Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Farmerís use of genetically modified soybeans grows into Supreme Court case
The Washington Post ^ | 09 Feb 2013 | Robert Barnes

Posted on 02/11/2013 9:16:12 AM PST by Theoria

Farmer Hugh Bowman hardly looks the part of a revolutionary who stands in the way of promising new biotech discoveries and threatens Monsanto’s pursuit of new products it says will “feed the world.”

“Hell’s fire,” said the 75-year-old self-described “eccentric old bachelor,” who farms 300 acres of land passed down from his father. Bowman rested in a recliner, boots off, the tag that once held his Foster Grant reading glasses to a drugstore rack still attached, a Monsanto gimme cap perched ironically on his balding head.

“I am less than a drop in the bucket.”

Yet Bowman’s unorthodox soybean farming techniques have landed him at the center of a national battle over genetically modified crops. His legal battle, now at the Supreme Court, raises questions about whether the right to patent living things extends to their progeny, and how companies that engage in cutting-edge research can recoup their investments.

What Bowman did was to take commodity grain from the local elevator, which is usually used for feed, and plant it. But that grain was mostly progeny of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready beans because that’s what most Indiana soybean farmers grow. Those soybeans are genetically modified to survive the weedkiller Roundup, and Monsanto claims that Bowman’s planting violated the company’s restrictions.

Those supporting Bowman hope the court uses the case, which is scheduled for oral arguments later this month, to hit the reset button on corporate domination of agribusiness and what they call Monsanto’s “legal assault” on farmers who don’t toe the line. Monsanto’s supporters say advances in health and environmental research are endangered.

And the case raises questions about the traditional role of farmers.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: farming; gmfood; gmo; monsanto; scotus; scotusgmfood; soybeans; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last
Scotus Blog:

Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

1 posted on 02/11/2013 9:16:24 AM PST by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theoria

If he wants to buy their beans for planting, he should pay the price. Otherwise, buying feed beans at feed prices implies a limitation on their use.


2 posted on 02/11/2013 9:21:41 AM PST by Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh (I cling to guns and religion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
NYT Op-Ed Contributor PATENTING LIFE

By MICHAEL CRICHTON
Published: February 13, 2007

YOU, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it’s only too real.

Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctor. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000.

Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does. Couldn’t somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor’s test. He owns the gene. Nobody else can test for it. In fact, you can’t even donate your own breast cancer gene to another scientist without permission. The gene may exist in your body, but it’s now private property.

This bizarre situation has come to pass because of a mistake by an underfinanced and understaffed government agency. The United States Patent Office misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings and some years ago began — to the surprise of everyone, including scientists decoding the genome — to issue patents on genes.

Humans share mostly the same genes. The same genes are found in other animals as well. Our genetic makeup represents the common heritage of all life on earth. You can’t patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned.

The results have been disastrous. Ordinarily, we imagine patents promote innovation, but that’s because most patents are granted for human inventions. Genes aren’t human inventions, they are features of the natural world. As a result these patents can be used to block innovation, and hurt patient care.

For example, Canavan disease is an inherited disorder that affects children starting at 3 months; they cannot crawl or walk, they suffer seizures and eventually become paralyzed and die by adolescence. Formerly there was no test to tell parents if they were at risk. Families enduring the heartbreak of caring for these children engaged a researcher to identify the gene and produce a test. Canavan families around the world donated tissue and money to help this cause.

When the gene was identified in 1993, the families got the commitment of a New York hospital to offer a free test to anyone who wanted it. But the researcher’s employer, Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, patented the gene and refused to allow any health care provider to offer the test without paying a royalty. The parents did not believe genes should be patented and so did not put their names on the patent. Consequently, they had no control over the outcome.

In addition, a gene’s owner can in some instances also own the mutations of that gene, and these mutations can be markers for disease. Countries that don’t have gene patents actually offer better gene testing than we do, because when multiple labs are allowed to do testing, more mutations are discovered, leading to higher-quality tests.

