American Soybean Association (ASA) President and Canton, Miss.-based soybean farmer Danny Murphy welcomed the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling today in Bowman v. Monsanto. The court’s 9-0 ruling expresses support for the protection of intellectual property. Murphy commented on the case’s broad implications for agricultural innovation: “By ruling unanimously in favor of maintaining the integrity of intellectual property laws, the Supreme Court has ensured that America’s soybean farmers, of which Mr. Bowman is one, can continue to rely on the technological innovation that has pushed American agriculture to the forefront of the effort to feed a global population projected to pass 9 billion by 2050.
“Revolutions in seed science have enabled soybean farmers to produce more food, feed, fiber and fuel with significantly reduced strain on resources. Without the protection of intellectual property that the court reaffirmed today, the companies on whom my fellow soybean farmers and I rely would have no real incentive to make the investments necessary to develop new soybean varieties that yield more, resist disease, weeds, and pests, are drought tolerant, or have improved nutritional profiles.
“Intellectual property protection sparked a sea change in investments by public and private seed breeders into improved seeds for soybeans and other crops. The Supreme Court’s decision today recognized that if you take away the incentive for those entities to strive for a better seed, they won’t make those investments and farmers eventually wo
A big victory. I'm glad to see it was 9-0.
ReplyDelete“By planting and harvesting Monsanto’s patented seeds, Bowman made additional copies of Monsanto’s patented invention, and his conduct thus falls outside the protections of patent exhaustion,” the court ruled. “Were this otherwise, Monsanto’s patent would provide scant benefit. After Monsanto sold its first seed, other seed companies could produce the patented seed to compete with Monsanto, and farmers would need to buy seed only once.”
ReplyDelete“Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article. Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court. “The question in this case is whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without thepatent holder’s permission. We hold that he may not.”
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10761134193608102151&q=Bowman+v.+Monsanto&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5&as_vis=1
ReplyDeleteThis one concerns me a little bit. Patents were intended for machines and inventions, not living things, plants or otherwise. What if farmer A plants Monsanto's monster seeds next to farmer B's heirloom seeds, which he saved from last years crop, and the two cross polinate? Can Monsanto tell farmer B that since some of their monster DNA is now in his crop that he can no longer save his seeds for future plantings without paying royalties?
ReplyDeleteHumans have been using genetic engineering for years by observation, natural cross breeding, and grafting techniques, among other things. Once you place something in a lab and make life that couldn't be otherwise achieved through natural selection concerns me.
Exactly Brian - read the link above as it clarifies what Bowman did and it is anything but cut and dry. The seeds that Bowman planted where NOT from a seller who guaranteed the product.
DeleteI am not that happy with this one considering the facts presented. There is too much gray area...
The cross polinated seeds are no longer F1 hybrids and are not covered by the original patent. Companies have patented fruit trees for at least 100 years, preventing others from making grafted copies.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, they got it right for sure. If a company can spend the time and money to develop a new product, they must be assured that they can have patent protection. The fact that this decision was 9-0 marks a bright spot for our otherwise disfunctional government. Gotta, if God had meant men to fly he would have given them wings, welcome to the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteAh......Men don't fly, airplanes do. Men just ride on the machines that are doing the flying.
DeleteIn my eye I only see the potential to feed millions, maybe billions of people around the world. God Bless America that we develop the people and corporations that make these things possible.
DeleteThese resistant seeds along with new desalinization filters becoming available can sustain and improve lives around the globe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete“By ruling unanimously in favor of maintaining the integrity of intellectual property laws, the Supreme Court has ensured that America’s soybean farmers, of which Mr. Bowman is one, can continue to rely on the technological innovation that has pushed American agriculture to the forefront of the effort to feed a global population projected to pass 9 billion by 2050."
DeleteCould someone who is clearly in favor of Monsanto locking up the gene sequences of various plants for years, preventing others from doing research please explain to me.. with reference.... Precisely what has been gained from genetically modified Monsanto seeds? It is interesting that a soy-bean farmer would be so happy with this decision given that the history of genetic soy-bean yield is inferior to that of traditional crop outputs year in and year out? How do you feel about governments, who are known to work... closely with corporations like Monsanto, passing laws which will prohibit the use of seeds other than those 'approved' for use?
