You wouldn’t as Happy Birthday is protect by COPYRIGHT not PATENT law. You either don’t understand these laws or are deliberately confusing the issue by bringing up copyrights.
If patents applied to songs you could patent the IDEA of wishing happy birthday in song.
Actually that’s the only legal finding in this matter that makes vague sense from the point of view of patent law as it was original intended (I never cited Scmeisser as example). That IS at least an actual invention developed to aid the genetic engineering process (I have trouble believing Monsanto were the first people to do this, but I’m not a patent lawyer).
None of the people I talked about did anything of the sort. Monsanto has no patent on breeding corn or cleaning corn.
I don’t have a law degree, and nobody has ever said that I shouldn’t discuss the law. I do have a degree in Rural Science, and I don’t say that lawyers shouldn’t discuss rural science either. So long as you have some knowledge of the facts and understand the limits of that knowledge, a willingness to learn and a position based upon logic then you should be free to discuss anything. The problem is that it is appears from your performance in this thread that this is not the case.
You do not appear to have a knowledge of even the most basic facts. This is why you repeatedly make false claims, such as that people have been sued for “just cleaning seed”, that patent laws only protect mechanical inventions and not processes and so forth.
You do not appear to have any idea of the limitations of your knowledge, which is why you are engaging in a legal debate with one of the broads first rate lawyers, and a debate on agricultural science with a third rate agricultural science.
And you position makes no sense logically. Every single point you bring up is knocked down with reasoned argument and references, and yet all you do is move into another, even weaker position from which to attack the eeeevil corporation-y conspiracy.
The really sad part is that you are right about one thing: there are legitimate, serious concerns about GM foods. But those legitimate *biological *concerns that the public should be made aware of get swamped under this leftist scaremongering tirade because they would rather demonise “The Evil Coportaion” than take the effort to understand the actual issues.
There’s a degree of racism and bigotry in this attitude too, just for good measure The genuine issues are largely confined to the developing world, and quite frankly most of these Luddites don’t give a shit what happens to poor people with dark skin, so you can;t generate a hysteria campaign based upon that the way you can by shrilling decrying people being bankrupted for <all caps>merely cleaning seed </all caps>
Right.
Humphrey Monsanto * invented a mechanical process for a Glyphosate resistant plant. In order to violate that patent you would need to steal that idea and use it to make a Glyphosate resistant plant without paying Mr Monsanto. Glyphosate resistant plants do not make themselves, if you brought Glyphosate resistant plants from Mr Monsanto it does not spontaneously produce more Glyphosate resistant plants. To make more you would have to use Mr Monsanto’s idea. This is how patents have worked since then, they protect peoples ideas from others stealing them. Its not a perfect system but most people would I’m sure agree with the basic concept.
Cite!
This is utter bullshit. Once again, produce for us a single case where someone has been found to breach patent law by simply allowing natural organisms to reproduce.
A single case, that is all I am asking. One solitary case. And to make it really easy for you, let’s define “simply allowing natural organisms to reproduce” as any situation where the person took less than 6 separate, distinct and time consuming steps to facilitate the reproduction in an unnatural environment with unnatural raw materials.
Once more, i would like to hear from the peanut gallery here.
That is reasonable isn’t it? If reproduction occurs after a person made half a dozen major and distinct alterations to the reproductive environment, the organism itself and added numerous raw materials to facilitate reproduction, and they do this over a period of several months, such reproduction can no longer reasonably be called “simply allowing a natural organism to reproduce”. Agreed?
If anybody disagrees with this standard of “simply allowing natural organisms to reproduce”, then feel free to tell us at what level of interference you consider reproduction to not be unnatural and complex.
Right. So people should be able to steal any of Monsanto’s technology, so long as it’s not the process for gene splicing. That’s your argument is it?
They can steal Monsanto’s technology for gene selection. They can steal Monsanto’s technology for plasmid production. They can steal Monsanto’s technology for tissue culture. They can steal Monsanto’s technology for herbicide manufacture. They can steal Monsanto’s technology for producing combine harvesters.
They can steal all that, so long as they don’t steal the technology specifically for gene transformation.
That is what you are saying her, right? That the only technology Monsanto should be able to protect is the technology for gene splicing?
For the fortieth time: nobody has ever been dragged into court just for cleaning seed. We have proven with the highest calibre references that people have only ever been dragged into court for deliberately and knowingly facilitating an illegal act for profit.
I honestly don’t know why you bother repeating this ignorant nonsense. You are certainly not convincing Bricker or myself by simply repeating the same claim without any evidence or case law. I doubt very much if any of the lurkers are going to be swayed by your compelling argument of repeating the same unsupported assertion endlessly when it has been soundly debunked with references form the District Court.
So why do it. It is making the debate has become a circus
You: Someone can dragged into court for JUST CLEANING SEED
Us: No they can’t. Case law x, y, and z clearly states that legal action can only be taken if they deliberate and knowingly facilitating an illegal act for profit.
You: Parr was dragged into court for JUST CLEANING SEED
Us. No, Parr vs Monsanto clearly states that Parr was found liable only for deliberate and knowingly facilitating an illegal act for profit
You. But the law doesn’t say that someone can dragged into court for JUST CLEANING SEED.
Us: Yes, we know. We have been trying to tell you that for three pages.
You. So why does the law allow someone to be dragged into court for JUST CLEANING SEED.
Us. It doesn’t. We just explained that to you.
You: It does. Monsanto people dragged into court for JUST CLEANING SEED
Us. Can you tell us the name of this case?
You: Parr was dragged into court for JUST CLEANING SEED
Us: :smack:
*Names changed to protect the… Well because I am too lazy to do the research
Of course, Schmeisser vehemently denies planting such seeds, he is claiming Monsanto’s seeds infected his crop.
