When Monsanto’s Patents Expire

PatentlyO113Monsanto Co. v. Vernon Bowman (Fed. Cir. 2011)

The Federal Circuit has again affirmed that Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds patents can be used to stop farmers from saving and replanting the GM seeds.  Here, the particular issue involved patent exhaustion, and the court ruled that the authorized purchase of seeds did not include the right to replant the second generation.  The legal theory here follows the same notion of copyright in book buying.  When someone purchases a book, they do not typically also receive a right to make further copies.  There are some debatable differences — Monsanto’s soybeans are alive and have the ability to self-replicate. However, the court previously rejected those arguments.

Monsanto’s two patents at issue in this case are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,352,605 (“’605 Patent”) and RE39,247 (“’247 Patent”). The ‘605 patent expires in October 2011, and the ‘247 patent patent expires in 2014. 

As the Bowman and Scruggs cases suggest, Monsanto has alway aggressively enforced these patent rights. However, Monsanto has announced that once the patents expire, it will no longer enforce its existing technology licenses. At that point, farmers will be free to save their GM soybean seeds and replant them at will.  In addition, the expiration of the patents also allows others to manufacture other Roundup Ready organisms.  Obviously, the point here is that the patents’ expiration will likely further expand the use of GM organisms.  Up to now, Monsanto’s profit motive has seemingly helped organic and non-GM producers in their quest to keep their seed lines separate. Patent expiration will dramatically change this status quo.

64 thoughts on “When Monsanto’s Patents Expire

  1. (you know, the one where you deny the property aspect of patents)

    Just like when I say “a seed is a tiny living thing that grows into a plant”, I’m denying the property aspect of seeds, right?

    Or could it be that I was talking about a different and unrelated aspect of patents (i.e., the nature of the thing that is subject to property rights), and you have trouble reading things in context when you’re looking for an argument?

  2. and that is completely irrelevant to the discussion you inserted yourself into

    It’s as relevant as your post of 11:49 (you know, the one where you deny the property aspect of patents).

    Hey – you are the one that started being irrelevant. I am just the one holding the spotlight on you.

    As I said – carry on.

  3. I told you point blank what my mission was. I told You I accomplished my mission.

    It’s okay if you don’t see how it’s relevant. There’s no shame in that. I don’t see how it’s relevant either, which is why I asked the question in the first place.

    If you want to call it your “mission” to explain to me something I already knew, that is crystal clear in the statute, and that is completely irrelevant to the discussion you inserted yourself into, then congratulations on accomplishing your mission. Have you considered putting up a big banner on an aircraft carrier to that effect?

  4. You mean you don’t understand how it’s relevant to the trespass issue either?

    Jump to conclusions much?

    I told you point blank what my mission was. I told You I accomplished my mission. What is so difficult?

    Hello?

  5. My mission of correcting your penchant for mistating that patents are not property has been achieved.

    You mean you don’t understand how it’s relevant to the trespass issue either? Why didn’t you just say so last week?

    I feel like our next argument will be me saying “seeds are tiny living things that grow into plants” and you saying “no, seeds are property!”

  6. You are waiting.

    That is nice.

    My mission of correcting your penchant for mistating that patents are not property has been achieved.

    Thread bookmarked.

    Carry on.

  7. But I was just calling you out for your blatant (and patented) obfuscations on the fact that patents are property.

    Fine, fine. Patents are property. The law says that patents are property. Everybody knows that patents are property. Especially Nortel, Google, RIM, Apple, MSFT, Sony, and RIM.

    Now, please explain to me how “patents are property” helps found an action for trespass against party A when an object owned by party B is found on the land of party C.

    Feel free to assume, if you think it helps, that (1) party B purchased the object from party A, and (2) party A owns (they’re property, remember?) a valid and enforceable patent covering that object, to which party B holds a valid and enforceable license.

    Go on, I’m waiting. I’ve been waiting for this explanation since last Monday.

  8. I’m not sure how I could sensibly deny that patents are property

    Yet, that’s exactly what you did do. And what you continue to do. Every chance you get.

    which is what was being discussed

    Perhaps, But I was just calling you out for your blatant (and patented) obfuscations on the fact that patents are property.

