[barmar]

onoway, on 2013-February-11, 13:43, said:

There are stories of families surviving the thirties by planting some of the dried beans provided by the government to desperately impoverished people and thus providing much more food for themselves than they otherwise could.

I don't think anyone is going to go after someone with a personal vegetable garden -- there's no money in it. They're going after professional farmers.

[mike777]

"Those supporting Bowman hope the court uses the case, which is scheduled for oral arguments later this month, to hit the reset button on corporate domination of agribusiness and what they call Monsanto’s “legal assault” on farmers who don’t toe the line. Monsanto’s supporters say advances in health and environmental research are endangered"


This is not the role of our courts or the Supreme Court.

It is not the role of 9 wisemen and women to hit the reset button on corporate domination.

This may surprise many people but it is not even the duty of the Supreme Court to stop Cancer or save the small farmer.

[ArtK78]

mike777, on 2013-February-12, 12:17, said:

"Those supporting Bowman hope the court uses the case, which is scheduled for oral arguments later this month, to hit the reset button on corporate domination of agribusiness and what they call Monsanto’s “legal assault” on farmers who don’t toe the line. Monsanto’s supporters say advances in health and environmental research are endangered"


This is not the role of our courts or the Supreme Court.

It is not the role of 9 wisemen and women to hit the reset button on corporate domination.

This may surprise many people but it is not even the duty of the Supreme Court to stop Cancer or save the small farmer.

What is stated is the goals of each side in pursuing the litigation are. The Supreme Court does not decide the case on the basis of what the goals of these people may be. The Supreme Court decides the case on the basis of the law and the facts.

I won't go into a discussion of how the facts enter into the decision making process of the Supreme Court. As strange as it may seem, there are many cases on appeal to the Supreme Court that are decided entirely on issues of law and the facts have no bearing on the outcome.

[mike777]

Facts are determined by the lower court. The Supreme Court does not decide the facts of the case.

The vast majority of the time it weighs competing rights. As Art says it rules on issues of the law, competing issues.

I quoted the OP because the article did not really tell us what these competing rights or issues of the law are, let alone what the findings of fact were.


Supporters of Bowman in the OP came across confused on what the duty of the SC is.
I blame our education system and their parents.

[barmar]

ArtK78, on 2013-February-12, 14:17, said:

What is stated is the goals of each side in pursuing the litigation are. The Supreme Court does not decide the case on the basis of what the goals of these people may be. The Supreme Court decides the case on the basis of the law and the facts.

In an ideal world. Do you think the ACA decision was based simply on the law and facts? While I'm happy with the decision, it does seem like they decided they wanted to uphold the law, and then went looking for a way to justify it in the Constitution (by conflating fines and taxes), rather than the other way around.

[Winstonm]

I thought my tofu tasted funny.

[onoway]

The thing is that just taking the farmer to court is predatory, Farmers don't usually have the deep pockets that Monsanto has. In a similar case in Canada the Supreme Court here vindicated the farmer but by that time it was pretty much a moot point as it had cost him his family and pretty much everything he had.

Monsanto likes to make examples of people so that even if you win, you lose. Makes it less likely others will challenge them.

[Trinidad]

onoway, on 2013-February-13, 15:23, said:

The thing is that just taking the farmer to court is predatory, Farmers don't usually have the deep pockets that Monsanto has.

This assumes that Monsanto reasons:
- We know we are wrong about this
- But the farmer doesn't have deep pockets
- So we can blast him away if we take it to court

But what if Monsanto clearly thinks they are right? Contracts and conditions have been breached and now Monsanto shouldn't do anything about it because they have more money than the farmer and people might see it as "predatory"?

Rik

[mike777]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-14, 04:06, said:

This assumes that Monsanto reasons:
- We know we are wrong about this
- But the farmer doesn't have deep pockets
- So we can blast him away if we take it to court

But what if Monsanto clearly thinks they are right? Contracts and conditions have been breached and now Monsanto shouldn't do anything about it because they have more money than the farmer and people might see it as "predatory"?

Rik

NO.. they should give up and pay ...pay much.....



whatever the reason is....they should pay billions. all of you should qUIT YUOR JOB and understand your pension is zero...i mean,,...zero


shame on you for making cancer seeds.

onoway told you ...you make cancer

you are evil corp.

[helene_t]

PassedOut, on 2013-February-11, 16:50, said:

If it is that simple, why did the Supreme Court choose to hear the case?

Probably because it's not that simple (that the seeds were sold with a condition and that condition was broken).

Farmer A buys seeds from Monsanto subject to the condition that the yield isn't used for seeding. He then sells his yield to the grain elevator. Presumably the grain elevator is now also bound by the restriction (unless they couldn't have known that the grains were genetically manipulated).

Now farmer B buys the beans from the grain elevator. The grain elevator could have made him sign a contract that prevented him from using the beans as seeds. Presumably they didn't - if they had cared about it they would probably have kept the manipulated and non-manipulated beans appart.