Apologists for gene patents argue that the issue is a tempest in a teapot, that patent licenses are readily available at minimal cost. That’s simply untrue. The owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study this disease. Not surprisingly, many other researchers choose to study something less expensive.

But forget the costs: why should people or companies own a disease in the first place? They didn’t invent it. Yet today, more than 20 human pathogens are privately owned, including haemophilus influenza and Hepatitis C. And we’ve already mentioned that tests for the BRCA genes for breast cancer cost $3,000. Oh, one more thing: if you undergo the test, the company that owns the patent on the gene can keep your tissue and do research on it without asking your permission. Don’t like it? Too bad.

The plain truth is that gene patents aren’t benign and never will be. When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it — because of patent concerns. There is no clearer indication that gene patents block innovation, inhibit research and put us all at risk.

Even your doctor can’t get relevant information. An asthma medication only works in certain patients. Yet its manufacturer has squelched efforts by others to develop genetic tests that would determine on whom it will and will not work. Such commercial considerations interfere with a great dream. For years we’ve been promised the coming era of personalized medicine — medicine suited to our particular body makeup. Gene patents destroy that dream.

Fortunately, two congressmen want to make the full benefit of the decoded genome available to us all. Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature. Mr. Becerra has been careful to say the bill does not hamper invention, but rather promotes it. He’s right. This bill will fuel innovation, and return our common genetic heritage to us. It deserves our support.

3 posted on 02/11/2013 9:21:42 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
Gene patents, like software patents, should never have been allowed.

They were allowed when affirmative action know-nothings started granting patents on anything.

4 posted on 02/11/2013 9:28:19 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I would not confer it to being from affirmative action type scenarios, but more so by corporate rent seeking or capture.


5 posted on 02/11/2013 9:33:03 AM PST by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

I don’t always plant soybeans, but when I do, I plant Roundup Ready. They aren’t cheap and when you have a bad year like we had last year, it hurts when you get your check from the grain elevator. Fortunately I don’t make my living doing this, so I don’t really have any skin in the game, at least as far as soybeans are concerned.

Seed companies need to make money and so do farmers. We’ll see if the courts can sort it out, but I certainly hope that the politicians don’t stick their noses into it.


6 posted on 02/11/2013 9:33:30 AM PST by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
"...buying feed beans at feed prices implies a limitation on their use."

How so? There is no guarantee that these seeds will germinate or grow or be Roundup resistant. He tried something outside the box and it worked.

If I buy Purina Rat Chow and feed it to my dog, am I committing a crime? What if I consume the Rat Chow myself? What if someone uses food stamps to buy steak and feeds that to his dog?

7 posted on 02/11/2013 9:41:47 AM PST by Former Proud Canadian (Obamanomics-We don't need your stinking tar sands oil, we'll just grow algae.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Monsanto should lose this big time, and be assessed large punitive damages.

If they wanted their Roundup Ready Soybeans to be useless as seed, then they should have engineered them to be non viable.

8 posted on 02/11/2013 9:42:35 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Here is a stickier issue. If I plant my unpatented soybeans and they are pollenated primarily by my neighbor’s patented soybeans (due to wind), am I breaking the protection on the patent?


9 posted on 02/11/2013 9:43:08 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

I don’t know a thing about soybeans. If they self-fertilize then this guy is copying monsanto’s product. If any cross-fertilization from non-monsanto stock has occured than it’s a new product, Round-up resistant though it may be.


10 posted on 02/11/2013 9:44:41 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Its sad to hear the sound of corporatist fascism so early on Monday morning.


11 posted on 02/11/2013 9:46:35 AM PST by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

“Implied” phooey!

If he’d had to sign a legal agreement to take those beans, then maybe there’d be a case.

But if he didn’t, he can do with those beans what he wishes.

Monsanto is a disaster of a company, completely out of control, anyway.