    Re-read the posts on what I pointed out.

    I’m sorry if my statement at 11:24 that “yes, the law clearly says that patents are property” wasn’t clear enough for you.

    You are not the only that that is sorry that you have a hard time being clear when it comes to your pet “theories.”

  9. Was this more implication than statement??

    It’s been the linchpin assumption of the “action in trespass” theory since the beginning. Unless you can think of why else “a patent is a property right” would be relevant to the discussion of who owns a patented seed.

    Are you sure you’re trying to follow?

  10. Your statement/implication that the patentee owns all infringing articles

    Was this more implication than statement??

  11. Ask IANAE due to his comment at 11:49: “No, a patent is nothing more than a sui generis right to sue people who do what’s in your claim.”

    That’s precisely what a patent is. It’s a statutory right of action against infringers, nothing more. You can own that patent right (it has the attributes of property, after all), but a patent is certainly not a property right in the infringing article, which is what was being discussed.

    (You are reading too much into his comment at 11:24).

    I’m sorry if my statement at 11:24 that “yes, the law clearly says that patents are property” wasn’t clear enough for you. I’m not sure how I could sensibly deny that patents are property, since they keep getting bought and sold all the time.

    Now, it’s your turn. Your statement/implication that the patentee owns all infringing articles isn’t clear enough for me. Got any statute or caselaw to support that position?

  12. How could anybody round here suppose that a patent is not property?

    Ask IANAE due to his comment at 11:49: “No, a patent is nothing more than a sui generis right to sue people who do what’s in your claim.

    (You are reading too much into his comment at 11:24).

    Yes, I realized that I may have lost you – that danger was very high. See the comment at 11:55.

  13. Lost me there Cut. At 11:24 IANAE expressly acknowledges that a patent is property. How could anybody round here suppose that a patent is not property?

  14. I meant to say Monsanto can’t own the Seed after it was sold to us ( the word “You” referred to Monsanto.. Sorry I guess I should have made Monsanto own the word instead of relating to it as if I were speaking with the Creeps).

  15. Your “old saw” is too dull to cut.

    When you miss the fact that IANAE is missing the basics that a patent is property, you really should not be venturing out with too many comments.

  16. Somebody round here is indeed ignoring “patent basics”, but it ain’t IANAE. As to spotting hubris, that old saw “It takes one to know one” comes to mind. Sharp-eyed at detecting such hubris as is prompted by your “You need to” and “It’s that simple” style, are you Cut?

  17. It’s not that simple

    Yes. It is.

    Once you grasp that, you won’t be so inclined to put forth positions that ignore the basics.

    MaxDrei,

    How is it that you think this position is by someone who “knows the least” or “sees the least” or “grasps the least” ?

    Do you think that a professor with a known bias who wishes to stir the pot and ignore patent basics because they get in the way of his philosophy somehow “knows,” “sees,” or “graps” more than the least? Perhaps you should understand the source of the comments and the reason why that particular position is beign advocated do begin with.

    Such a comment as yours takes more hubris than intellect.

  18. This blog is a constant source of fascination for me, how the contributers who know least, and see least, and grasp least, are yet the quickest to admonish professors of patent law with remarks like “You need to….” and “It’s that simple”.

    I have a suggestion. Before you post next time, Cut, stop and think that, if it really is “that simple” maybe there is something about “it” that you have not yet quite got your head around.

  19. It’s that simple.

    It’s not that simple. Unless your patent blows onto someone else’s land.

    35 USC 261 says that you can own (and sell) a patent, but it doesn’t say you own all infringing articles. It’d be pretty silly if that were the law, making particular reference to my earlier posts in this thread.

  20. IANAE,

    You need to come to grips with the property aspect of patents per the law.

    See 35 U.S.C. 261 Ownership; assignment.
    Subject to the provisions of this title, patents shall have the attributes of personal property.

    It’s that simple.

  21. KB: What is the difference from holding a landowner liable for placing an automobile factory on his land and having a system that carries-out a claimed method without a license and having a seed sit on his land that carries-out a claimed method without a license?