Patient law is important when applied properly but even within the manufacturing world we see court fights over infringement of things that could in no way be considered innovative but a dysfunctional patent office awards protection anyway.... Just because the court upheld the stature of patents and intellectual property doesn't mean that patents for nefarious reasons aren't awarded stifling real innovation and improvements from people who really want to do good works...
In my eye I see a push for high yield refined carbohydrates making an ever more populous, increasingly ill world...
"Just because the court upheld the stature of patents and intellectual property doesn't mean that patents for nefarious reasons aren't awarded stifling real innovation and improvements from people who really want to do good works..."
DeleteScott, would you care to detail exactly who you are talking about? What nefarious reasons, and the names of some of these evil doers? The way you make it sound the people who work for Monsanto, from the CEO on down, only want to profit from harming people. Please fill me in. I'm all ears. Thanks.
"In my eye I see a push for high yield refined carbohydrates making an ever more populous, increasingly ill world..."
DeleteAnd Scott, from your last sentence I surmise that you'd like to restrict inexpensive sources of food to control population. No?
William, it is obvious that you do not share the view that many large corporations are patent trolls. Chief Justice Rader said that the patent system is unfairly targeted as being broken. "Now, the abuse they are talking about is not an abuse of the patent system. It is an abuse of the patent system by litigators. The abuse always takes the same character. They assert a patent far beyond the value of its contribution to the field of technology in which it is found. That is the abuse. That is what we need to target. We do not need to reform the patent system. We need to reform the expense and burden of the litigation system."
DeleteLike pharmaceuticals that claim protection from generic companies though the use of false data and predatory sales practice. Like a patent claim for a particular style or finish sold through the litigation process as being a technological advance but really its only cosmetic thus preventing others from using the same look to potentially achieve real advancements. Like Monsato advertising a seed that increases yield when in fact it doesn't but prevents anyone else from working with a particular gene sequence for years. Is everyone in Monsanto evil... no... does Monsanto have a marketing and legal department looking for ways to neuter its competition... you dammm skippy!
So if someone marketed an extremely inexpensive, calorie dense, slow acting acting arsenic... you would feed it to your children?.... the lowly poor? Just because something is cheap per calorie doesn't make it a healthy food and it certainly isn't the type of food one should want to base a population explosion on. By the way, what is it that drives the desire for an exponential population gain on this planet? What drives the desire to push more and more of the planets natural world to the edge of habitat and extinction?
DeleteI'm all for litigation reform, bring it on! I suggest electing fewer attorney's prior to undertaking this legislative effort.
DeleteAs for Monsanto, if their product does not provide the yield of other seed then the market will take down sales in the long run. Are corporation competitive? Do they occasionally over reach during decades long patent fights? You bet they do Skippy. This is a free country.
I repeat my request that you provide proof of your nefarious claims. Exaggerated Eco gibberish only cuts it in universities. This is the street, prove your thesis. Name names and facts.
DeleteMalthusian views aren't limited to your ideas on the subject Scott. Not to worry though, the Dr. Gosnell's of our world have done a great job by reducing our very own USA population by over Fifty Million souls since Roe V Wade. Just imagine the demand for those cheap arsenic laden calories if those babies grew into adulthood. Monsanto's stock would probably be double it's value if they were around. Oh the inhumanity! The rape of mother earth!
Oh... I see, Monsanto like the banks and our over zealot federal police are just over achievers... Bless them. Monsanto has quite a reputation for suing farmers adjacent to a Monsanto planted field when Monsanto seeds contaminate those fields. Monsanto refuses to stop this practice. Receiving a patent for protection against infringement is one thing. Using that same patent to put farmers who choose not to use Monsanto products and organic farmers who can no longer claim organic non-GMO crops out of business is indeed nefarious use of a patent. Seeds are easily carried by birds or blown by the wind into fields of non-GM seeds, exposing farmers who have never bought seeds from Monsanto to lawsuits and for some odd reason the courts refuse to protect other farmers against GM contamination. A recent study discovered that at least half of the organic seeds in the US are contaminated with some genetically modified material.
DeleteWhile it is easy enough to say that the market will sort out a product that proves to be inferior, given that farmers around the world are using Monsanto’s technology with a lot of help from its international trade partner, the US government, the proof that these seed are inferior in yield and are responsible for resistant weeds that now require even more herbicide use will be of little consolation to a world contaminated with their product. Would Monsanto’s bottom line be hurt. Yeah, but it does nothing for any damage they many do. It’s all well and good to talk about a pharmaceutical or toy manufacturer that puts a product out and it kills a few thousand. You can pull the product and say oops but you can litigate Monsanto into the ground and the damage just keeps on spreading... Exaggerated eco gibberish.... indeed.