IMHO common sense would say that farmer B can use the beans for seeding as long as he doesn't use Roundup. But I am not claiming that there is any legal basis for that.

[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2013-February-14, 05:53, said:

Presumably the grain elevator is now also bound by the restriction (unless they couldn't have known that the grains were genetically manipulated).

Why? Does the grain elevator have a contract with Monsanto? Do they have a contract with the seller which passes on the terms of the seller's contract with Monsanto? If all they did was buy seeds from the seller, no contract, just a handshake and an exchange of seeds for cash (or a check), then I don't see why the seller's contract with Monsanto should affect the grain elevator at all, and if it doesn't affect the grain elevator, I don't see how it could possibly affect a third (or fourth now, I guess) party who buys from the grain elevator.

[onoway]

Trinidad, on 2013-February-14, 04:06, said:

This assumes that Monsanto reasons:
- We know we are wrong about this
- But the farmer doesn't have deep pockets
- So we can blast him away if we take it to court

But what if Monsanto clearly thinks they are right? Contracts and conditions have been breached and now Monsanto shouldn't do anything about it because they have more money than the farmer and people might see it as "predatory"?

Rik

Monsanto thinks that nobody should grow anything other than their seed.

There is a long history of Monsanto seed turning up where it was not supposed to be, including in Mexico where GMO corn of any kind was expressly forbidden, and in Starlink corn in the US which was not approved for human consumption but turned up in products intended for human consumption anyway.

GMO canola seed was the basis of basically bankrupting the farmer in Canada who was sued by Monsanto for growing it without permission when they trespassed on his land and found SOME GMO canola in with his field of normal canola.

GMO canola is now on the verge of being labelled a noxious weed in some states because it is threatening native plants by crowding them out, and is crossing with wild plants to produce superweeds.

If the farmer KNOWINGLY bought RoundUp ready seed then that is another kettle of fish as I doubt any commercial farmer isn't aware of Monsanto's contracts and business practices. In that event things might get a bit murky for the farmer. However, to my understanding, the sack of seed 1)wasn't entirely either RoundUp seed or normal seed but a mixture of both and 2)was sold as a bag of normal soybeans. RoundUp ready seed is not visibly different from normal seed so how was the farmer to know? Why is Monsanto taking the farmer to court and not the elevator operators who sold a bag of seed which was contaminated no matter what the farmer thought he was buying?

If someone is allergic to peanuts and they buy something which has peanuts in it that they have no way of knowing are there, the people who breed peanuts are hardly in a position to sue him for eating their peanuts, even though they could prove that he did so when he should not have.

That's why I see this court action by Monsanto as predatory.

[onoway]

mike777, on 2013-February-14, 04:24, said:

NO.. they should give up and pay ...pay much.....



whatever the reason is....they should pay billions. all of you should qUIT YUOR JOB and understand your pension is zero...i mean,,...zero


shame on you for making cancer seeds.

onoway told you ...you make cancer

you are evil corp.

What an odd post.

We no longer allow plumbers to use lead pipes for potable water even though lead is much cheaper than copper or plastic because we now know that lead pipes leach lead and the human system doesn't handle lead well. Millions of people lived with them for years before we understood that but we still are now not allowed to use them because they are an unnecessary health risk.

We no longer allow parents to feed their babies laudenum to make them sleep because we now know that that is not good for babies, in spite of the fact that millions of babies coped with it.

We have some fairly compelling evidence that over the long term GMO foods may not be good for us, and that they may well be directly connected to cancers and other health issues. So many of us think that that should mean at least people should have the option of not eating GMO foods until impartial, independent studies are done to show that these things which are turning up are not related to GMO foods.

Monsanto is using half truths and indeed lies to scare people into the totally unjustifiable position that the world will starve unless everyone switches to GMO seeds. Large scale switch to GMO seeds in India has shown GMO seeds to be paving the way to exactly the opposite result.

South Africa also had a huge crop failure of thousands of acres of GMO corn, anywhere from a third (monsanto's estimate) to half (independant observer's estimate) of the expected crop.

Monsanto said that the only reason was the labs had not specified a sufficient amount of commercial fertilizer to be used. Commercial fertilizer is of course based on non renewable resources as well as having all sorts of other costs such as shipping, extra trips spraying the land etc.

It is also leading to lakes and rivers dying through agricultural runoff and massively increased water usage. This is not in any way sustainable agriculture.

I wouldn't have thought to label Monsanto as evil, but totally amoral, indifferent to truth and void of social responsibility. A person with the same attributes might be labelled a psychopath. Perhaps that makes them evil, it isn't a term I normally use, since I'm not particularly religious.

[blackshoe]

onoway, on 2013-February-14, 10:23, said:

Why is Monsanto taking the farmer to court and not the elevator operators who sold a bag of seed which was contaminated no matter what the farmer thought he was buying?

If I were a conspiracy theorist I would say "because they want his land".

