundup soybeans across the fence from my neighbors roundup beans and they cross polinate, can I sue Monsanto for contaminating my non roundup beans. Seems like it ought to work both ways. I know beans are supposed to be self polinating but they can be cross polinated by insects too, can't they? Joe
 
Let me rephrase what I stated. You don't sign a contract per say. You agree to terms and conditions of ownership of the technolgy when you purchase RR seed, which is for all intents and purposes, a "contract".
 
The patentability of Montsantos IP is not at issue here. That is settled law.

What is in issue is the applicability of the exhaustion doctrine, which is an affirmative defense to an infringment action.

Dean
 
If you buy food you have a dog in the fight its been a basic principle since forever that farmers can plant the seed they raise since they own them to save money.My opinion is plant and animal genetics shouldn't be able to be patented.
 
Just for the sake of discussion, knowing most of us are not lawyers. What if I go to the elevator and buy a bag of corn for my chickens. Then I plant some of that corn so I can have "my own" corn for my chickens. I realize that a little operation for self use probably would not be cause for a Monsanto lawsuit. But am I technically violating a trade patent. Just spitballing out here in the cheapseats...gobble
 
(quoted from post at 18:53:51 10/07/12) If I plant non roundup soybeans across the fence from my neighbors roundup beans and they cross polinate, can I sue Monsanto for contaminating my non roundup beans. Seems like it ought to work both ways. I know beans are supposed to be self polinating but they can be cross polinated by insects too, can't they? Joe
Click to expand...

Knowing how our system works, it's more likely that you'd get nailed for "stealing their product".

I'm sure it makes sense to some lawyer somewhere... :evil:
 
If I understand Dean's clarification below, I believe that's what the appeal is about: Whether Monsanto still has control of seeds that were produced by seeds they sold. Lower courts sided with Monsanto, now the Supremes will have the final word.
 
Seed that carries the genetic traits that will allow you to spray round up herbicide to kill weeds, but it will not kill the crop you planted ,corn or soy, even canola. There has been cases in western Canada , where a farmer that never grew RR canola was beaten in court by Monsanto. Seems they sampeled some of his crop in the field, and it carried their genetic traits. He claimed that the farmer next door had growen RR, and it had cross polinated with his crop in previous years, and he had unknowingly gained their gene traits. He lossed, Monsanto has deep pockets to pay lawyers, most farmers don't.
 
If plant genetics weren't able to be patented and controlled, hence protecting the millions invested, technology would cease to advance any further. While some people may see that as a good thing, the next great advancement may be right around the corner. Where would we be without the technology of the last 100 years? Would we be better off if we still had 75 bu ac corn? Seed companies have HUGE investments in technology we often take for granted. They have a right to protect their investment....
 
A reputable seed cleaning house will not clean them and they also have a way of determining if the beans are protected variety. This practice has opened up a market for privately owned seed cleaners.
 
If it's the case I'm thinking of he later admitted that yea, maybe he had used seed from the neighbor's bin not his own. Which he knew was RR.
 
If by 'advancements'you mean GMOs then that is not an advancement its an abberation.About 60% of US consumers don't want GM foods,the vote in California will prove that this year.
 
I thought that patent was expired and they weren't going to go after anyone now for doing that. Perhaps this case predates the expiration date.
 
About 60% of US consumers don't want GM foods

Consumers have brought on its advancement because most want cheap; and easy. We want tomatoes that can travel 2000 miles and be just ripe when they hit our table. We want 200 bpa corn instead of 75 bpa corn so it will be cheaper.
Every comsumer has a choice and they have made it very clear what they choose. They may say they do not want GMO foods but remove everyone from shelves today and there would be outrage from price increases tomarrow.

Just like farmers have a choice. Monsanto does not sell the only corn or soy seeds. Farmers can choose not to use monsanto products. If they could compete in the market today by making that choice is a differant question.
 
I"ve never understood why genetic material should be patented. I always thought you had to invent something in order to patent it. This genetic material has always existed and Monsanto merely found it and used it. I could understand how the process to isolate and insert the material could be patented, but not the material itself. If I was the first person to discover oxygen, should I be able to obtain a patent and then charge everyone for breathing it?
 