12 posted on 02/11/2013 9:51:00 AM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
Otherwise, buying feed beans at feed prices implies a limitation on their use.

Hmmm, if *they* really wanted to go after him, *they* should check and see if he has any diesel road vehicles with tax-free ag fuel in them...

I'm not hopeful that the USSC can sort it out based on existing US laws. Too many leftists look to foreign laws now. I heard about a Canadian case some years back about a adjacent farms, one of which used a GM seed, and the neighbor benefited somewhat from wind-blown pollen.

The Canadian court[s] somehow found for the seed company, the adjacent farmer reaping the benefits of their patent without paying for it.

I think that decision flies in the face of [English] common property law about liability for unintentional/unauthorized improvements to a property.

Although, it's been a while since I took that business law course as an undergrad.

13 posted on 02/11/2013 9:52:26 AM PST by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

>> Otherwise, buying feed beans at feed prices implies a limitation on their use.

“Implies”? Really?

Is there anything in the *sale contract* between the farmer and the feed supplier that *STATES UNEQUIVOCALLY* that feed beans shall not be planted?

If there is then the farmer violated his purchase terma and is in the wrong.

If not then Monsanto should lose.

This is how we do business here in America.


14 posted on 02/11/2013 9:52:33 AM PST by Nervous Tick (Without GOD, men get what they deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

In general I would agree with that logic. But there needs to be some sort of riding herd over the seed companies’ bullying of farmers. I have heard of cases where the seed company will sue a farmer who keeps some of his own seed for planting the next crop year because his crop cross-pollinated with his neighbor’s crop even though the farmer being sued did not plant the hybrid seed.


15 posted on 02/11/2013 9:53:21 AM PST by Truth is a Weapon (Truth, it hurts so good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

If a person buys something, it’s his to do with as he chooses. He’s not renting the soybeans, nor is he an employee of Monsanto.


16 posted on 02/11/2013 9:53:45 AM PST by fattigermaster (When tigers hunt, the jackals profit...when tigers sleep, the jackals rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I suspect some organic/heritage farmer out there could try some type of lawsuit if a gmo planted crop near his organic field contaminated his product.


17 posted on 02/11/2013 9:57:32 AM PST by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

Well first off Monsanto’s claim goes much deeper than this, they claim rights to outlying farmers seed that are progeny from their GM foodstuff even though it occurred naturally.

So if you’re a seed grower and a wind or bee colony decides to pollinate your crop with Pollen from Monsanto’s GM plants, Monsanto believes it has a right to lay claim to royalties.


18 posted on 02/11/2013 9:59:28 AM PST by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

said:”If he wants to buy their beans for planting, he should pay the price. Otherwise, buying feed beans at feed prices implies a limitation on their use.”

I say, Bull!!

Farmers and others for all of man’s existence have planted some of the harvested seed the next season.

This is like Monsanto suing farmers whose non-Monsanto crops were accidentally cross-pollinated by Monsanto varieties.

Having the only source of viable seeds be Monsanto is worse than foolish.

Maybe you want to lick the boot of big agri-business and their government lackeys to get your daily ration of Soylent Green but not all of us have surrendered.


19 posted on 02/11/2013 10:02:50 AM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

Agree 110% !!!!!


20 posted on 02/11/2013 10:09:40 AM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

“...why should people or companies own a disease in the first place? They didn’t invent it. Yet today, more than 20 human pathogens are privately owned...”

If someone owns a disease that I affecting me, can I take legal action against them because they are not controlling what they own and it’s harming me? After all, if someone’s dog bites me I may be able to sue them or even have them arrested. Same goes (some places at least) if I slip on ice that’s on someone’s open to the public property.


21 posted on 02/11/2013 10:10:33 AM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
This is like Monsanto suing farmers whose non-Monsanto crops were accidentally cross-pollinated by Monsanto varieties.

Sorry, too late, Monsanto is already busy doing this, for years.