Thank you for confirming once again that you are incapable of understanding what an analogy is for.
And nobody has ever been found in breach of patent for breeding corn or cleaning corn. So everything is right with the US justice system.
Glad to see we have finally settled this.
Yep, and three eye-witnesses, genetic evidence, the testimony of six independent experts and the findings of three juries and 8 judges all say different.
Who would a reasonable person believe? A man who is being sued for large sums of money and who has been found by 6 courts to have deliberately and repeatedly breached patent? Or three impeccable and unbiased eye-witnesses, genetic evidence, the testimony of six independent experts and the findings of three juries and 8 judges?
It is a quandry isn’t it? I can see why you have difficulty making up your mind.
:rolleyes: Sheesh. At least OJ managed to convince the jury he was innocent. This Schmeisser clown couldn’t even manage that.
Well, first, let me say that I think Masanto should use the terminator gene. I’m not backing Greenpeace on that. I also think that modifying gene(s) and patenting them is OK. What’s not OK is modifying gene(s) in a complex organism like plants, allow it to complete it’s life cycle, and then patent the resultant product like seeds. While this may kosher under patent law, it doesn’t make it right or much sense biologically. The only caveat is that if people are signing contracts to dispose of the seed (and they are not) before purchase then they are clearly liable.
Going after farmers seems like a very lazy way to track the product you only want used once. The responsible thing for the company to do, IMO, is to ensure that seeds last only generation. Unless there is a real and legal law preventing them from doing it, then there’s no reason why this terminator gene shouldn’t be implemented.
Can you explain why?
They don’t only want it used once. They’ve been using these products every year for 15 years. What they don’t want is people using the product every year without paying for it.
In this respect it’s no different from any other patented process that gets licenced to independent producers. Sony, for example, owns the patent on CD technology. they license that technology to thousands of manufacturers on contracts that run from 30 days to 15 years. Do you also think that Sony shouldn’t licence people to produce its product on an annual basis? Or that it shouldn’t go after people who produce the product without a licence?
I guess what I’m asking is, do you think that it’s wrong of Sony to go after people who manufacture CDs after their licence to do so has expired?
You spent your last post telling us why you thought this was terrible and unworkable idea. Didn’t you? 
Yeah, there is: economics. Thanks to the anti-science position of Liberals, it simply isn’t economical to do so.
You are out of line here. You are not allowed to insult other posters (“you are a very low quality poster”) or accuse them of trolling in any SDMB forum except the BBQ Pit. Insults are also not an adequate substitute for an argument. Do not post any other insulting comments in this forum.
That said, Blake, while your post was, technically, permissible, piling up repetitive insults of the “post” while contributing nothing to the actual discussion certainly violates the spirit of the rules.
Knock it off.
[ /Moderating ]
So dismissing a post as being too dumb to respond too is now a violation of the rules.
Interesting to know.
:dubious:
No Piling up repetitive insults against a post without actually pointing out the errors in it is inflammatory and unhelpful.
“Dismissing” the post or even tearing it apart, point by point, on its errors would not have brought any comment from me, nor would a sarcastic dismissal, (with bonus points for effective humor). Your post was not a mere dismissal. (It was also pretty hyperbolic considering the number of CT enthusiasts and promoters of woo that this forum has hosted.)
[ /Moderating ]
I was responding to Bricker’s comment that “The folks that Monsanto drags into court are ones that bought seed from Monsanto and agreed not to replant it, but then did so anyway.” I was wanting to correct this oversight, being that the Schmeiser case is by far the most prominent.
Some genes have been around for millions of years, but the specific gene in question was invented by Monsanto. To use your computer analogy, if you invented a new component of a computer, and someone else then started selling computers with your invention in them, he couldn’t avoid the issue by simply saying that computers had been around for years before your invention. That’s the direct analogy. If someone wants to produce computers with your patented idea in them, they have to do so on your terms.
LOL
The explain with your extensive knowledge of rural affairs, what magically process other than plant reproduction that Glyphosate resistant corn uses to reproduce.
Last time I checked Glyphosate resistant plants make other Glyphosate resistant plants just like regular plants.
And explain how Mr Parr used this process ? Wait, no he didn’t.
Again all he did was CLEAN SOYBEANS. You repeatedly claimed this was a lie. But THAT IS ALL HE DID.
All the these people did is “save, clean, and replant Roundup Ready soybeans”. Those soybeans were NOT created by Monsanto. They were created by natural plant reproduction. Those farmers did not use Monsanto’s patented techniques to create those soybeans, they simply let the plants reproduce as plants have been doing for millions of years.
Ummmm…
You mean by randomly scattering the seeds on the ground then letting the plant grow using only natural rainfall, go to seed and fall over in the field to provide for the next generation? Those are some really lazy farmers.
So jog my memory, which Monsanto patent number is it that covers “techniques for planting, watering and harvesting of seeds”. I had no idea they’d patented those particular techniques, what with them being around for several millenia and all.
Farming isn’t patented, it simply isn’t “natural” no matter how many times you claim it to be. Farming is an industrial process, seeds are one input to the process. Seeds that are processed in a very specific way to make them a commercially viable product.
The folks who got sued were also making a commercially viable seed product, one that is identical to the patented product that Monsanto sells. The seeds that Monsanto sells do not spontaneously become more seeds, it takes a tremendous amount of work, much of it specifically designed to make a commercial seed product.
Since they have a patent, they have the right to stop others from producing a product identical to the one they’ve patented. In addition to the patent violation, the farmers also violated their contract with Monsanto. Rather than being “fine print” I’m sure it’s a prominent part of the contract, not because Monsanto likes to play fair (yeah, right) but because compliance is much cheaper than litigation.