Five million Brazilian farmers are locked in a lawsuit with US-based biotech giant Monsanto, suing for as much as 6.2 billion euros. They say that the genetic-engineering company has been collecting royalties on crops it unfairly claims as its own.
The farmers claim that Monsanto unfairly collects exorbitant profits every year worldwide on royalties from “renewal” seed harvests. “Renewal” crops are those that have been planted using seed from the previous year’s harvest. While the practice of renewal farming is an ancient one, Monsanto disagrees, demanding royalties from any crop generation produced from its genetically-engineered seed. Because the engineered seed is patented, Monsanto not only charges an initial royalty on the sale of the crop produced, but a continuing 2 per cent royalty on every subsequent crop, even if the farmer is using a later generation of seed.
[…]
In essence, Monsanto argues that once a farmer buys their seed, they have to pay the global bio-tech giant a yearly fee in perpetuity – with no way out.
Monsanto should be burned to the ground.
I’ve read up on this and it is actually a complex question.
The modified soybean seeds are just a single gene to reduce sensitivity to a popular Monsanto herbicide.
In fact, the seeds are so popular that over the period of 10 years have come to represent 94% of the market for soybean seeds.
The tough question goes like this: if someone creates a more agriculturally beneficial crop variant do they lose the right to sell it if it comes to dominate the market (and if they own a patent on it)?
In some ways, Monsanto is the victim of its own success with the soybean variant because it is so prevalent now that it is hard to avoid Monsanto-gene contaminated soybean seeds in the market place.
I used to be uneducated on what the issue was, but now that I understand what the issue actually is I look forward to seeing what the court decides, knowing a lot of brain power will used to decide how to sort this ordeal out in a logical manner.
Short version: The court has a fascinating issue before it that is a real head-scratcher.
Monsanto is a fucking monster.
The people who run it have neither morals or ethics.
They want to lock people into perpetual servility.
They were totally behind the deaths of thousands of poor uneducated farmers in India who bought their seed and ended up committing suicide by drinking insecticide when the crops didn’t come up the following year.
The crops didn’t come up because they were sterile plants. Oops! Monsanto forgot to mention that little detail.
Monsanto are murderous scum. Their RoundUp Ready™ crops are indigestible (of course the makers of antacid aren’t complaining, [I haven’ needed antacids since I started eating organic food, {grown without their crap.}])
They deserve to be burned to the ground and the soil their processing plants were on should be salted.
They are everything that is wrong about the USDA.
Why? Because you say so? Or because you have some insight into the matter?
“The people who run it have neither morals or ethics.”
Because of why?
“They want to lock people into perpetual servility.”
Patents last 20 years. So how is that perpetuity?
If you plant crops with seeds that are genetically engineered to be sterile and you can’t grow new crops from last years harvest.
You instantly become dependent on Monsanto for your new crop.
Quit talking stupidity about patents. Monsanto is run by a bunch of thugs and murderers.
Its not a hardware business. Its your food…
You think that they are interested in anything except their bottom line, you’re sadly mistaken.
Romney is not quite right saying Corporations is people.
Corporations are potentially eternal, greedy, grasping vampires who prey on people with the zeal of a Tony Soprano, justifying their practices with a sop about just being businessmen supplying a demand for their products, a demand they make.
Monsanto will sue your ass off if your neighbor used RoundUp™ genetically modified seeds and some of his seeds blew onto your property.
20 years is the short version.
If you use anybody else’s seeds, Monsanto sues you ass off because they don’t care about you, your crops, the fact that you might become a customer again, because they know you wont.
The only thing a farmer can do to get rid of Monsanto is to get out of the farming business for a few years, and they won’t even let a farmer do that because they saddle him with debt.
A farmer has to grow next years crop to pay for this years plants.
They’re evil. Monsanto is absolute, pure fucking evil.
Don’t think corporations can be that evil?
Have a cigarette, you fool…
That’s why those crazy Europeans and Japanese have BANNED the use of GM food, and people who do plant it will get a not-so-nice visit from the police.
And I don’t see people starving for lack of food over there.
Lack of money… well maybe, but that’s another story.
“And I don’t see people starving for lack of food over there.”
That’s because European countries are wealthy and subsidize farmers. Poor countries cannot afford to subsidize farmers and can only feed their people thanks to genetically-modified crops. (Which is essentially ALL crops. Unless you are Grizzly Adams you eat GM food. Even “whole” “organic” stuff has been bred and hybridized by humans.)
GM food feeds the poor. Expensive “organic” food does not. People who want to ban GM food do not care about the poor.
Europe is also the place that fines farmers who produce more than their assigned quota (i.e. milk in northern Italy)
But besides that, switching to GM crops causes a short term gain, and that’s because removing biodiversity in the soil (using Roundup) make the crops weaker and dependent of fertilizers.
I haven’t done the math, but I suspect the amount of money GM farmers pay to Monsanto is roughly the same to what governments pay European farmers in subsidy (only a guess though)
If it wasn’t for Monsanto, the ability to grow enough grain to feed the world’s sheeple and their farm animals would not be there.