Cute....So not producing as much poor quality food as necessary to not only sustain but indeed encourage a growing tax base and expanding market... er.. I mean, population that by any measure is past being highly detrimental to most ecosystems around the world and its resources is now a euphemism for abortion. So a father, only able to feed a small family a good quality diet is remiss because he doesn’t feed them cheap food and procreate more? A truly capitalist approach to a liberals view of welfare....
While often misinterpreted by a quote for in an assay he wrote, Malthus wasn’t apocalyptic as much as he was stating a fact..... Human population will be controlled by the food available to it... Simple. Just because we have the ability to destroy even more rain forest for its extremely poor soil doesn’t mean that we should and just because we are capable of growing huge amounts of refined carbohydrates, doesn’t mean that it is good for us... Time will tell and you mark my words, the villains in world health with high blood pressure, IBS, obesity, diabetes and heart disease won’t be fat.. won’t be cholesterol, it will be refined carbohydrates.... but that’s just conspiracy against Americas grain machine... How Marxist.
Your repeated use of the word contamination is an interesting study. The repitition of an untruth or unproven postulate can easily prey on soft minds. Ever since "Silent Spring" we have witnessed the Eco propagandists and their button phrases. You happen to be quite good at it Scott but that expertise doesn't substitute for your lack of hard facts.
DeleteFisher farmers have been modifying their stock for millenniums. Orchard grafting, selective breeding, tricking plants with controlled climate (hot houses),,,,yes seeds do blow (in all directions), fish eggs are transported in scat, insects arrive buryied from overseas in cargo pallets,,,,Scott, nothing in the natural world is Simon pure.
Genes mutate naturally and artificially in labs. Are mistakes made, sure. The people who endeavor to create these scientific leaps, dispite you jaded view, for the most part know that profit follows usuable product. Cutting edge technology in all fields of creation has always been questioned by reactionaries, Scott.
The "Green Reactionaries" would have us use oxen to plow, would have us not cut and replant forests for habitat. The US has been clearcut and reforested over and over again in our short history.
DeleteBanks have replaced bartering and expanded the elasticity of the puka shell script. Bad bankers, rotten bankers, sure, again Scotty, very few things are Simon pure. Your obvious envy of the US market driven system sets your elitism like a hook in a tuna. Of course you have better ideas, superior opinions, sovereign positions,,after all aren't you and your views those of the "right people?"
We have your prototype right here in the good old US of A. He goes by the name A. Gore.
You are merely an apologist for bad business. No doubt your retirement heavily depends on the success of some of those with the worst practices because of course to hitch your wagon to them in their hay days of profit, however gained, improves your personal outlook tremendously. Your arguments are wrong on so many levels and your attempt to paint me as some type of brainwashed EcoWarrior with a greenpeace flag firmly in hand is as exasperating as someone who cares for the morality and sanctity of life being painted as nothing more than a bible thumping nut job. While both may in fact be true..... neither is relevant to the facts.
DeleteContamination (Noun): The act of contaminating or polluting; including (either intentionally or accidentally) unwanted substances or factors.
Of course it is contamination!
You can’t have it both ways by saying nothing is ‘Simon pure’ because of natural occurrence as a defence and turn around defend a business who’s practice it is to sue because of its occurrence. As happens regularly, Monsato litigates this ‘natural occurrence’ and if the only way of protecting myself legally in dealing your naturally dispersed product is essentially quit farming or to obtain no-fault insurance then, yes.... you contaminated my crop. Just as I have to purchase insurance to protect myself the negligence of others who will not live up to their responsibility when they cause damage.
You seem to like to morally justify the motives of what this business in particular does, because after all, they are doing no more than nature does all by itself... Right? .... well, I find that argument just as weak, shallow and narrow minded as I would for someone to say to me that abortion is perfectly OK because nature induces miscarriage regularly. It is rationalization to the highest order.