    Not a whole lot, if you could manage to sneak a factory onto someone’s land without his knowledge. In either case, I think there’s an argument to be made that the land owner is not the infringer so long as he doesn’t make/use the device or carry out the method. But that’s nothing to do with the trespass issue, because (1) nobody put the seed on anybody else’s land, and (2) the person you’re accusing of trespass doesn’t even own the offending seed.

    KB: Therefore one must ask, if a system exists that cannot be controlled how can this be a patentable method, because it occurs without input from humans, i.e., it has become a naturally occurring process.

    We are talking about agriculture here, right? If the existence of genetically-modified seed (as well as the terms of Monsanto’s license agreement) isn’t at least circumstantial evidence that humans exercise considerable control over agriculture, I’m not sure what more I can say to you.

    But that’s the validity/infringement discussion again, and I thought you were talking about trespass to land.

    KB: I agree that the seed might be able to be patented, but not the method carried-out by the seed, because the method now exists without human intervention, i.e., it has become a naturally occuring process.

    Would it surprise you to learn that neither of these two patents contains a single claim to a method that could be carried out by a seed without human intervention?

    KB: Look at it another way, if the only means for a farmer to stop patent infringment is by the destruction of the device that he purchased (the seed), then how can it be said that he has title to the seed?

    Because it’s the device that he purchased. That’s why he has title to the seed. It doesn’t get simpler than that. Whether he can use his own seed in a particular way without violating (or licensing) someone else’s rights isn’t a question of title, it’s a question of patent infringement. We all own patent-infringing devices. I’m typing on one right now, most likely. I can’t stop it from being an infringement without destroying it. Who owns the device?

    And that’s not even considering that (1) it’s quite possible to use the seed without using its patented features, e.g. by not spraying roundup, or by simply eating it, (2) it’s otherwise possible to stop the seed from “infringing” without destroying it, e.g. by not planting it, and (3) the right to destroy the seed is itself indicative of an ownership right.

    If the judge tells you that you’re never to get a driver’s license again, in what sense can it be said that you own your car? Sure, you can’t legally use it for much, but that doesn’t make you any less the owner.

  22. Wow Ken You are awesome The Hybrid is not a product of nature,if it is altered. And I say if you can’t alter Humans DNA then why can you alter and Patent what they eat that was natural before hand? And if you can alter the Seed to plant, then Patent it, but then you can’t own the Seed after it is sold.

  23. Well hmmm I would argue that the seed is not a product of nature in that it has been altered to include a compound that makes it inert impervious to a chemical that is toxic to plants in general. However, it is manifest that Monsanto did not create the portion of the seed that allows the same to grow and reproduce. As a result, the biological processes that gives the seed value, i.e., to grow and produce food, is a naturally occurring system, i.e., a product of nature. With that said I would actually have to analyze the claimed method to determine whether it was obvious in view of the prior art or provided the requisiste utility pursuant 112 or was not statutory subject matter under 101. In short, Monsanto would have one difficult time were I litigating against it. This probably explains why I would never sit on a bench. My heroes are Holmes, Hand and Brandeis. I like to apply the law independent of the parties, i.e., I would treat a billion dollar company no different than a hobo living on the street when it came to applying the law.

  24. IANAE you must think by analogy. What is the difference from holding a landowner liable for placing an automobile factory on his land and having a system that carries-out a claimed method without a license and having a seed sit on his land that carries-out a claimed method without a license? That is really the anaology. The seed is a factory that carries-out a complex biological process. What you need is notice that the claimed method is occurring. For example, the sub-system can be easily turned-off so as not to carry-out the steps of the claimed method. However, the step carried-out by the seed cannot. Therefore one must ask, if a system exists that cannot be controlled how can this be a patentable method, because it occurs without input from humans, i.e., it has become a naturally occurring process. I agree that the seed might be able to be patented, but not the method carried-out by the seed, because the method now exists without human intervention, i.e., it has become a naturally occuring process.
    Look at it another way, if the only means for a farmer to stop patent infringment is by the destruction of the device that he purchased (the seed), then how can it be said that he has title to the seed?

