So what, the patent office gave Monsanto a patent on using Glyphosate to weed out non-Glyphosate-resistant plants?
Of course not, patents aren’t single line documents.
The actual patent is of course, public record, and you can read it for yourself. An integral part of the patent is the process of testing for Glyphosate resistance through application of varying concentrations of Glyphosate to seedlings. This is exactly what Schmeiser did, repeatedly, and every court in the land found that it was was a very clear and deliberate breach of the patent.
Well, I was not here yet. 
Lets calmly put that wide brush away… (check the rest of the post)
But yeah, you have to be commended for not falling for anti-scientific tall tales. As I mentioned before one of the first fellows I think of when this subject appears (THe politics of GM) was Paul Nurse.
http://royalsociety.org/news/paul-nurse-presents-horizon/
But why point at him so much? Because he is a socialist and some leftists need to learn that a good chunk of the left does not ignore science.
Hosing the field with roundup is part of the replication process used to manufacture a viable roundup ready seed stock.
A patented product wound up in his possession, without any contractual agreement with the patent holder. That does not give him the right to replicate the product for future use. It does not matter what kind of patented product it is, the basic rule is that the patent holder has the right to manufacture and distribute the patented product.
Allowances can easily be made with consideration that it is nigh impossible to eliminate the patented seed from an unintentionally mixed seed stock, you should be able to save your seed stock as usual.
Allowances need not be made for a person who seeks to eliminate his un-patented seed, and create seed stock that is 100% patented seed.
Blake, I don’t have anything to add but you have thoroughly fought my ignorance on this issue. It’s appreciated.
The court sent a "clear message " with a 5 to 4 vote?
It was tricky. The court determined that farming is intervention of the plant, even though they could propagate on Schmeise’rs property without it. They also noted that Schmeiser obtained no profits from the use of the patented genes. .
To the whole idea is extremely disturbing. Humans have been growing seeds produced from plants they sowed since the beginning of human society.
Somehow (and without widespread debate) we have made that “theft”. Even to the point that services like seed cleaning (which again have gone on since the dawn of agriculture) are assumed to be illegal.
That is just messed up.
No, it’s not. Monsanto figured out how to make a plant resistant to a herbicide. So a farmer could now plant a field and then spray it with Roundup, confident of killing all the weeds without killing the crop.
That special seed belongs to Monsanto. They’ll sell it to you, but you have to agree not to reuse your seed. You’re free to continue to do what you have done “since the beginning of human society.” But that includes weeding without benefit of Roundup, another process that has been done since the beginning of human society. If you want the benefit of seed that grows into plants that survive Roundup, then you have to agree to not reuse your seed. Your call.
No, the co-op in the cite above never signed any agreement with Monsanto. The merely cleaned seed (again a basic agricultural service that has been performed for centuries).
Somehow the law has turned this action a punishable act.
If someone signs a contract saying they agree to use the seed if they don’t do X, and they do X, sure they should be able to be sued, in civil court for breach of contract. That’s between Monsanto and person that signed the contact.
This goes WAY beyond that.
Please provide evidence that any court in the world has ever declared this to be a punishable act.
Why does this subject produce so much ridiculous hyperbole from the lefties?
No, it doesn’t.
A gunsmith may legitimately swap out barrels on pistols as part of his ordinary business routine repairing guns.
But a gunsmith that offers “no questions asked” services and seeks to spread word of its services amongst drug dealers can be inferred to be part of the drug dealers’ criminal enterprise.
If a farmer saves and reuses Monsanto seed, he’s violating the contract. If he hires you to go on to his field and save and clean seed for replanting, and you know he’s a Monsanto user, then you know he’s violating that contract. You can’t say, “Hey, none of my business,” and somehow dodge the liability for infrigning on the patent.
No one is forced to use Monsanto seed. These farmers want the economic benefit of the better seed without paying for it. If your argument is that we’ve been planting seed since the dawn of human society, then let them plant (and clean) seed that has existed since the dawn of human society. Want to plany and clean new, better Monsanto seed instead? Then pay for it.
No it wasn’t. Everything that you said was absolute bollocks.
Schmeiser didn’t accidentally have his fields contaminated. He deliberately introduced Gm seed to his fields.