Again in your condescending style, you want to paint me as anti business. I am far from that but I am very much the against predatory business model. I am all for patent rights but I am against people harvesting patents to prevent others from doing good work and I am against companies suing for patent infringement when there is no reasonable ability to avoid infringement... of course, that brings up the thought that if there is no way to avoid infringing on a patent regardless of how much you might try.... should the patent have been issued in the first place... and should the government by way of the court system enable them in their monopolistic and predatory business model? Oh yes... and being the socialist that you no doubt paint me, I am for laws that prevent business models that have a conflict of interest like doctors selling medicine, optometrist selling glasses and banks taking deposits and putting it in their own private slot machine.
I like your line... it made me grin: “You happen to be quite good at it Scott but that expertise doesn't substitute for your lack of hard facts.”
The hard facts Billy are born out in court cases all the time. People unhappy with Monsanto seed in their non-gmo modified crops and Monsanto taking people to court because their seeds are in someone else’s field... CONTAMINATION.... for better or worse it is the right word for the ‘unplanned’ and unauthorized comingling of your inseparable property with mine.
Continued.....
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAs for attempting to prove, with facts, as you well know, a negative, is indeed difficult to prove. Will Monsanto seeds have a negative impact on the environment and agriculture in specific?... don’t know but I do know that when nature creates a mistake, it finds a way to get rid of it and for the most part it never allows a catastrophic mutation to occur as it remedies the ‘errors’ before they get that big. We do know that their efforts have created weeds that will no longer respond to traditional herbicides and require even more of Monsanto’s own brand to work..... Its hard to prove just where that path will lead. Do we know what wonderful science will stem from the many plants on this planet?... do we know just what things may never be discovered by clearing rainforest of plants and animals that have yet to be discovered for a field of wheat?????
DeleteI have no problem with experiments and research. We wouldn’t be where we are today without it. Although I must say, the power of the buck has led us down nutritional and medical paths that are not in the best interest of the population at large. I do have a problem with unleashing un-retrievable research before its effects are ... very well known. Almost any researcher is involved because they choose to be and they, like astronauts, deep sea divers and prize fighters take the risk.... they don’t ask the spectators to. The world is not the play pen of the Dr. Wirths types and anything you do in the world that cannot be stopped is of particular concern to me.
Real quick with your last little bits of babble...
“The US has been clearcut and reforested over and over again in our short history.”
The US has a very health stand of trees designed for lumber.... that is softwood. Would you care to enlighten me as to the number of hard wood forests that have been replaced in kind?.... A tree is not a tree and an evergreen/conifer forests are not healthy habitat to all.
“Are mistakes made, sure. The people who endeavor to create these scientific leaps, dispite you jaded view, for the most part know that profit follows usuable product.”
Where you and I differ on this statement is intent. I will give Monsanto the benefit of a doubt and say that early on their product goals had good intent. We see however after many years of product release, that their products don’t quite live up to that stated on the package exemplified by lower yields in soya (and other shortcomings) and decreasing effectiveness of its designer RoundUp herbicide. Its court practices are quite predatory... no doubt to make up for the revenue it would lose were real product appreciation to guide the market and its business model MUST know that eventually its patents will end up in every seed in the world.... That would place it in the category of monopoly because of the way it structures its contracts and with this knowledge and intent to see it through.... In a society of laws, one could almost see a RICO case having merit.... but that is just my opinion.
“Your obvious envy of the US market driven system sets your elitism like a hook in a tuna”
Care to explain.... the phraseology leaves me at a loss.
Of course you have better ideas, superior opinions, sovereign positions,,after all aren't you and your views those of the "right people?"
There you go again with your holier than thou attacks...... blindly following you own version of the Republican attack manual..... Must admit though that it worked quite well to silence Ron Paul within the party..... You guys used it so well that you pushed a losing candidate up against Obama... Your kind is in part the reason we have these hideous example of a president.
I do appreciate your lengthy responses Scott. I must have touched a nerve. Let's get to your last paragraph first.
DeleteConfusing me with a big "R" republican is exceptionally laughable. If you had been around in the old MW days and read my diatribes under the name DollarInflation you would have gained a better understanding of my placement on this chess board. My days as a formal Republican ended in February 2009. My sign off 1773-2009 is what it is and is understood for what it is by the majority of the board. In a nutshell the only Republican worth his salt during my lifetime was RR. Period. I believe and study the constitution, I could give a rats ass for either socialist party.
During my lifetime I have also witnessed the culling out of creative people by the so called "educated" amonst us. I have seen those who have tossed diversity aside and without thought joined the legions of those who swim with the school. Many times following the faux leaders right on over the falls.
