Yes, they do. The basic process by which seeds become more seeds is plant reproduction.
Dude, read the meat of the post instead of cherry picking something that you can just reply obliviously to.
You can’t put a Monsanto soybean on a tabletop, leave it alone, and have it “spontaneously” do anything. It’ll just sit there until it turns into a dried out little husk. A human being has to plant it, water it, care for it, harvest it, and process the seed. That’s not spontaneous.
You could put in a patch of dirt in a rainy climate and it would do just that
None of which are patented processes. Making those activities “patent infringement” is totally ridiculous.
No it was naturally occurring in a Cauliflower virus. Monsanto invented a process for for inserting that gene into a plant. That process is protected by patent law, which is absolutely fine.
None of those farmers stole Monsanto’s process for inserting Cauliflower virus genes into soybean plants. They just let soybeans naturally reproduce.
Nobody made that a patented process. I mean, not in the real world.
From Monsanto’s legal document:
Misuse of patent law in this way has made simple cleaning and planting seeds an ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, that is insanity.
No it hasn’t.
Ummmm which bit “save, clean and replant” is confusing to you ?
None of it.
Then you admit I’m right then ?
There it is in black and white. Simply cleaning and planting seeds is an infringement of patent law.
So a human harvests seed with a mechanical harvester
The human puts that seed into a diesel-powered, molybdenum-alloy auger that cleans the seed.
The human then takes the cleaned seed an saves it in sack made of synthetic polymer by an electrical weaving machine.
The following year the human cultivates and fertilises a field, sprays it with pre-emergent herbicide, and then sows the saved see into that field using a diesel powered tungsten-alloy drill press.
And according to griffin1977 this is a natural process. Not a human-produced industrial activity at all. This is *entirely *natural according to **griffin1977 **. :smack:
Does anybody buy this argument?
And please point out where in this process Monsanto’s patented technology magically generates new seeds ?
Those seeds are generated by NATURAL PLANT REPRODUCTION. Nobody used Monsanto’s patented inventions to create those seeds.
Who ever said that it did?
You do understand that just because something isn’t magical, that doesn’t make it natural. Right?
You do understand that a factory producing CDs doesn’t produce them magically, right? And you do understands that the CDs are not produced naturally. Right?
You do understand that this isn’t a dichotomy. That something can be both non-natural and non-magical? Right?
We have word for those processes that are both non-natural and non-magical. We call them “technological”. The production of a CD is a *technological *process. It results from technology, not from magic and not from nature.
The production of crops is also a *technological *process. It results from technology, not from magic and not from nature. In the case of farming the core *technology *is palaeolithic, but it is still indisputable technology, not magic and not natural.
Of course that *technology *has been constantly enhanced over the millennia: ploughs, horse-collars, tractors, combine harvesters and, yes, improved varieties. These are all advances on the technology, but its still remains technology, not magic or natural as you seem to think it is.
So a human harvests seed with a mechanical harvester
The human puts that seed into a diesel-powered, molybdenum-alloy auger that cleans the seed.
The human then takes the cleaned seed an saves it in sack made of synthetic polymer by an electrical weaving machine.
The following year the human cultivates and fertilises a field, sprays it with pre-emergent herbicide, and then sows the saved see into that field using a diesel powered tungsten-alloy drill press.
And according to griffin1977 this is a NATURAL PLANT REPRODUCTION. Not human-produced industrial plant production at all. This is entirely NATURAL PLANT REPRODUCTION according to griffin1977 .
Yeah, they did.
Blake, I think you are introducing a false-dichotomy now and that’s that something is either completely natural or completely unnatural. It seems to me that you’re not ridiculously arguing that Monsanto food should be treated just like any other normal food, so at least you are not trying to act like Monsanto crops are natural (there are people who would claim that, mostly within Monsanto).
But there are many different levels of natural, and someone should really introduce some type of scale or something for how natural something is. Natural doesn’t have to be a binary value, and people should freely discuss how natural something is.
Years ago, you had proud naturalists. Darwin was a naturalist and he talked about many other naturalists. Now they might call themselves ecologists or zoologists or something like that. It’s like as though “natural” became almost a sort of taboo subject, especially in academia. There’s even a logical “fallacy” of “an appeal to nature”. Perhaps this was partly as a backlash to the hippy “it’s all natural man” culture of the 60s, the fact that mainstream medicine has a financial incentive in demeaning the idea and because of truly ridiculous and dangerous concepts such as homeopathy that label themselves as “natural”. Also, some ideas such as megadosing vitamins didn’t get the responses some had originally claimed.
But over the past few years “natural” has become to have a better reputation again as people realized the true power of natural remedies and behaviours. So maybe now is the time to create some sort of scale about how natural something is.
An organic apple is natural, but hey didn’t a person use a ladder to climb up the tree to get it? It’s natural ENOUGH. In a way everything is “natural” because they came from us and we’re human (ie. an animal that naturally occurred). In a way, everything is “unnatural” because the ozone layer has been depleted by man, because of artificial selection, because of the air having slightly unnatural proportions of gases in it.
But this doesn’t mean we should just throw our arms in the air like some beyond deranged mafia character or modern day banker and say: “natural, what is natural, natural can mean many things”… it is still a valid and very, very useful concept.