Schemiser didn’t hate GM plants. He spent years of his life selecting for hem
Schmeiser didn’t take Monsanto to court. He was sued by Monsanto for deliberately stealing their intellectual property.
Schmeiser didn’t win any of those court cases, He was found liable by every court in the country.
There is nothing tricky about this. Every single thing that you have said in this thread has been erroneous, ignorant horseshit.
No, they didn’t. They determined that when Schmeiser spent three years deliberately and repeatedly spraying his fields with Glypshosate to select for GM resistant canola, that was a clear and deliberate breach of patent.
No, they didn’t. They determined that Schmeiser was such an idiot that the profits he made from the theft was actually less than the money he spent doing so.
This cite:
The grain elevator NEVER signed any contract with Monsanto. They were accused of “encouraging” farmers to break Monsanto’s patents.
Likewise for Maurice Parr:
The idea that this knee-jerk leftie hippie techno fear is complete BS. There are GENUINELY worrying aspects to the GM crop debate, both legal and scientific, that go way beyond that.
My point exactly! You are comparing a farmer reusing seed with gun crime. It is NOT a crime. It is at worst a violation of a private contract between two companies.
Reusing seed, and seed cleaning, is a perfectly LEGAL activity that has been done for centuries. Certain small print in Monsanto contract does not change that. Yet somehow our legal system treats people that like criminals.
But both of those cites say that the operators are being sued for aiding illegal practices.
Neither of those cites says that “merely cleaning seed” is “a punishable act”. That was your contention remember, that “merely cleaning seed” is “a punishable act”
So I ask once again: please provide evidence for your extraordinary claim that any court in the world has held that “merely cleaning seed” is “a punishable act”.
I am not asking for evidence that aiding illegal practices is a punishable act. I don’t think that comes as a surprise to anyone. I am asking for evidence for your claim that “merely cleaning seed” is “a punishable act”.
Not that I cna see.
Of course there are. But these claims that farmers are being sued for having pollen blow into their fields, or that courts have declared that “merely cleaning seed” is “a punishable act” are just hippy bullshit. Those claims are made up out of whole cloth.
We can see this by the way that you duck and weave when asked to provide evidence of someone being punished for “merely cleaning seed” , and have to turn to providing cases where seed cleaners have been punished for aiding illegal practices.
Simple question: can you cite a single case where someone who was not aiding illegal practices was punished for “merely cleaning seed”. One, single, solitary case. That;s all I am asking for.
because if you can’t produce such a case then you are clearly talking horsehit when you say that “merely cleaning seed” is “a punishable act”.
Whether the people who’s seed their cleaning are breaking a private contract with Monsanto is completely irrelevant. I have no idea whether any of either those people’s customers happened to be doing so, I never claimed they weren’t (and we will never will know as AFIAK they were forced to settle out of court, small time mid-western grain elevators do not normally have the resources to fight multi-million dollar lawsuits).
This makes my point EXACTLY!
NOBODY, not farmers or seed cleaners was doing ANYTHNG illegal. At worst some of the those farmers MAY have broken the small print of their contract with Monsanto. I was never denying that fact. Or saying Monsanto should not have the right to take people who explicitly break a contract they signed to court.
That doesn’t make it an “Illegal Practice”. Plants produce seed, that’s what they do. Farmers have been reusing that seed for millennia. Monsanto wanting that to be crime DOES NOT (or should not) make it so. To say it is a crime basically changes the relationship between farmers and the plants they use.
See cites above. AGAIN - NO ONE WAS DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL! Breach of contract is NOT A CRIME!
You do know what an analogy is, right? Nobody is saying that the two acts are exactly the same. The point of such an analogy is to use a similar example that everyone agrees with to highlight the chain of reasoning in the controversial case.
Wrong. It is a violation of patent law, which is definitely not a private contract between two companies
Yep, and engineering workshops producing machinery to order is a perfectly LEGAL activity that has been done for centuries too. Do you agree?
So if I get my local engineering workshop to manufacture 10, 000 i-phones every year for me to sell, do you believe that Apple should have no right to send them a cease and desist letter?
And printers producing bound books to order is a perfectly LEGAL activity that has been done for centuries too. Do you agree?
So if I get my local printer to do a run of 10, 000 issues of the latest Harry Potter novel, do you believe that Rowling should have no right to send them a cease and desist letter?