Scott have you ever witnessed a pond or small lake after thousands of geese have overnighted? Have you ever come across an abandoned foundation in the forest? Contamination is tempoary, contamination is a part of life. Nature is strong, nature is resilient.
What is not resilient is thought based on closeted envy and herd mentality.
1773-2009
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSorry for the delete above.... didn't preview and paragraph spacing was lost....
DeleteTouch a nerve.... nah.
I thought we were actually having a discussion. One of the reasons I rarely post on these sites anymore is because I constantly find people like you to ‘converse’ with. Short on real facts and unable to answer points they result to cheap shots and poetic phrase that means nothing or diverts the subject completely. Whether you are a practicing Republican or not, your logic is just as convoluted and contradictory and your methods are ingrained from years as a learned disciple.
My response was to clearly state my position on the subject of corporate responsibility and the harm they do to humanity, its health and vitality and what they do to irrevocably change the ‘direction’ that nature takes in its resilience. That response took time and consideration. Sorry if you were bored by it or even worse if you actually thought that it was a reaction to your formidable intimidation. It, like any other post I make, was an attempt on my part to learn... and maybe get others to look at the subject in a slightly different way. Unlike many people, while I do have a fairly steadfast moral outlook, it is based on my accumulated knowledge to date... But I am always willing to modify my thoughts when I can be shown the error of my knowledge or the application of my reasoning. My purpose coming to forums like this is to learn and to express my perspective. All too often though, I run into people who detest being on the wrong side of a discussion and hate even more to admit the fallacy of their logic..... Hence the fact that you provided no counter to my view point, no facts to dispute my position and relatively flimsy reasoning to support yours.
Whether nature is resilient or not is beside the point and is indeed a completely different subject to the one at hand. But I will say to both of your examples... the geese and the foundation (though still present) were temporary incursions into that piece of nature... What if the geese stayed? What if the foundation was only a cornerstone to an ever expanding, all consuming population.... you are right; nature is resilient... the geese would die of starvation, at least in those large numbers... and what of humanity.. Do the geese hold a clue? As we have seen throughout history... man sometimes isn’t quite as clever as he likes to think he is and his belief that he can somehow control and direct nature outstrips his Darwinian reality.
Thanks for the charming response scott. I thought I indicated my response on the corporate subject earlier when I pointed towards competition. Monsanto is not the only group of folks who are studying these issues, and creating products to enhance happiness (like having a regular meal). Monsanto does have a corporate responsibility to protect itself, it's customers, and it's shareholders, in this day and age that includes a large portfolio of litigation.
DeleteAs I have stated over and over on this board, I feel for you, like Max and others, and your lack of a component in your brain that enables you to see past your Darwinian blindness. Straight line thinking based on shortsighted projections gleamed from propagandist sources. No, it is not easy to think for oneself. It is never easy to foresee the next paradigm but they exist and are out there just the same.
As far as the geese and foundation are concerned both sources of pollution have existed for millennium. Your disrespect for the human race and life itself is evident. Man stumbles into the future. The guidance of man by totalitarian regimes and the minder mentality of those that deal in such clap trap becomes tiresome. I hope you're not in that category scott.
I am so sorry; it was obviously a failure to communicate on my part. I made an assumption that when you said ‘competition’ the you were talking about free market competition, so when I explained about the predatory practices used in the Monsanto business model, I took it that you understood that Monsanto is anything but a free market capitalist. I assumed that because you are against the tyranny of big government , Monsanto being so far up the governments backside that they speak through Obama’s mouth would have changed your opinion of what they do and certainly how they do it. I assumed that because of your extensive knowledge that the fact that just since Obama became president these appointments were made:
DeleteUSDA’s director of the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Roger Beachy was former director of the Monsanto Danforth Center.
FDA’s Deputy Commissioner of the, the new food-safety-issues czar, Michael Taylor was former vice-president for public policy for Monsanto. Taylor had been instrumental in getting approval for Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone.
Agriculture Trade Representative, who would push GMOs for export, Islam Siddiqui, a former Monsanto lobbyist.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton once worked for the Rose law firm. That firm was counsel to Monsanto.
That Monsanto has been well represented in government since Bush Sr. and the most appointments made to Monsanto representatives, 8 in all, were made during the Clinton years. All were either senior staff or positions with the USDA, FDA, EPA and Commerce.