  25. No. If the farmer owned the seed, there would be no need to have a license – that would be redundant.

    Yeah, you see that defense to infringement all the time. “I own this article, so why should I need to take a license?”

    No – you are confusing your remedy with what the patent is. By statute, a patent is a property right. No way around this.

    Whatever you say. Good luck with your action in trespass.

  26. No. The farmer holds a license to practice the patent. The farmer owns the seed.

    No. If the farmer owned the seed, there would be no need to have a license – that would be redundant.

    but that’s your iPhone.

    Bad example – you actually don’t own “the iPhone” – you may own the plastic casing, but you don’t own the software and may not own the hardware. Patent rights – property rights – are very much still in force with the iPhone, so your analogy is faulty one way or another.

    No, a patent is nothing more than a sui generis right to sue people who do what’s in your claim.

    No – you are confusing your remedy with what the patent is. By statute, a patent is a property right. No way around this.

    Suppose you have…
    Ignored – get the basics right first.

  27. No. The farmer owns a license to the seed.

    No. The farmer holds a license to practice the patent. The farmer owns the seed.

    If you buy an iPhone, you own it. You have an implied license to use it and thereby “infringe” all of Apple’s owned and licensed patents, but that’s your iPhone.

    When Apple buys its iPhone parts from wherever, it probably has a license to whatever patented parts are in there. I’m sure the license has some restrictions on use, sale, sub-licensing, etc. though they’re probably less onerous than Monsanto’s terms. Doesn’t mean Apple’s suppliers own your iPhone either.

    No. Being a patentee means that you have a property right. It is completely illogical to have any other meaning.

    No, a patent is nothing more than a sui generis right to sue people who do what’s in your claim.

    Suppose you have a huge machine in your factory that includes a widget and a gadget. Company A has a patent claiming “a machine having a widget”. Company B has a patent claiming “a machine having a gadget”. Which of those two companies has a property right in your machine? Both? Are they ipso facto trespassing on your factory because you infringe their patent? Is any of that logical?

  28. Point 1:
    The farmer owns the seed, having purchased it from Monsanto.

    No. The farmer owns a license to the seed. Monsanto still “owns” the seed – and the right to the seed’s progeny. That is the sticking point – Monsanto’s greedy little hands are still in the cookie jar.

    Be careful of what you wish for…

    Point 2:
    patentee/licensor of a feature of the seed, which is not a property right.

    No. Being a patentee means that you have a property right. It is completely illogical to have any other meaning.

    Gear back down to the basics. Your mind is racing too fast.

  29. The farmer owns the seed, having purchased it from Monsanto. The Agreement is clear on that point. The only remaining Monsanto connection is that Monsanto is a patentee/licensor of a feature of the seed, which is not a property right.

    By your logic, if the seed contained a dozen sequences patented by and licensed from a dozen different companies, would they all be liable in trespass? Is it really that simple?

    If I drop my iPhone on somebody’s front lawn, how many patentees should worry about getting sued if they don’t remove it? And if they do remove it, should they worry about getting sued for taking my iPhone?

  30. Therefore, if I am a farmer and there a second generation seeds on my land that I do not want, it is incumbent upon Monsantor to remove the seeds or face trespass liability. It is that simplle.

  31. Oh so now I get it Louwilda! What he is saying is Stealing my Idea was your deal. But stealing My Idea after it was realized to be even more lucrative was not the Pirates Deal with you Miss Pearl. Too bad for the both of you

  32. I have problems with the whole concept with monsanto’s assertion of infringement in general. The self replicating nature of the seeds/plants would seem to prevent the equitable assertion of infringment against the alleged infringer (2nd farmer). Unless the 2nd farmer could be shown to have purposefully planted the infringing seeds, it would be neigh impossible for him to stop the infringement (anyone that has ever gardened or even has a basic grasp of how tenacious mother nature can be understands this). Seeds are not books, which can’t self replicate. Come to think of it, what kind of issues would be raised by a software that replicates itself to another’s computer?

    Current (patent) laws would seem inadequate in dealing fairly with the situation.