Exactly my point. If I plant a CD in the ground it will not produce more CDs. No matter how much I pray to the CD fairy. If you have a patent on a CD manufacturing technique I have to actively look up your your patent and copy the process laid out in it to produce more CDs. In doing this I am infringing on your patent. That is how patent law is meant to work.
LOL, yes, the reproduction of plant life has absolutely nothing to do with nature :smack:
Again where in the process are the seeds produced by a Monsanto-patent process ? They aren’t, as you are missing a step. Prior to harvesting the seed, plant reproduction occurs. Where the naturally occurring soybean plant produces more soybean seeds. Just like soybeans have been doling for millions of years without help from Monsanto. At no point does the farmer copy any of the genetic engineering techniques Monsanto invented.
Wrong.
The only person who has ever tried to argue that something is entirely natural is griffin1977. His entire argument hinges on his claim that the seed production process in the cases pursued in court was, in his own words “entirely natural”.
And if I put a seed into a cd burner, it won’t produce more seeds, No matter how much I pray to the seed fairy.
What exactly is your point here?
Bullshit. All you have to do is put the CD into the drive and click “copy”. You don’t even have to know what is on the CD, much less what patents may be involved.
Have you honestly never even seen a CD being burned before? 
Are you honestly that ignorant?
Once again, you fail to understand that all things are not dichotomous.
You do understand that a factory producing CDs uses gravity as part of the production process. Right
And you do understands that gravity is natural process. Right?
And you do understand that because CD production relies to some degree on naturally occurring process, it doesn’t have “absolutely nothing to do with nature”.
So by griffin1977’s argument, producing CD’s should not be covered by patent, because it is entirely natural.
Is everyone keeping up with this argument.
It occurs between pollination and harvest. Did you honestly not know that?
What naturally occurring soybean plant?
So a human cultivates a field using a diesel powered tractor with synthetic polymer tires
He then fertilises the field with synthetic fertiliser produced on a chemical plant powered by a nuclear generator.
He then sprays it with pre-emergent herbicide.
He then sows the seed into that field using a diesel powered tungsten-alloy drill press.
He then sprays the field, including the crop, with Glyphosate fertiliser, which kills the weeds but not the GM crop.
He then irrigates the field using water extracted from a bore 500metres deep, using a diesel powered pump with maganalium alloy vanes.
And according to griffin1977 the result of this is NATURALLY OCCURRING SOYBEAN PLANT. Not human-produced plant. This is entirely NATURALLY OCCURRING SOYBEAN PLANT according to griffin1977 .
Oh FFS. This is just going round in circles now. We already debunked this BS with impeccable references.
For the last time: the patent is not only for the genetic engineering techniques. The patent also covers the gene itself.
Of course nobody thinks the farmer is indulging in genetic engineering. But he is undoubtedly copying Monsanto’s patented gene. Right?
Monsanto did create this gene, right? It is a chimaeric gene, right? The allele does not occur in nature, right?
And a farmer that buys x pound of seed only buys has y copies of the gene. Right?
And when the farmer sows they seeds, the gene is duplicated in every plant cell. Right?
And the farmer did intend for that gene to be duplicated in every plant cell. Right?
So as a result of intentional action, the farmer ends up with y + n copies of the gene right?
So the farmer has produced more copies of the gene. Right?
And he has produced those copies deliberately. Right?
Those copies of the patented gene happen didn’t get created spontaneously while the seed was sitting in a bag. Right?
The gene was copied as result of much effort in the part of the farmer. Right?
And the farmer knew that the effort he put in would produce copies of the gen. Right?
And the farmer knew that gene was patented. Right?
So the farmer was deliberately and knowingly making copies of the gene. Right?
And the gene is covered by Monsanto’s patent. Right?
So the farmer was deliberately and knowingly making copies of a patented product. Right.
Do you understand now? The gene itself is patented. The gene itself does not occur anywhere on nature. The gene itself is copied every time a plant cell divides. The farmer knows this occurs and he takes steps to encourage that cell division. The farmer knows the gene is patented. He knows that he will be making copies of it if the seeds grow, and he takes great effort to make the seeds grow.
So in what way can he be said to not breach Monsanto’s patent?
You have again and again showed you are completely ignorant of the difference between PATENT LAW and COPYRIGHT LAW.
When I copy that CD I’m breaking your COPYRIGHT, not your PATENT. To break your PATENT I need to use your idea.
Yes it does. Its occurs in Cauliflower viruses. Monsanto had the IDEA of transferring it to a soybean. That IDEA, and the genetics engineering techniques involved in it, should be protect by patent. But no one in this case copied that idea. No one used Monsanto’s techniques for transferring any genes from viruses to soybeans. No one genetically engineered anything.
At last you admit it.
The gene is copied every time A PLANT CELL REPRODUCES. That is what makes this so ridiculous. We are saying may letting a plant cell reproduce, you are breaking Monsanto’s patent. That is insanity.
I’ve had enough of going round in circles with griffin1977. He clearly has no intention of listening to anything we say.
So if anybody else believes any part of his ridiculous, repetitious arguments let me know and I’ll address it.