That 2 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, Thomas and Kegan and either worked for or intervened on behalf of Monsanto in the past.
I assumed that you knew that Monsanto signed on as a direct partner to the UN’s Agenda21 initiative and it would have sent shivers up your back. Knowing that Monsanto seed is involved in 90% of US soya production, 85% of corn, 70% of cotton and Monsanto contracts force competitors out of business and stifles any real research to improve Americas food.... and lastly I thought you would be very concerned about one corporation having an iron clad grip of most of Americas food supply...... how you gonna feel when they decide on behalf of one of their governmental partners to slip in a Prozac gene, just the way the Monsanto protection act was slipped into the last appropriations bill....
I thought about all of that and guessed that either you were misinformed.... or your really aren’t all that much of a free market capitalist after all.... and maybe all you do is try to point your finger at other people claiming they have no understanding when in fact you like most other big government sympathizers use diversion as a tactic..... Will the real DollarInflation please stand up.
Oh yes, your understanding of ‘nature’ and its ‘resilience’ is somewhat flawed as well. Firstly, nature is... nature.... Venus is nature.... Crab Nebula is nature and our plant has nature. Nature is not some predesigned norm from which things cause it to deviate and eventually return to the norm... Nature is the sum of all of its elements and their interactions with each other.. remove and element or add an element nature changes..... yours unfortunately is the short view and we just are not smart enough to predict our influence 100, 1000, 10000 years down the road.... but then again, just like the lefts views on abortion and gay relationships..... your stock prices just don’t care what happens after you cash out.
Thank you for clearing all of that up scott. I shall unplug everything now and return to my cave with the knowledge that whatever man does odds are that he is f---ing up the universe.
DeleteI knew from your very first response to my comment that you could give a crap about discussion or facts, only the sound of your own condescending voice. To bad.... but then again, that is why I get frustrated with people on forums like this.... big on position, slack on substance.
DeleteWhy should people with a depth of knowledge be put in the role of advisers or leaders? Why the heck not?
DeleteIf Kagan and Thomas were associated with Monsanto and did vote Monsanto's way so what? What about the other seven voters? Or don't they count? Are you questioning Kagan and Thomas' integrity?
What does Hillary Clinton directly have to do with Monsanto? Hillary wouldn't know gene manipulation from jello.
While I don't support Agenda 21 by a long shot I understand why corporations seek to have a role and stay in the loop and protect their own interests. It's the same with the UN. I think being a member is a waste of time and money but I realize that you have to hold your enemies close.
As far as Monsanto having large market shares, my feeling is that it goes with having the best ideas. These things ebb and flow. Remember Kodak? Polaroid? Xerox? Dell? near monopolies? Nearly all gone.
Jefferson grafted plants. Did he set us on a spiral of destruction over 200 years later due to his gene manipulation?
What else do you need to know?
It is interesting how we hold big federal government harmless when it aligns with our beliefs, but if we are opposed, we want smaller government. I happen to favour distributed government as intended by the constitution. There is no doubt the last 3 president’s support GMO for their own aims, heartfelt or otherwise and have surrounded themselves with the yes men that will do their bidding. These appointments are for policy director positions filled by people whose job it was to promote Monsanto to business and government, not scientists and regardless of how you feel about GMO as a business; I would think that you would real at political steering of an industry just as much as you would using the IRS to kill opponents voices.
DeleteAt a minimum Judge Thomas should have recued himself. You ask what of the other 7... While I certainly believe that they are independent minded, they argue the points between themselves.... Monsanto had 2 who had bias for them arguing the very same points they argued as employees/litigators.
As far as Hillary goes... yeah, her association with the law firm is a stretch but I think that the Wikileak emails make it clear that state department officials are aggressively pressing other countries to use GMO products particularly for Soya and corn, both controlled by Monsanto... So, while she may not know much about GM.....I guess she was just following someone’s orders.
Now here is where you are stretching. A corporate partner to this initiative comes with some requirements. One of those is to give UN generated ‘sustainability’ classes to the company’s employees. Given the general thought and in-depth analysis most people do in forming their opinions, having Americans personally indoctrinated by their employer down the barrel of a paycheck is no more acceptable to me that what the US department of education does with our children.