I support the farmer, but the guy with the most expensive lawyer will win in court. Monsanto rarely (if ever) loses.
 
There have been many cases like this. It all depends on if the patent has expired. I believe it has. It might be the first one where the farmer wins.

I agree that you should get millions for a breakthrough in technology. I also agree that you know you have 10 years to do it. They have made their money on this one. We on the other hand are dealing with glyphosate resistant weeds.

It's a bird in the hand or 3 in the bush.
 
(quoted from post at 18:30:37 10/07/12) If you buy food you have a dog in the fight its been a basic principle since forever that farmers can plant the seed they raise since they own them to save money.My opinion is plant and animal genetics shouldn't be able to be patented.
Click to expand...

Then you will kill much of the research that would have resulted in better products for all of us.
 
The way I look at it... if you don't like using patented seed, DON'T USE IT.
They aren't developing the technology for your benefit or for the good of mankind. They're doing it to make money... and they're not in any way forcing you to buy their technology. This idea that we should be able to save seed because it's always been done before... is purely idiotic. If saving seed is one's game, grow open varieties.

Rod
 
I do not think the patent has expired in the U.S.
That comes in the summer of 2014 so the 2015 crop will be the first year without the technology fee.
It may have expired in Canada and that may be where you are getting the thinking from.

What will be interesting to see is how the licence to ship RR1 crop overseas is affected. If monsanto does not renew the RR1 licence or if saved seed produces a crop a little off and the crop gets rejected to be sent overseas crop prices in the US will fall to the bottom.
This may force farmers to switch to RR2 to have a market putting monsanto right back in the loop.
 
The facts as you present them, are not even close to what the farmer was doing. He was buying seed beans from a local seed cleaning business as non gm beans and buying some RR beans from a dealer and mixing them and spraying Round Up on the beans. Most of them grew, and I hope he wins
 
Given that probably 90% or more of the beans that are planted today ARE GMO in some form or another.... it's a very reasonable assumption that just about anyone growing beans would know and expect anything at the elevator to be GMO and probably RR... so you could say that they knowingly planted RR seed without paying for the technology....

Rod
 
I don't know where you go to get your contrived "statistics", but it must be the same place where external_link goes to get the bogus numbers he uses....60% in California MAYBE. The rest of the country, it's more like 30%. California is most definately NOT representative of the entire nation.
 
I got my statistics from every poll on the subject I have ever seen.Why are the large chemical and ag seed companies pouring $Millions into the Calif. vote that is only going to require labeling of GM products?Because they know many consumers will not buy the GM foods if given a choice and realize its in the products they buy.GMOs are the reasons the local grown/Organic movement has grown in leaps and bounds.Farmers are being the suckers for the large Ag companies
on this one and remember farmers are only 2% of the population so they really have no political power anymore compared to the large anti-GMO consumer/local grower groups.
 
wonder how many of the people that made comments eat what they are growing...do research on GM products and then eat what YOU grow...
 
My chiropractor practices holistic medicine and stays up on gm stuff. Was talking to her about planting a garden. She told me some states where Monsanto grows their seed, had passed laws prohibiting private gardens because the pollen from private gardens was causing problems with Monsanto's growing operations.

Unbelievable.
 
The stat may be correct that 60% do not want GMO crops.... but when you change that question around and ask how many are willing to PAY the true cost of having non GMO crops... it gets a lot more wishy washy then. Most go into immediate denial about the cost and the simple realities that were behind the development of GMO in the first place. Around here the local foodies represent about 2% of the populace and of that 2% even most of them are not willing to pay the piper.
If there was a profitable market there for consistently grown non GMO/Organic or whatever spin someone wants to place on their ideals... there would be supply. But there isn't a consistent market... so there isn't supply.

It's kinda like the local hay market here. It's a continously surplus market except in bad years. NEarly all of the buyers have this idea that they can buy 2.00 hay every day of their life... and don't want to pay for good hay in the years that it's short... without realizing that the hay could have been better if they'd been willing to pay for it before.