  33. I do not believe that this reasoning is valid.

    Isn’t there a case about lens blanks that covers this concept?

  34. Dear Mr. Patent Exhaustion:

    I think that you have accurately grasped the situation. Unfortunately the law bends greatly and, at times, disappears when there are great fortunes at stake. I believe a line from the movie Pirates of the Carribean is appropriate. You remember this: “First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate’s code to apply and you’re not. And thirdly, the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.”

    Now I shall make it appropriate: “First, your saving and replanting seeds was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a corporation for the patent code to apply and you’re not. And thirdly, the code is more what you’d call “guidelines” than actual rules. Welcome aboard the New World Order, Mr. Farmer.”

  35. Perhaps someone understands transactions such as thus that they can elaborate of what the following, taken from the opinion, really means:

    “Monsanto authorizes growers to sell second-generation seed to local grain elevators as a commodity…”

    The term “commodity” is unclear, and what a grain elevator operator can do with the “commodity” is likewise unclear.

    For those who may be struggling with “license”, “sale”,, etc., perhaps it is useful to ask what would a bag of seed cost if the seed was sold if not limited to only First Gen use?

  36. Froggy Daddy in California Monsanto would be liable under the DILLON theory of strict liability for damage cause by foodstuffs if the feature that resulted in the harm did not naturally occur in the foodstuff. The most simple example, which happened to a classmate of mine, is the presence of a small pebble in a muffin. My classmate broke her tooth on it. Unfortunately for the store the law review competition concerned the DILLON theory. After a short letter my classmante received a $5,000.00 check. I must admit personal injury law is ver lucrative at times.

  37. They license the technology (the RoundupReady trait), but the physical seeds are sold. Exhaustion isn’t triggered b/c there’s no SALE of the actual patented technology… they don’t own patents in the seeds themselves, they own patents in the Roundup resistant trait.

  38. I would like to ask the Gangsters if the Seed they say is leased? What happens when it grows up and becomes a Tomato? Is Monsanto liable for the Tomato Worms damage, or the storms that destroy the Seed by washing it up above the soil it is planted in, or the droughts that keep it from germinating. Where did they ever get the idea that the Seed you BUY you don’t own.
    On another note this Seed germinated a long time ago. Coercion was the only thing that led it astray. And I am not a Monsanto Seed. So that makes you liable for the DAMAGE!

  39. You know the Statute found on VCR Tapes and DVD’s .. the one that says it is against the Law to copy this and share it. You are correct in it being the Farmers seed. And he can use it in any way he sees fit as long as he doesn’t share it with his neighbor. Even though what you are saying is really probably not what i am answering.

  40. Is the problem then the fact that you have both a license and purchase?

    Is not such an agreement already problematic as to the improper use of a patent, possibly making that patent unenforceable?

    I am thinking (but this is not something I am an expert in) that there are a number of activies that a patentee can engage in that violate the the rules governing patent use. I thought one of those was trying to control what someone did after the sale of the patent when that sale transfers ownership. Can you not be an owner and then try to control what the actual owner can do? Isn’t this a direct flaunting of the exhaustion doctrine on its face? SInce the ownership of the original seed was transferd, doesn’t that break the chain of who owns the progeny?

  41. You see that is the problem with licensing as opposed to selling a product,

    They’re not licensing the seed. The Agreement merely limits the right to use the seeds, which they’re entitled to do even though the farmer owns the seeds, because use would constitute patent infringement. Pretty much all of the grower’s “I AGREE:” provisions relate to use. So, basically a garden variety (so to speak) patent license.

    Also:

    YOU RECEIVE FROM MONSANTO COMPANY:

    * A limited use license to purchase and plant seed containing Monsanto Technologies (“Seed”) [...]

    It’s the farmer’s seed.