22 posted on 02/11/2013 10:13:03 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
I suspect some organic/heritage farmer out there could try some type of lawsuit if a gmo planted crop near his organic field contaminated his product.

So far, it works the other way around, Monsanto be suing all the little farmers, organic or no.

23 posted on 02/11/2013 10:16:26 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
If someone owns a disease that I affecting me, can I take legal action against them because they are not controlling what they own and it’s harming me?

That is indeed brilliant (not sarcasm). A precedent like that would fix the entire problem in 24 hours.

24 posted on 02/11/2013 10:22:54 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

We have the best courts money can buy!!!


25 posted on 02/11/2013 10:28:21 AM PST by hoosierham (Freedom isn't free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

Buy? Haha! They’re just blackmailed with the dirt in their past ... like the treasonous pirate Roberts.


26 posted on 02/11/2013 10:32:14 AM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham

Yep, about the only thing thing we don’t have is Rule of Law.


27 posted on 02/11/2013 10:35:24 AM PST by Navy Patriot (Join the Democrats, it's not Fascism when WE do it, and the Constitution and law mean what WE say.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

HAHA, and as a sidebar, ppl end up consuming it either way ya look at it—indirectly through the animals who eat it, or directly to humans.


28 posted on 02/11/2013 10:52:35 AM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh
If he wants to buy their beans for planting, he should pay the price. Otherwise, buying feed beans at feed prices implies a limitation on their use.

The big-government/big-corporate criminal monopoly thanks you for your support.

We have a few more laws we would like to pass to strengthen our monopoly. Can we count on your support in the future?

29 posted on 02/11/2013 10:53:30 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Screw enough farmers and we’ll all starve. That has happened in other totalitarian countries.


30 posted on 02/11/2013 10:53:46 AM PST by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
I don’t know a thing about soybeans. If they self-fertilize then this guy is copying monsanto’s product. If any cross-fertilization from non-monsanto stock has occured than it’s a new product, Round-up resistant though it may be.

Soybeans self-pollinate. It's actually very difficult to get a soybean plant to be pollinated by an different plant.

I'm not sure how that makes a difference. If Monsanto can claim patent infringement, they can do so on a derivative product. The gene is their IP, not the beans.

31 posted on 02/11/2013 11:00:41 AM PST by Mr. Know It All
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Theoria; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; GregNH; ..

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

32 posted on 02/11/2013 11:06:00 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

For years and years the government has controlled farmers and what they do via “farm assistance programs” and it has done nothing but promote policies and controls on what farmers can do and what is profitable to farmers to the point where a lot of farmers plant corn because they will get a subsidy and other grain that would normally be grown 50 years ago is ignored as we move to the corn mono-culture through the midwest that Monsanto and ADM control exclusively.

Growing up on a farm this whole thing is sickening to me.

They are controlling the farmer and skewing natural markets which hurts every small farmer and helps no one but big agra-business.


33 posted on 02/11/2013 11:08:17 AM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

I believe there is a case brewing by some organic farmers that they cannot grow organic with GMO crops nearby because of pollination with the GMO. The court has already ruled against companies using ‘terminator’ genes that make the product of planted seed sterile.

This man is buying commodity beans. They have many uses besides feed. The elevator resells the beans to the highest bidder for whatever they need them for. Remember these are beans from many farmers and many varieties and some are not GMO. There could even be GMO seed the patent has run out on in the mix. He is buying a mixed up mess using it for seed. He is not buying pure GMO seed or a certain variety so I do not see where Monsanto has a claim. The farmer, on purchase of the commodity beans does not even know if the seeds will grow.


34 posted on 02/11/2013 11:09:39 AM PST by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I’m not sure how I think about this, I can see both sides. Ever go to a tree & plant nursery? You probably have bought Rose plants if you are a home owner, maybe a fruit tree or two also. Guess what? Most all of the nursery produced plants are patented. It is listed right on the label it is called P.P.A.F. and it will list a number and the warning this plant is prohibited for reproduction without a license.