Rod
 
The interesting thing about his case tho... when he discovereed that he had RR canola growing in his field... he made use of that fact. If he'd gone at that point and sued monsanto for contamination... mabey he'd have beaten them.
Cultivating the crop then talking from the other side of one's mouth after they've been caught generally doesn't work in court.

Rod
 
In my area non GM grains sell for 1 1/2 times the
going rate for GM grain and a grower can sell all they can grow no problem.Of course a whole lot of GM grain grown in the US goes to feed factory slave labor in China so you're right they really don't care as any food is better than no food for them.However there is an ever increasing group of consumers in the US that do care and are willing to pay a premium for the food they want.
 

Everything we eat, whether it is meat, vegetables, or grain, has been modified in some fashion from the word go. Think about it. If it weren't for the modifications and hybridization of corn, it would still be just another variety of grass. Tomatos, potatos, green beans, etc. would not be nearly as productive or tasty to eat, and the world would be hungry.

I just don't understand why, or how, Monsanto or anybody else can hold a patent on a process that has been going since the beginning of time.
 
I've seen several studies that show there's 12 to 15 times the likelyhood of organic foods carrying disease pathogens. Most recent one I've seen is a 5 years study done @ Purdue Univ.

There are numbers of "studies" with skewed results that show correlations, but NO scientific link between human illness and GMO crops. So far, it's just the conspiracy theorist's like yourself, and those who simply don't know any better, who buy into the idea producing safer, more productive, and cheaper food is "harmful".

Most of the commonly publicized "polls" are the product of tree hugger media. They contain little to no "fact" and a lot of scare tactics.

People resisted believing the world was round once upon a time. I guess the new "flat earth society" has to have a cause....and you've adopted that as your own.
 
A 'study' coming from a University thats get millions in 'research' $$$$ from from Industrial ag companies is all but worthless as far as objectivity.Personally I don't care if you or anyone wants to eat Pig Poop I just want to have the GM food labeled as such then people can decide on their own.
 
(quoted from post at 09:10:36 10/08/12) A 'study' coming from a University thats get millions in 'research' $$$$ from from Industrial ag companies is all but worthless as far as objectivity.Personally I don't care if you or anyone wants to eat Pig Poop I just want to have the GM food labeled as such then people can decide on their own.
Click to expand...

I know of one study financed by a seed company conducted by a college Ag department that was canceled by the seed company when they didn't like the results. I know the professor who was in charge of the study. Now I know I'm only getting his side of the story but it makes me concerned.

Look at other products that were supposed to be safe that came back and bit us.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 09:01:52 10/08/12) I've seen several studies that show there's 12 to 15 times the likelyhood of organic foods carrying disease pathogens. Most recent one I've seen is a 5 years study done @ Purdue Univ.

There are numbers of "studies" with skewed results that show correlations, but NO scientific link between human illness and GMO crops. So far, it's just the conspiracy theorist's like yourself, and those who simply don't know any better, who buy into the idea producing safer, more productive, and cheaper food is "harmful".

Most of the commonly publicized "polls" are the product of tree hugger media. They contain little to no "fact" and a lot of scare tactics.

People resisted believing the world was round once upon a time. I guess the new "flat earth society" has to have a cause....and you've adopted that as your own.
Click to expand...

LOL This is a case where you have no proof that it's safe and others have no proof that's it isn't. But the idea that ridiculing will win the arguement isn't true.

Rick
 
(quoted from post at 14:52:25 10/08/12) My chiropractor practices holistic medicine and stays up on gm stuff. Was talking to her about planting a garden. She told me some states where Monsanto grows their seed, had passed laws prohibiting private gardens because the pollen from private gardens was causing problems with Monsanto's growing operations.

Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

WHat is unbelievable is that you believe that claptrap.
 
Well said.. I would like to see all thos that say thay don,t want the GM food try and pay for the cost of not having the gm seed. Food cost would double overnight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Critical habitat land
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
1948CaseVAI
1
T
Judge orders sugar beet seed-plants destroyed; Monsanto to a
2
Replies
34
Views
7K
36 Coupe
3
G
Turbulent Times Ahead, Ethanol May be the Culprit
Replies
14
Views
3K
LenND
L
Tractor Parts Tractor Manuals

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top