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 1-5051-63 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]

To: Theoria

Pretty much a no-brainier; and the correct decision.


21 posted on 05/13/2013 9:13:00 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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?

Monsanto will get custody every other weekend and two weeks in summer.

22 posted on 05/13/2013 9:14:21 AM PDT by VRW Conspirator (Cyprus - the beginning)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
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?

I read somewhere that was what the next iteration of MS Office would be, and I ran into a Corel customer satisfaction survey (I use WordPerfect) that indicated they were considering going the "paid subscription service" route -- so you might not be too far off.

23 posted on 05/13/2013 9:17:10 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

‘”paid subscription service” ‘——Yep. Corel in the Clouds. Wonderful, instead of $60 for software, yeah get to purchase a sub for year.


24 posted on 05/13/2013 9:18:56 AM PDT by Theoria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
This has nothing to do with Monsanto being evil for not.

Conservatives should not cheer for piracy on intellectual property, the same as someone else trying to steal others’ labor.

Also my observation: Monsanto may have won this case, but they already have lost a huge battle in PR.

25 posted on 05/13/2013 9:21:19 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Of interest to you


26 posted on 05/13/2013 9:24:35 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
‘”paid subscription service” ‘——Yep. Corel in the Clouds. Wonderful, instead of $60 for software, yeah get to purchase a sub for year.

I made sure to put into the survey that it was a stupid idea -- and they'd definitely lose me as a customer; kinda sad because I like WordPerfect -- because anyone who would have a need to keep things secure (like lawyers working a sensitive case) would be exposing their data to unnecessary risks... on the plus-side I've not heard anything more about the idea so hopefully MS will go that route and lose the major market-share.

That might be a good thing for Open Office too... considering it's basically an MS clone, such a system would run antithetical to the sensibilities of the OO developers and they'd likely break to "go their own way".

27 posted on 05/13/2013 9:25:53 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

How did the supremes know that he hadn’t simply selected ordinary soybean mutations for roundup resistance thus replicating the process (which can’t be patented) that Monsanto used to find the resistant strain in the first place? Anyone can select for anti-biotic resistant microbes. just plate bacteria on a culture with a low level of antibiotic. Take the survivors and repeat at a higher concentration of antibiotic until you have your anti-biotic resistant yersinia pestis ready to market. Same with soybeans. More expensive since you have to use a LOT of soybeans (but a lot safer), but no reason that anyone can’t do exactly that.


28 posted on 05/13/2013 9:27:00 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Will the last small farm owner please turn out the lights on your way out.


29 posted on 05/13/2013 9:31:38 AM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
This has nothing to do with Monsanto being evil for not.

It does, but more tangentially than directly.

Conservatives should not cheer for piracy on intellectual property, the same as someone else trying to steal others’ labor.

This wasn't piracy; it did not occur on the seas. This was not theft of intellectual property, the results of it perhaps, but not the property itself -- but it was not theft at all, he made a legal purchase. Moreover, it wasn't even a violation of his contract with them -- he did not keep the seed; if they wanted to prevent something like this from happening they would have also included a "you can't sell this to the general public"- or "anyone you sell this to has to sign a copy of this contract"-type clause.

I'm sorry, but they were in the wrong; the guy found a perfectly legitimate, legal (and lawful, he broke no law) loophole.

Also my observation: Monsanto may have won this case, but they already have lost a huge battle in PR.

I have to ask if that even matters; Congress has horrid PR -- like the lowest ever -- and yet they're still allowed to conduct business as usual.

30 posted on 05/13/2013 9:33:33 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
>>> I'm sorry, but they were in the wrong; the guy found a perfectly legitimate, legal (and lawful, he broke no law) loophole.

Not true, as I said in previous comment. “Keywords - Unanimous and limited scope” on this SCOTUS decision. Don't try to interpret it into encompassing all issues under the sun.

31 posted on 05/13/2013 9:37:09 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Liberty Valance

I’m really concerned about how this will affect my backyard garden. I plant many heirloom seeds, and I’ve been increasing their use over the last few years. If nature does what it does, and without my knowledge or consent my heirlooms get cross-pollinated with Monsanto’s things, will they come after me? Granted, I have shallow pockets and I’m just a gardener so I doubt they WOULD but I’m disturbed if they COULD. If they have been given the legal right to do this it’s very frightening. Control the food supply . . .


32 posted on 05/13/2013 9:46:56 AM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
Shhh...don't tell anyone.





Please Support FR



33 posted on 05/13/2013 9:47:56 AM PDT by Lady Jag (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

I love it!


