Topic: SCOTUS Ponders Genetic Patents

[Xptical]

Short version:

1.  Farmer contracts with Monsanto to get GM seeds.  Contract prevents him from saving/replanting seeds.

2.  Farmer realizes he can buy GM seeds on open market (from a feed store) for cheaper than Monsanto sells them.  And without a contract.

3.  Farmer tells Monsanto to shove off and buys GM seeds, sans contract, from open market.

4.  Farmer now saves/replants GM seeds he grew out of contract.

5.  Monsanto sues him.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/farm-fresh-infringement-can-you-violate-a-patent-by-planting-some-seeds.ars


Thoughts?

[andrewclunn]

One of the big reforms that libertarians (and some liberals) are pushing for that gets overlooked quite a bit is IP reform.  IP was originally developed as a means of promoting innovation.  Now IP laws hinder R$D by saddling any research or technology based company with huge legal fees, and is used to keep new players out of existing markets.  It is possible that IP laws could work effectively with some sane shelf life (say 20 years before something enters the public domain) but as they stand, they do so much more harm than good, I'm wondering if society might not function better if the only benefit to developing something is the advantage of the primary mover.  It does seem an awful lot like government backed thought control too.  How can one own an idea?

[Stovetop32]

4.  Farmer now saves/replants GM seeds he grew out of contract.

Well... This will screw a farmer over in the long run.  Without the hybridization breeding schemes employed by Monsanto, Syngenta and other agro companies who carefully controll the genetic constitution of their seed lines, a farmer doing this will inevitably develop inbreeding depression in their crops and suffer some nasty crop failures.

Insert:

4.a "Farmer learns to outcross crops, or hires a PhD plant breeder," and maybe this scenario would be more plausible.  Absent a controlled breeding scheme, serious problems will arise.  This is what farmers are paying for and signing contracts for - not solely the presence of a resistance gene in a given crop.  Controlled breeding that ensures plant vigor is far more important in the long run.

Just a nit-picking detail, but it might be important to remember when considering the bigger issues presented in the article.

[lonely moa]

Hard to believe seeds worth planting commercially at a "feed store" would be saleable from a second generation crop, or worth using, for that matter.  That is really the best protection for the breeder.

[Trinoc]

4.  Farmer now saves/replants GM seeds he grew out of contract.

Well... This will screw a farmer over in the long run.  Without the hybridization breeding schemes employed by Monsanto, Syngenta and other agro companies who carefully controll the genetic constitution of their seed lines, a farmer doing this will inevitably develop inbreeding depression in their crops and suffer some nasty crop failures.

Insert:

4.a "Farmer learns to outcross crops, or hires a PhD plant breeder," and maybe this scenario would be more plausible.  Absent a controlled breeding scheme, serious problems will arise.  This is what farmers are paying for and signing contracts for - not solely the presence of a resistance gene in a given crop.  Controlled breeding that ensures plant vigor is far more important in the long run.

Just a nit-picking detail, but it might be important to remember when considering the bigger issues presented in the article.

If the farmer finds out that his re-planted seeds are not viable after a few generations, that's down to his experience. He'll get his seed from another source next time. This is a vastly different matter from whether or not a company has a right to sue someone for re-planting the seed from "their" crop.

I thought "terminator" genes -- those intended to make re-planted seed infertile -- had either been outlawed or abandoned by the GM companies as a terrible piece of PR. If they simply achieve the same result by suing anyone who re-plants the offspring of their seeds then the situation seems just as bad.

[lukebourassa]

Short version:

2.  Farmer realizes he can buy GM seeds on open market (from a feed store) for cheaper than Monsanto sells them.  And without a contract.

How does the feed store gain access to GM seeds for distribution to whomever wishes to buy, if farmers have to sign a contact with the patent owner? Why wouldn't Montsanto sue the stores selling their product in order to enforce their copyright and control?