  42. Here is part of the license.

    This Monsanto Technology/Stewardship Agreement grants you a limited license to use Roundup Ready® soybeans, YieldGard® Corn Borer corn and YieldGard® Corn Rootworm corn*, Roundup Ready® corn, YieldGard® Corn Borer with Roundup Ready® corn, Roundup Ready® cotton, Bollgard® cotton, Bollgard® with Roundup Ready® cotton, Bollgard®II* cotton, Bollgard®II with Roundup Ready® cotton, Roundup Ready® sugarbeets and Roundup Ready® canola (Monsanto Technologies). This Agreement also contains your stewardship responsibilities and requirements associated with the Monsanto Technologies.

    The rest can be found here:
    link to mindfully.org

    You see that is the problem with licensing as opposed to selling a product, i.e., software. As a licensory you still have liability. As I mentioned above with respect to software, if there is any portion of software remaining on my computer when I decided to terminate the license then it becomes a trespass. This is the corollary to when I violate a software license I can be sued for copyright infringement, because I no long have the right to the backup copy of the software. Licensing is not the way to go in this culture. You want to sell your products so you can be done with it. Hey that is just my opinion.

  43. When Monstanto’s patents expire, the farming countryside will be a safer place. Although with AIA enacted, it’s probably safer already.

  44. Well the way I understood the Monsanto agreement the farmer did not own the seed. Rather, the farmer licenses the seeds. That is why they cannot collect and regrow the seeds. The farmer has only a license and, therefore, does not have title to the seed. This is where the trespass arises.

    I haven’t read the licenses, but it would certainly be an odd state of affairs if the farmer licensed the seed (instead of licensing the patents), particularly since the original seed is gone after planting and most (all?) of the crop is sold on to third parties for consumption.

    In any event, Monsanto doesn’t have to assert its ownership of the seed to make its case for infringement. It’s simply not a fact relevant to their case. There are also other plausible theories of infringement that don’t rely on trespass, such as theft of seeds or independent development of an infringing strain.

    I don’t even know if a farmer still owns seeds that blow off his land onto the next farmer’s land – have farmers ever been able to reclaim those seeds under a property theory?

    Then you have the problem of infringement by cross-pollination, and you’d have a hard time showing Monsanto’s ownership of pollen.

    Please direct all complaints to the Monsanto corporation.

  45. Well the way I understood the Monsanto agreement the farmer did not own the seed. Rather, the farmer licenses the seeds. That is why they cannot collect and regrow the seeds. The farmer has only a license and, therefore, does not have title to the seed. This is where the trespass arises. We see a similar issue with software. Some software remains on an individual’s computer when it is removed, i.e., DLL entries and the like. However, a computer owner is never sued for these entries remaining on the computer and furtehrmore these entries do not block access to the storage sectors where the entries are stored upon new information being recorded in the same sector. However, were the software to block use of these sectors . . . well you have a trespass. This is a case I have been waiting to bring with respect to viruses. They do just that. Here, of course, you have trespass to chattel as opposed to land. However, the harm is analogous to trespass to land. You right to use your property without interference from others is infringed. That is the basis of trespass . . . interference.

    As a matter of fact, trespass to land was so important to our founding fathers that they placed restrictions on the government use of private land: The Third and the Fifth Amendment. The Third is really my favorite. It is without question when DHS, NSA, CIA or any other governmental organization who without court oversight places software on your computer for purposes of gathering information. It is my opinion that the Third Amendment Prohibits this. However, I digress. I guess I read too much.

  46. However, with the seed business there are some real interesting issues that arise. However, I submit that very few of you truly understand tresapass to land apart from somebody entering land without permission.

    This is an interesting issue indeed, if (as you seem to imply) Monsanto would have committed an actionable trespass to land by a second party’s property blowing onto a third party’s land without Monsanto’s direct involvement.

    What “property right” is Monsanto asserting that non-seed patentees don’t normally assert when they accuse defendants of infringement?

  47. When I understand the facts, then I’m ready to understand how the law of trespass applies to those facts. But I do not yet have the facts clear.

    If everybody else understands them, don’t bother about me, just keep debating the law and I’ll leave you to it.