[mycroft]

Because the grain elevator company has money for lawyers, I would guess. I guess I'm also a conspiracy theorist.

[mike777]

This is a patent law case, regarding second generation of seeds in this case or second generation of stuff such as software.

btw this guy has everyone including the White House against him...good luck. So there is indeed a conspiracy against him.


"The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case over the objections of the Obama administration, which had urged the justices to leave the lower court rulings in place"

wsj.

[pigpenz]

what no one has brought up in this discussion....if a corporation uses your DNA to come up with something for a partricular disease who
owns your DNA? thats the next battle in the courts.....chances are they would not let you know that they used your DNA sequence for coming
up with some wonder drug.

[kenberg]

onoway, on 2013-February-14, 10:48, said:

What an odd post.

We no longer allow plumbers to use lead pipes for potable water even though lead is much cheaper than copper or plastic because we now know that lead pipes leach lead and the human system doesn't handle lead well. Millions of people lived with them for years before we understood that but we still are now not allowed to use them because they are an unnecessary health risk.

We no longer allow parents to feed their babies laudenum to make them sleep because we now know that that is not good for babies, in spite of the fact that millions of babies coped with it.

We have some fairly compelling evidence that over the long term GMO foods may not be good for us, and that they may well be directly connected to cancers and other health issues. So many of us think that that should mean at least people should have the option of not eating GMO foods until impartial, independent studies are done to show that these things which are turning up are not related to GMO foods.

Monsanto is using half truths and indeed lies to scare people into the totally unjustifiable position that the world will starve unless everyone switches to GMO seeds. Large scale switch to GMO seeds in India has shown GMO seeds to be paving the way to exactly the opposite result.

South Africa also had a huge crop failure of thousands of acres of GMO corn, anywhere from a third (monsanto's estimate) to half (independant observer's estimate) of the expected crop.

Monsanto said that the only reason was the labs had not specified a sufficient amount of commercial fertilizer to be used. Commercial fertilizer is of course based on non renewable resources as well as having all sorts of other costs such as shipping, extra trips spraying the land etc.

It is also leading to lakes and rivers dying through agricultural runoff and massively increased water usage. This is not in any way sustainable agriculture.

I wouldn't have thought to label Monsanto as evil, but totally amoral, indifferent to truth and void of social responsibility. A person with the same attributes might be labelled a psychopath. Perhaps that makes them evil, it isn't a term I normally use, since I'm not particularly religious.

All of this may be true, I don't know a lot about it. But the case in question does not address any of these issues. The farmer does not want to stop using Mosanto products, he simply wants to get them on the cheap. I'm no fan of Microsoft. That does not mean that people get to pirate their software.

[onoway]

kenberg, on 2013-February-16, 16:13, said:

All of this may be true, I don't know a lot about it. But the case in question does not address any of these issues. The farmer does not want to stop using Mosanto products, he simply wants to get them on the cheap. I'm no fan of Microsoft. That does not mean that people get to pirate their software.

You are assuming he 1) wanted to get RoundUp Ready seeds which doesn't seem to be established as the sack was only partly that sort of seed,and b) he knew what he was getting. The two types are indistinguishable from just looking at them. Because cost seems to have been a key element it would seem probable that he bought a sack of sweepings, so to speak, as that would be the cheapest. It's seed or grain which has been spilled during handling over the day or week and swept up and bagged. Clearly the elevator operator didn't bother to keep the different batches separate.

It's difficult to see why the farmer should be accused of trying to steal Monsanto seeds when he had no input/control/knowledge of what was in the sack except that they be soybeans. He had no agreement with Monsanto and if anyone was responsible for Round Up Ready seed being in the sack surely it is the elevator operators.

It also seems bizarre to have any law holding a buyer to use whatever he gets, even second hand, only within the normal expectations of the original seller. People are always doing odd and creative things with the stuff they get. When you see what people are doing with recycled stuff for example...I guess those kids who are making musical instruments out of discarded vehicle parts and kitchen whisks and things should be hunted down and punished, or at least be forced to pay the original manufacturer for them.

My lord, first you have people with guns wandering around the schools and now you can't do anything with something you buy that the original manufacturer would disapprove of, even if you are buying it second or third hand. This seems pretty far removed from the sort of free society that made the U.S. a world leader.

[mike777]

You make excellent points and ask wise questions. But you seem to be arguing the facts of the case. Facts that were decided by the lower court.

In this case Bowman was found to know these are patent protected seeds. That he was told in writing not to use them to plant a second field with the seeds from the first field. He did claiming that the patent did not apply in his case.


You used an excellent example where people take patented software and create other uses with add ons or changes. These are very common types of patent protected law suits. Where the lines are is a complicated issue.

The lower courts say it does but there may be more complicated arguments regarding patent law and public use that may or may not weigh in his favor. What those arguments may be are unclear from the newspaper article.


As far as that DNA question usually you sign a waiver of all rights or ownership, again perhaps that should be against public policy such as selling your liver.