I honestly do not understand what your point is here. You seem to be arguing that when a commercial firm is engaging in bespoke intellectual property theft, the owner of that property should have no legal recourse at all to stop them doing so.
That seems to be what you are arguing. But i can;t believe that anybody would believe such a system is even workable, muchless
No it doesn’t. As you pointed out yourself, such people are being punished under civil law. Why are you now pretending that it is a criminal matter?
Again my point…
Thanks to an obscure 5-4 decision about microbes used to clean up oil spills. We are now saying reusing a seed (or CLEANING A SEED) is A VIOLATION OF THE LAW. That is completely ridiculous. Those farmers DID NOT copy that seed. The plant did that all on its own. Monsanto has ABSOLUTELY no connection to those seeds.
My point is that this fundamentally different. Those farmer DID NOT copy those seeds, or steal anything. No one copied anything except the plant itself.
But that plant itself was designed by Monsanto. The orginal version of the plant was vulnerable to Roundup. The farmers don’t want that plant. They want the plant that Monsanto fixed.
So let me ask you this. Your objection seems to be that the farmers did nothing to copy the plant – the plant itself did that. Yes?
So if Monsanto were to start using their Terminator gene again – the one that makes their Roundup-immune plant sterile after one generation – then that would remove your objection.
Right?
Wrong
Firstly, it is highly relevant.
To use another example, when I buy software I agree to some contract conditions by opening the packet, including not making copies.
So do you believe that the local data management firm should be able to make 10, 000 copies of my Windows7 disk every week, and Microsoft should have no legal recourse at all to stop them doing so?
After all, whether I have a contract with Microsoft saying I won’t copy the software is completely irrelevant.
Right?
Secondly, we aren’t talking about private contracts here. We are talking about breach of patent law. Patent law is not a private contract and it does not depend upon private contract.
Ahh, yeah, they were doing something illegal. You seem to have some confusion here on the difference between “illegal” and “criminal”. Any act that breaches the law is illegal. Patent infringement, as the term infringement should tell you, breaches the law. It is illegal.
Please provide evidence for your claim that Monsanto wants this to be a crime.
Again, patent infringement is illegal. Nobody mentioned crime.
Nonsense. Ignorant nonsense.
I ask for the fourth time: can you cite a single case where someone was found to have violated the law for merely cleaning or re-using seed.
I don’t want cases where people are found to have violated the law for deliberatly brekaing contracts.
I don’t want cases where people have been found to have violated the law for infringing patents.
I am requesting evidence for your outrageous claim that it people have been found to have violated the law for reusing seed or for cleaning seed.
This claim of yours is ignorant leftist horseshit. Cleaning seed or re-using seed is never a violation of the law any more than going to bed is a violation of the law.
Well, no, that isn’t true.
Are you seriously suggesting that the farmers did not make any effort at all to aid the reproduction of the seeds they purchased? They never cultivated the field, fertilised. irrigated or applied herbicide?
Because that is obviously a load of horseshit. The seeds didn’t just mysteriously multiply while sitting in bags. The seeds multiplied by dent of much effort on the part of the farmers.
A Windows7 DVD comes with all the software needed to make copies of itself.
So do you believe that I should be able to make unlimited copies of WIndows7 and sell them? After all, by your logic, I DID NOT copy those DVDs, or steal anything. No one copied anything except the DVD itself.
Sure I placed the DVD into my computer, and I carefully executed mutliple programs needed to copy the information on the DVD. And I added essential physical ingredients like electricity and blank DVDs. But I DID NOT copy those DVDs, or steal anything. No one copied anything except the DVD itself.
Just like the farmers placed the seed into their ground, and they carefully executed multiple task needed to produce new seeds such as tilling the ground and removing weeds. And they added essential physical ingredients like water and fertiliser. But those farmers DID NOT copy those seeds, or steal anything. No one copied anything except the plant itself.
This is your logic here, right? That if a patented product contains the information needed to replicate itself, then it can be copied multiple times without infringing patent? It does not matter how much effort a person has to go through to assist the replication, or how much raw material they have to add. So long as the information needed for the replication was inherent in the product then it is the product itself doing the replicating, and hence no infringement occurs.
This is your argument, correct?