  48. Max Drei:

    The gravaman of the ADM lawsuit was that the growing of the GM seed on the land was an infringing use of the patented seed. As for the rest of you . . . you obviously never took the time to understand common law trespass. Why should you. In law school they basically focus on explaining why people who allegedly own property have to sacrifice their rights in the same to the government for purposes of all sorts of reasons. Well now, no one really pays attention to trespass between private parties, becuase well, it doesn’t come up too often. However, with the seed business there are some real interesting issues that arise. However, I submit that very few of you truly understand tresapass to land apart from somebody entering land without permission. Go read up on it.
    I suggest you read Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law. Very refreshing read. link to biotech.law.lsu.edu Read the section on trepass. You might learn something.

  49. I HAVE WAYYYYYY BETTER THINGS TO DO THAN ARGUE WITH YOU OVER SEEDS THAT WERE ONCE FREE. ORS OVER A COMPANY THAT TO ME IS ONE OF THE MOST DISGUSTING EXCUSES FOR A WAY TO MAKE MONEY. NAIVE ENOUGH FER YAHHHHHH SONNY?

  50. Try your local supermarket. Just about everything you can buy there that you can put in your mouth and swallow will fatten the corporate food chain, from Monsanto and Pioneer, through DuPont and Bayer through Cargill and ADM, through John Deere and New Holland through Tyson and Swift, and many, many more, except the farmer. Your federal government already donates generously your tax dollars as tax breaks, import quotas, and farm subsidies.

  51. “so putting this kind of pressure on him shouldn’t be of much practical use.

    Sure it would. Get every last farmer aware of this situation and you can possibly get the lawl changed.

  52. I think you need an education on PVP, germplasm protection under JEM Ag Supply and a whole lot more info.

    This is post is well, at least very naive.

  53. “Guy, Your first sentence I think I understand. Your second sentence I know I don’t.”

    Here’s what I believe `Guy meant. If the weed plants have adapted to Roundup, then Roundup will begin failing to control the weeds. If Roundup won’t control the weeds, farmers will stop using it, and so the value of “Roundup Ready” soybeans should also diminish.

    I don’t know whether (or not) `Guy’s first sentence is correct.

  54. Unfortunately for Monsanto, the industry and many farmers, many weeds have adapted and are increasingly resistant to Roundup. As such, Monsanto has protected most of the revenue value from these patents.

  55. Ken I don’t understand your:

    “the seeds had blown onto their land and were sued for infringement”

    Are you seriously suggesting that for Monsanto it is enough to found an action for patent infringement, each time the wind carries an infringing seed away on the wind.

    To me this defence (Oh, nothing to do with me. You see, it was the wind) is a teenzie bit less than fully convincing. Sorry.

  56. Yes, but as I had informed a couple of attorneys representing farmers out in the midwest who never planted seeds but the seeds had blown onto their land and were sued for infringement: when a party asserts a property right and said property right is upon one’s land, said party is trespassing

    Yes, but Monsanto is not asserting that it owns (property right) the infringing seeds. Monsanto asserts only that the seeds are an infringement of Monsanto’s patent. I hardly think they could assert infringement anyway if they owned the infringing article. And really, when is the infringing article ever not on the defendant’s land?

    I suppose there’s a theoretical argument that the guy who owns the next farm is trespassing by having his seeds on your land, but he’s not the one suing you for infringement and he’s not asserting his property right in the seeds, so putting this kind of pressure on him shouldn’t be of much practical use.

  57. Yes, but as I had informed a couple of attorneys representing farmers out in the midwest who never planted seeds but the seeds had blown onto their land and were sued for infringement: when a party asserts a property right and said property right is upon one’s land, said party is trespassing and must pay for trespass of one’s land in the greater amount of either the worth of the property right, the situs of which constitutes the trespass, or the value of the land so taken by the situs of the property right. Moreover, if the property right in known to be present in the land and the owner of said property right fails to inform the land owner or otherwise request removal of the property right so as to mitigate the damages to the land owner then punitive damages should be awarded and the local District Attorney should be inclined to bring criminal charges against the owner of the property right. Should the District Attorney consistently fail to protect landowner rights in the face of this situation then you remove the District Attorney from office and replace that person with an inividual who will enforce the land owner rights. This is the power of democracy. Remember that a District Attorney is an elected official.

Comments are closed.