Supreme Court hands Monsanto victory over farmers on GMO seed patents, ability to sue
53 replies, posted
[url]http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/[/url]
[IMG]http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/21/d3/30/00/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers.si.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto’s claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company’s ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.
The high court left intact Monday a federal appeals court decision that threw out a 2011 lawsuit from the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association and over 80 other plaintiffs against Monsanto that sought to challenge the agrochemical company’s aggressive claims on patents of genetically-modified seeds. The suit also aimed to curb Monsanto from suing anyone whose field is contaminated by such seeds.
The group of plaintiffs, which included many individual American and Canadian family farmers, independent seed companies and agricultural organizations, were seeking preemptive protections against Monsanto’s patents. The biotech leviathan has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for planting the company’s genetically-engineered seeds without permission, while settling around 700 other cases without suing.
None of the plaintiffs are customers of Monsanto and none have licensing agreements with the company. The group argued that they do not want Monsanto’s genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) and want legal protection in case of inadvertent contact with the company’s products.
The appeals court decision was based on Monsanto’s supposed promise not to sue farmers whose crops - including corn, soybeans, cotton, canola and others - contained traces of the company’s biotechnology products.
In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"
The panel’s reference to “traces” of Monsanto’s patented genes means farms that are affected by less than 1 percent.[/QUOTE]
Glad to see that science is proving to be victorious yet again.
[QUOTE=mc lovin;43527856]Glad to see that science is proving to be victorious yet again.[/QUOTE]
Are you for real? These guys are crooks.
[QUOTE=mc lovin;43527856]Glad to see that science is proving to be victorious yet again.[/QUOTE]
You're either sarcastic or a complete idiot.
You can't release a GMO into the environment and then sue people when it starts growing on their land.
Well, you can now. What a legal clusterfuck.
[QUOTE=mc lovin;43527856]Glad to see that science is proving to be victorious yet again.[/QUOTE]
That's a funny way of saying "Glad to see massive monopolized business interests and the US government are still butt buddies."
Monsanto is disturbingly evil.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;43527896]You're either sarcastic or a complete idiot.
You can't release a GMO into the environment and then sue people when it starts growing on their land.
Well, you can now. What a legal clusterfuck.[/QUOTE]
Actually, based on the article, you can be sued if you replant their crops, but based upon binding agreements they cannot sue you if your plants end up pollinated by their patented crops due to a neighboring farm.
[QUOTE=mc lovin;43527856]Glad to see that science is proving to be victorious yet again.[/QUOTE]
Your post history really speaks for itself doesn't it
Monsanto has been responsible for essentially pillaging dozens of farms and getting away with it.
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;43527900]That's a funny way of saying "Glad to see massive monopolized business interests and the US government are still butt buddies."[/QUOTE]
Wait isn't the article saying that can't replace/replant/modify the existing crops and makes no indication that Farmers can be sued for not using GMO related products.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;43527896]You're either sarcastic or a complete idiot.
You can't release a GMO into the environment and then sue people when it starts growing on their land.
Well, you can now. What a legal clusterfuck.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Article]Monsanto’s GMO seeds are designed to withstand the company’s own ubiquitous herbicide, Roundup. Recently, questions have begun to arise from the bioengineered seed’s resistance to pestilence, which has caused some farmers to increase their use of traditional pesticides.
"[B]Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means[/B]," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.[/quote]
Monsato really needs to be wiped off the face of the earth, what with their monopolizing of the agricultural market. They are a threat to the entire human race.
[QUOTE=mc lovin;43528014]Wait isn't the article saying that can't replace/replant/modify the existing crops and makes no indication that Farmers can be sued for not using GMO related products.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Actually, based on the article, you can be sued if you replant their crops, but based upon binding agreements they cannot sue you if your plants end up pollinated by their patented crops due to a neighboring farm.[/QUOTE]
Monsanto has been relentlessy pushing their shit through the courts for ages. It's not because this article isn't half bad for ther reputation that they're not a shitty corp.
Wow fuck them
Someone needs to end this bullshit
[QUOTE=Tomberry;43528253]Monsanto has been relentlessy pushing their shit through the courts for ages. It's not because this article isn't half bad for ther reputation that they're not a shitty corp.[/QUOTE]
Nice sources!
I can't help but feel that people need to [B]actively[/B] do something against this rather than just saying "oh that's bad" and forgetting about it until the next article pops up. This is genuinely, really disturbingly awful.
[QUOTE=TaniaTiger;43528330]I can't help but feel that people need to [B]actively[/B] do something against this rather than just saying "oh that's bad" and forgetting about it until the next article pops up. This is genuinely, really disturbingly awful.[/QUOTE]
I think a lot of people feel the desire to rise up/protest/do something about Monsanto, but there's a huge problem in trying to collaborate or individually deal with a company that makes [URL="http://pdf.secdatabase.com/2347/0000950123-11-101537.pdf"]over 11 billion USD gross a year[/URL] and [URL="http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2012/snapshots/11092.html"]is worth over 42 billion USD[/URL].
Even the supreme court isn't immune to the long green.