34 posted on 05/13/2013 9:52:45 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

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?


Basically, you already do. Don’t expect your software to work for more than a few years. And don’t expect to be able to resell it after you are done using it.

If you want inventions, you need to grant exclusivity. And it will be in the public domain in 20 years. Meanwhile, farmers can use the old beans.


35 posted on 05/13/2013 9:52:54 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Universal Background Check -> Registration -> Confiscation -> Oppression -> Extermination)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

I thought you might find it handy.

Everything has a parent, even rocks.


36 posted on 05/13/2013 10:06:43 AM PDT by Lady Jag (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Sgt_Schultze

Soy beans aren’t cross pollinated by bees or wind.


37 posted on 05/13/2013 10:11:00 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

Avoid soy, genetically altered or not, as much as you possibly can, and doubly so for children. It turns your boys into girls, and your girls into women (too early). It couldn’t be worse for you, and it is in almost all processed foods.


38 posted on 05/13/2013 10:11:44 AM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RadiationRomeo

May I guess that you’re not a farmer?


39 posted on 05/13/2013 10:12:53 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

“How did the supremes know that he hadn’t simply selected ordinary soybean mutations for roundup resistance thus replicating the process (which can’t be patented) that Monsanto used to find the resistant strain in the first place?”

Its actually quite easy to show that the resistance was not naturally selected for by examining the sequence of the gene and the region around it.


40 posted on 05/13/2013 10:13:47 AM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Brooklyn Attitude
Its actually quite easy to show that the resistance was not naturally selected for by examining the sequence of the gene and the region around it.

Really? I would think that it could be done, but I'm not sure it would be easy. How would you do it? I would think that this would require very expensive gene sequencing machinery as well as a fair amount of manpower. And more to the point DID they do it? Or did they just assume that what he did was recapture monsanto's previous work (which is most likely)

41 posted on 05/13/2013 10:26:23 AM PDT by from occupied ga (Your government is your most dangerous enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

vegan: symbolism over substance.


42 posted on 05/13/2013 10:26:58 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Lady Jag

Damn we use more of the cow than the Indian used of the buffalo


43 posted on 05/13/2013 10:34:27 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory




Support FR.


44 posted on 05/13/2013 10:35:17 AM PDT by Lady Jag (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

“Really? I would think that it could be done, but I’m not sure it would be easy. How would you do it? I would think that this would require very expensive gene sequencing machinery as well as a fair amount of manpower. And more to the point DID they do it?”

DNA sequencing is now so easy and cheap it can be done in-house or contracted to dedicated sequencing companies. We are to the point where an entire human sequence can be done for < $1000.
IIRC the gene for round up resistance was genetically inserted into the plant genome so they know exactly where it is and its sequence. They likely also modified its control region (like an on/off) switch. If it is patented all that info is in the patent. As far as whether they selected for the gene or took it from a resistant plant that will also be in the patent. You can theoretically select resistance as you described but if it so easy everyone would have done it already.


45 posted on 05/13/2013 10:45:31 AM PDT by Brooklyn Attitude (Obama being re-elected is the political equivalent of OJ being found not guilty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga

They don’t need to “sequence” A LOT. Only the presence or absence of specific gene (or genes) that Monsanto has the IP on.

The process is easy and much much cheaper (relatively speaking) than the lawyers’ fee.


46 posted on 05/13/2013 10:53:53 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GraceG
Maybe it's not who figured out today's usage. Maybe it's that we (meat eaters) are a clever lot learning constantly.





Please Support FR



47 posted on 05/13/2013 10:58:47 AM PDT by Lady Jag (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

Everything has a parent...


48 posted on 05/13/2013 11:09:30 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theoria

I am a hobby farmer (actually, my wife is, she does all the work). We have planted Roundup Ready soybeans. The seeds are not cheap, but they have a good yield, and Roundup keeps the weeds at bay which means that the field needs very little attention between planting and harvest. So, even though we pay for the seed, pay a neighbor to plant and harvest, and pay the COOP for Roundup treatment, most years there’s some money left over after the crop is delivered to the grain elevator.

This guy was trying to get the economic advantages of the Roundup Ready seed without paying for it. He knew that the soybeans that he was buying from his local elevator was Monsanto seed, he wouldn’t have bought it otherwise.

I’m a little surprised that the elevator would sell it to him. I don’t think that ours would do this.


49 posted on 05/13/2013 11:28:16 AM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative

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


Yeah stuff that had a face are tastier (see: bacon vs. brussel sprouts).


50 posted on 05/13/2013 11:36:44 AM PDT by steveyp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 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