It has been that way for many moons. Roses are marketed as “Patented Roses” in many outlets. Commercial and hobby plant breeders apply for a patent so they can send their product out to the vast network of growers nation and worldwide and get paid for their inventions while the consumer enjoys the fruit of the patent holder’s talents.

How is this different?


35 posted on 02/11/2013 11:14:13 AM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
Monsanto is a disaster of a company, completely out of control

They represent a SMALLER problem in comparison to our "OUT OF CONTROL" Federal Government.

BOTH need to be brought under control and their power CHECKED soon!

36 posted on 02/11/2013 11:15:24 AM PST by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bronco_Buster_FweetHyagh

“Otherwise, buying feed beans at feed prices implies a limitation on their use.”

Nope. If he intentionally bought a certain variety specifially for planting yes.
This guy just went to the elevator and bought beans to plant. He had no idea what he was getting.

Totally against our nations principals to prohibit something like this. We are a nation of free people. Free from government and from corporate over reach.


37 posted on 02/11/2013 11:21:17 AM PST by HereInTheHeartland (Lawyers have caused thousands of times more destruction to our nation than have guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

>> “ Monsanto’s supporters say advances in health and environmental research are endangered.” <<

.
Since when is a ride down a slippery slope considered an “advance.”

Health requires the stuff God gave us, not GMO poisons.


38 posted on 02/11/2013 11:21:53 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland
Free from government and from corporate over reach.

The line between government and corporate gets more blurred with each passing day.

39 posted on 02/11/2013 11:22:36 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Know It All

But cross polinated beans, if such things occur, would contain DNA unique from the patented Monsanto product.


40 posted on 02/11/2013 11:24:18 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: bigfootbob

>> “How is this different?” <<

Did the seed have “Thou shalt not plant” stenciled on it?

If they sold it without binders and disclaimers, it would be the merchant, not the grower that erred.


41 posted on 02/11/2013 11:26:55 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

>> “But cross polinated beans, if such things occur, would contain DNA unique from the patented Monsanto product.” <<

If they were grown in open fields near other varieties, that would most likely be so.


42 posted on 02/11/2013 11:29:59 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

the courts have ALREADY ruled that we do not own our own DNA. A researcher can TAKE your dna and develope a multimillion dollar treatment and give you no compensation.


43 posted on 02/11/2013 11:32:01 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

One need not test for any gene. The most accurate and sensitive test for cancer is the “H.C.G.” test, that relies solely on the presence of HCG to discern if cancer is present in the body, and it is really cheap: $75 plus postage.


44 posted on 02/11/2013 11:34:58 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker

Had he purchased a book, photocopied it and sold off the copies, wouldn’t he have violated the copyright?


45 posted on 02/11/2013 11:40:10 AM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Yep. I would agree that a seed company has every right to defend the genetics they spent money to develop.

For example a farmer can’t be allowed to sell the Monsanto QWERTY 8765 soybean variety from his bin that he grew; that is a Monsanto variety.

But they also are not allowed to intimidate someone who does what this old guy is doing.

46 posted on 02/11/2013 11:42:31 AM PST by HereInTheHeartland (Lawyers have caused thousands of times more destruction to our nation than have guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

? HCG detects pregnancy.


47 posted on 02/11/2013 11:42:42 AM PST by sfimom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

You may not own yours but monsanto doesn’t automatically own a hybrid they never patented. To my knowledge that issue has not been adjudicated by any court of competent jurisdiction.


48 posted on 02/11/2013 11:46:51 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Navy Patriot

Don’t you think having large corporations corner the seed market and engineer non-viable seeds might be a little on the stupid side?

Our food supply chain is already so fragile, if we had some major anything happen, this type of thinking would seem to compound the issue.


49 posted on 02/11/2013 12:16:19 PM PST by willyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor

True—and agreed!


50 posted on 02/11/2013 12:16:54 PM PST by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-76 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson