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

Skip to comments.

Monsanto Wins Case on Genetically Altered Soybeans
The New York Times ^ | 13 May 2013 | Adam Liptak

Posted on 05/13/2013 8:50:24 AM PDT by Theoria

Edited on 05/13/2013 9:14:20 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that farmers may not use Monsanto’s patented genetically altered soybeans to create new seeds without paying the company a fee.

The ruling has implications for many aspects of modern agriculture and for businesses based on vaccines, cell lines and software. But Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the court, emphasized that the justices meant for the decision to be narrow.


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


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: contract; corporation; farming; gmo; gmoshills; monsanto; patent; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
9-0 for Monsanto.
1 posted on 05/13/2013 8:50:24 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Theoria
The big-government/big-corporate criminal complex uber alles.

Patenting Life by Michael Crichton

2 posted on 05/13/2013 8:51:38 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam is a religion of peace, and Moslems reserve the right to detonate anyone who says otherwise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

I got flamed for pointing out how evil Monsanto is. That’s ok. I know they are, and no one will convince me otherwise.

And Obama will protect them at almost any cost.


3 posted on 05/13/2013 8:52:08 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue (Why am I both pro-life & pro-gun? Because both positions defend the innocent and protect the weak.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that farmers may not use Monsanto’s patented genetically altered soybeans to create new seeds without paying the company a fee.

The ruling has implications for many aspects of modern agriculture and for businesses based on vaccines, cell lines and software.

How long before we will have to pay a fee to a software or computer company for the products, services and advertising we use them for?

4 posted on 05/13/2013 8:56:41 AM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Soy is awful, and not good for you. And unfortunately, it’s in everything, it’s a cheap filler.

I hate the stuff.


5 posted on 05/13/2013 8:57:02 AM PDT by diamond6 (Lord, please have mercy on us!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

What happens to ownership of plants that are used for seed after being cross pollinated by bees or wind? Does Monsanto own the new variant too?


6 posted on 05/13/2013 8:57:34 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Not sure I agree with the court, though I don’t know the particulars. If he had signed the contract agreeing not to retain seeds, then he should abide by those terms for plants from seeds he purchased in connection with that contract. If he got seeds from somewhere else which may or may not have had their IP in its genes, seems like if they have any complaint at all, it would be with whomever allowed those seeds to get into the pool available for sale to the public without agreeing to that contract.


7 posted on 05/13/2013 8:59:19 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Kagan the lesbian Communist comes up with the typical liberal, criminal explanation for why, as usual, they contradict conservative common sense: “It’s COMPLICATED!”

You can kill babies because “it’s complicated.” You can violate thousands of years of history and call it gay marriage because “it’s complicated.” You can destroy hundreds of years of accepted legal principles because “it’s complicated.”

And then, in a quieter voice: “Now pay me the money, Monsanto.”


8 posted on 05/13/2013 8:59:40 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: diamond6

My wife the vegan says my eating anything that had a parent is bad for you and soy is good.


9 posted on 05/13/2013 9:00:10 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
The implications of 'heritage' vegetables being 'contaminated' and/or altered by the GMO products have not yet been thought out.

I doubt the Courts would rule in favor for the farmers in that situation against a Monsanto or other.

10 posted on 05/13/2013 9:01:43 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze
What happens to ownership of plants that are used for seed after being cross pollinated by bees or wind? Does Monsanto own the new variant too?

They think they do. I believe I've heard of cases where farmers planted non-Monsanto crops which then became cross pollinated with Monsanto crops planted nearby, and they claimed he owed them something, even though he did nothing to obtain their proprietary genes. They should either sue the bees, or else stop planting stuff they don't want in the public domain under the sky that belongs to everyone.

11 posted on 05/13/2013 9:01:57 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

Why would they want own genetically altered and dead bees? As for the wind that’s just a plus in the population control game!


12 posted on 05/13/2013 9:02:28 AM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

If you really want to get the more irrational geriatrics shrieking, offer up evidence linking Monsanto and Donald Rumsfeld.

Add in a picture of DR shaking hands with Saddam Hussein after the nerve gas deal.

Then party forth!

/I’ve done this a few times over the years to demonstrate cognitive dissonance to third-party Freepers.


13 posted on 05/13/2013 9:03:21 AM PDT by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

You can’t tar Kagan with this one. Every single justice voted the same way, including my buddy Thomas. (In fact, that’s the one thing that makes me think if I looked into it more deeply it might in some conceivable way be legitimate.)


14 posted on 05/13/2013 9:04:29 AM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: surroundedbyblue

Monsanto is very evil.

This decision will be used to continue the attack against farmers who save their own seed. THESE FARMERS DON’T WANT MONSANTO FRANKENSEEDS, but their seed crop gets contaminated because of neighboring farms. Their seed is ruined and Monsanto can not be legally responsible. Sometimes these farmers plant their own seed not knowing it has been contaminated and then they get sued out of existence by Monsanto.

Luckily my farm is tucked away in Applachia a long long way from the nearest cornfield. And I’m organic so all the frankenlovers can drink a big cup of DDTea and flame away. I’ll ignore you.


15 posted on 05/13/2013 9:04:43 AM PDT by RadiationRomeo (Step into my mind and glimpse the madness that is me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Theoria
Keywords - unanimous and limited scope
16 posted on 05/13/2013 9:05:06 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadiationRomeo
Nonsense. Monsanto is not evil.

This guy wanted the Monsanto product and decided he would find a clever way to get around paying for it. He got caught. And now he has to pay.

17 posted on 05/13/2013 9:08:00 AM PDT by Rokurota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

I didn’t go to the NYT to read the rest of the article, but it sounds to me like had the farmer not signed the contract, he would have been free to plant the animal feed and harvest the roundup-resistant seed produced.


18 posted on 05/13/2013 9:10:51 AM PDT by chrisser (Senseless legislation does nothing to solve senseless violence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

I learned once that the essence of ownership is control. If monsanto wants to assert ownership for a gene it cannot control in the environment then some new bit of legal reasoning or text needs to be developed.


19 posted on 05/13/2013 9:11:41 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Don't fire until you see the blue of their helmets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Wow.

Life is now owned.

Just wait to the corporation starts claiming that they own people who ate GMO food.


20 posted on 05/13/2013 9:12:17 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-63 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