[QUOTE=Sector 7;43527896]You're either sarcastic or a complete idiot.
You can't release a GMO into the environment and then sue people when it starts growing on their land.
Well, you can now. What a legal clusterfuck.[/QUOTE]
It has been proven that accidental cross-pollination of crops is very very very rare and practically impossible. In cases when Monsanto did sue farmers, the levels of patented seeds [url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx]were far too high and inconsistent with accidental cross-pollination.[/url]
[img]http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2009/02/20090211_shower_250x375.jpg[/img]
all those bribes
all those profits
so little time
I thought them suing for cross pollination was just blatant mistruth pushed out by anti-gmo frauds?
[editline]13th January 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43528508]It has been proven that accidental cross-pollination of crops is very very very rare and practically impossible. In cases when Monsanto did sue farmers, the levels of patented seeds [url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx]were far too high and inconsistent with accidental cross-pollination.[/url][/QUOTE]
Damn you
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43528508]It has been proven that accidental cross-pollination of crops is very very very rare and practically impossible. In cases when Monsanto did sue farmers, the levels of patented seeds [url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx]were far too high and inconsistent with accidental cross-pollination.[/url][/QUOTE]
I don't believe special permission should be required to plant a seed.
The copyrighting of living organisms and genetic information sets a dangerous precedent.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43528508]It has been proven that accidental cross-pollination of crops is very very very rare and practically impossible. In cases when Monsanto did sue farmers, the levels of patented seeds [url=http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx]were far too high and inconsistent with accidental cross-pollination.[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm sorry but that's a blatant lie,you know how plants get pollinated by you know, bees, wind, etc?
"very very rare and practically impossible"
a non GM Farm can have neighboring farms that do have GM crops which blow over some of their seed. Its not even like that's the only way, farmers like to recycle their seeds which is now illegal because of invasive gm species being patented. [url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetically-modified-crop[/url]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43528584]I don't believe special permission should be required to plant a seed.
The copyrighting of living organisms and genetic information sets a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]
You're free to plant all the non-GE seeds you want. If you want to use GE seeds that have been developed by a company that spent millions of dollars in R&D and experimentation to engineer said seeds, you abide by their rules.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43528584]I don't believe special permission should be required to plant a seed.
The copyrighting of living organisms and genetic information sets a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]
You buy something with a contract on it, but then violate that contract, they can then sue you. That makes perfect sense, right? That is what is happening here.
[QUOTE=TaniaTiger;43528330]I can't help but feel that people need to [B]actively[/B] do something against this rather than just saying "oh that's bad" and forgetting about it until the next article pops up. This is genuinely, really disturbingly awful.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/[/url]
You should watch some documentaries on the farming crisis in america, its not only Monsanto, its the entire industry. I really liked Food Inc
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43528614]You're free to plant all the non-GE seeds you want. If you want to use GE seeds that have been developed by a company that spent millions of dollars in R&D and experimentation to engineer said seeds, you abide by their rules.[/QUOTE]
Again, I disagree. The ability for a company to essentially levy and enforce intellectual property rights on a tangible commodity is very very bad for consumers and sets a precedent that could allow that sort of business to spread to other areas of human life. If anything should violate anti-trust laws it's this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach to agribusiness.
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;43528614]You're free to plant all the non-GE seeds you want. If you want to use GE seeds that have been developed by a company that spent millions of dollars in R&D and experimentation to engineer said seeds, you abide by their rules.[/QUOTE]
It's not quite so fucking simple, unfortunately, for a farmer to buy non-GMO seeds when the agricultural monopoly has driven prices of non-GMO seeds through the roof. This is especially damaging to developing countries.
Not to mention that not being able to recycle seeds is a huge problem for practically all small farmers.
[QUOTE]"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain[/QUOTE]
Its called a lie.
[QUOTE=greendevil;43528703]It's not quite so fucking simple, unfortunately, for a farmer to buy non-GMO seeds when the agricultural monopoly has driven prices of non-GMO seeds through the roof. This is especially damaging to developing countries.
Not to mention that not being able to recycle seeds is a huge problem for practically all small farmers.[/QUOTE]
Not to mention GMO seeds yeild on average a better crop than non GMO (Which is the point) and since many farmers are in pretty shitty situations, they are forced to buy the cheaper and better quality GMO products which unfortunately causes them to fall under all the bullshit rules and regulations of Monsanto.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43528680]Again, I disagree. The ability for a company to essentially levy and enforce intellectual property rights on a tangible commodity is very very bad for consumers and sets a precedent that could allow that sort of business to spread to other areas of human life. If anything should violate anti-trust laws it's this "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach to agribusiness.[/QUOTE]
If you can make something that another company has patented, and produce it for selling, that company can sue you.
The problem here is that the patented object in question is self propagating in nature.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43528584]I don't believe special permission should be required to plant a seed.
The copyrighting of living organisms and genetic information sets a dangerous precedent.[/QUOTE]
They aren't copyrighting planting seeds, they are copyrighting their engineering packed within a seed.
No one is going to sue you because you plant some carrots.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.