For most normal monopolies you are correct, and with their demise their products are unplugged and thrown in a trash heap. Where the anti-GMO crowd fell into the arms of the GMO industry is there fear that they would create sterile crops (so called Terminator seeds)... that is crops that could not reproduce and thus require all new seed from the industry annually.... Smiling, the GMO industry ‘reluctantly’ agreed. Were they too have used that as a business model, their soya seed sales would have already collapsed. As it is, they sell renewable licences to the reluctant willing and litigate additional profit from those that never wanted to use their seed in the first place.
If we found out today that, GMO corn caused a disease, we would have to burn the US corn machine to the ground to get rid of the seeds. Every field, every grain solo, every storage facility and lab where seeds had the opportunity to comingle with non gmo would have to be emptied and the products destroyed. It would take years to rebuild enough seed from non GMO seed to start growing profitable food crops again. Once this product is out there is no unplugging it and as the court has said.... Monsanto has a right to payment even if you hate their product.
While in principle you could say that gene splicing/genetic engineering is the same as grafting/cross pollination/selective breeding, in practice they are two hugely different things. Nature does not readily allow for mutations and generally culls them quickly. Plants and animals outside of their own genetic family are incompatible in nature. This is why you don’t see carrots hanging from grape vines or cucumber apples or my hopeful favourite a cherry marijuana tree (Maricherry would be my trademark).. You can graft all you want and you will not get a surviving plant. We are quite afraid of natural barriers being crossed like if Avian or swine flu made a full jump to humans. Genetic engineering allows for the gene sequence of ANY organic material to be spliced..... how about human traits in a cow or how about mice with an elephant gene.. a fast growing food source that actually thrive on eating grains....
Good information scott. Thanks.
DeleteOh no william. I want to thank you. I learned so much about you... much more than you know... and I am sure others who might have followed did too.
DeleteThat's what it's all about scott. As I said in one of the notes above. Man stumbles into the future.
DeleteAnd we learned a bit about you also. Maricherry,,, interesting. Have a great Memorial day, or whatever holiday you celebrate.
Here's to future arguments, cheers!
1773-2009 Jefferson, after all, was a scientist
Limited government
Fiscal responsibility
Follow our constitution
“Equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law. Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect. Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics. Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty.”
Delete― Mark R. Levin, Ameritopia: The Unmaking of America
"The potential to feed millions" Not with a monopoly....
ReplyDeleteI take it Angie that you regard all patents as time restricted monopolies?
DeletePlease expand on your stance on property in general, and intellectual property in specific. Does anyone own anything? Thanks.
William,
DeleteI cannot speak for Angie, but I do believe in property rights, I also think that she and I are only arguing that some things are not patentable, such as life. If food is engineered that insects are poisoned by their consumption and are resistant to weed killers, do you really feel safe eating this food yourself?
Gotta, I understand that chocolate can make canines very i'll. I personally enjoy it very much.
DeleteIs the lumber used in your home still living? It remains organic even after being milled to death. Should engineered lumber be able to be patented by it's inventor?
Do cockroaches share human eating habits? Bedbugs? Lot's of people enjoy eating snails and truffle. Let's not go into where they reside.
Angie and Gotta think everything is a conspiracy, although I have never heard the one about airplanes flying themselves.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you have to be such a jerk? I never said conspiracy, just like I never mentioned war with Max on another thread. I am just questioning the legitimacy and potential moral hazards with this ruling. Airplanes are machines, soybeans and corn are living things. Once I purchase a patented machine, I can do pretty much anything I wish to do with it like sell it, rebuild it, throw it away, or modify it.
DeleteLiving things are different. Since you mentioned that planes cannot fly themselves, I have never seen a GMO seed plant itself or any other collected seed for that matter. So under your own reasoning, if I buy a patented airplane, I can only fly it once, then have to buy a new airplane the next time I wish to fly?
Here is a thought professor, take off you academic blinders bound in liberal theology and do some critical thinking of your own.
Gotta, I am not such a jerk, actually I am just a normal guy, a good husband and father and a productive member of society. Secondly, the airplane statement is an old saw that was used by people who resist change. Thirdly, the conspiricy statement was in response to some of your statements about Obama's birthplace, religion and politics. Fourthly, I wear no blinders, nor am I bound by liberal thought, or conservative thought, rather I am bound by critical thought, the search for meaning and truth. So, I propose a truce, let's keep our disagreements on a higher intelectual pland, with no sniping, as I was doing to you, and no name calling, as you were doing to me. Deal?
Delete