What is needed is a Monsanto competitor. Mother Nature has done a shitty job keeping up.
Legally and morally, how can there be any doubt Monsanto is right? Don’t want to use their product? You don’t have to. Use any of the other 473 soybean variants that die in the field 3 weeks after planting.
Everyone likes to dance, no one wants to pay the fiddler. As old as at least the Pied Piper?
tough market though when you make something that is so easy to steal. Get as much $$ up front—just as they do. Probably be smarter to pay the fee then sue Monsanto for damage to the environment from the associated poison sprays.
Monsanto needs to double the funding on how to make poor starving people more subservient.
Same as it always was.
Bobbo, the problem is that Monsanto soybeans seeds are so commonly used that it virtually impossible to have soybeans seeds that are not partially Monsanto by-products.
Kind of like how it is hard to have a lawn without dandelions.
Soybeans are not only a super-valuable cash crop but also soybeans are like the opposite of corn for farming. You do soybeans and then you do corn to alternate to get ecological harmony.
The seed is genetically modified because the soil that the soybeans grow in isn’t good for soybeans. It requires a lot of fertilizer. A lot of this crop is grown in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, just north of Bolivia. The governor of Mato Grosso was called “the soybean king”. It was land then was cleared with slash and burn techniques.
No one cites this as agricultural destruction.
Brazil’s largest trade partner is China.
You don’t have to buy anything from Monsanto, just grow a crop in the same general area of a Monsanto customers field, and they’ll claim you benefited from the cross pollination and demand their cut.
Call me a cynic, but hmeyers comes across like a paid shill for Monsanto. After all, it’s no secret that they pay pr companies to attack critics and write favorable posts. See the documentary “The World According to Monsanto” or numerous stories like this http://activistpost.com/2012/01/setting-record-straight-did-monsanto.html
You sir are a dork, and I’ve been on this site for a fucking long time.
I’ve never seen your pansy, accusation-making dill-hole post here before.
So what? You can still be a shill for Monsanto no matter how long you’ve been on this site and whether or not you get paid. It’s just hard to tell what type of shill you are, moronic or psychopathic?
I don’t care if hmeyers has been on this site for a long time. He uses paid shill type of language.
You never reply to any of the good threads here, like the ones on evolution or politics. Just the dopey beginner-level threads.
So you are familiar with me exactly in what way that any of us care about?
Like a ship approaching the perfect storm, HMyers and his conservative mind set is being buffeted about in ways guaranteed to make one heave their lunch.
“You sir are a dork…”/// Ha, ha. That did crack me up. I don’t think many paid shills have that kind of humor…… but unpaid shills do…… and that cracks me up as well.
Well HM– this is a good discussion since none of us knows anything. Puts us on equal footing. Let’s see, what exactly did you say?: “Bobbo, the problem is that Monsanto soybeans seeds are so commonly used that it virtually impossible to have soybeans seeds that are not partially Monsanto by-products. /// Ok, if true, doesn’t that speak in favor of Monsanto? To win any lawsuit of infringement, they would have to prove their product was being used without royalties being paid. Seems like a push to me.
Kind of like how it is hard to have a lawn without dandelions. /// I don’t “see” that analogy at all. Plainly and directly spoken works for me, I don’t need an analogy.
Soybeans are not only a super-valuable cash crop but also soybeans are like the opposite of corn for farming. You do soybeans and then you do corn to alternate to get ecological harmony. /// You mean nitrogen fixation in the soil I asssume?
Well, all told, I think HMyers is only guilty of being completely irrelevant.
But that’s what I think of most people posting here. After 6 beers, myself included.
Onward Christian soldiers, to number 7.
Same as it always was.
Bobbo, I’m going to call Monsanto and try to become a paid shill for dvorak/blog. Then when I lose that conversation, I’ll go for unpaid shill.
And when that doesn’t work out, then I’ll blackmail them and threaten to claim I’m a paid shill, they’ll get scared and offer me a free sandwich from Burger King and I’ll take the 5 bucks. Laughing all the way to bank knowing I would have accepted a free item from McDonalds value menu and those fools gave me 5 times the value of what I would have settled for.
I’d do it for a six pack. The best corruption is that which identifies conforming ideologies. No need for payment, they already agree on their own.
As far as I can spy on this subject, you aren’t much of a shill. No shill waits for the Sup Ct to decide an issue of revenue and intimidation.
… ah, I think I got it on the reread==Monsanto sells/licenses its seed to Farmer A and the seeds flower and cross pollinate in Farmer B’s field who saves such Monsanto originating beans in a completely innocent manner and in the next grow season has a high percentage of Monsanto original beans?
Yes, that is like dandelions. Who is responsible for dandelions? God or Monsanto? Beer or Wine??? You know, when I drink I find women more attractive, and men more eloquent and clever? …. Yes, I do.
Well, “legally” I guess there is a clear answer? Like being in possession of stolen property I assume. Well….. its WWGCADBCMLM (World Wide Global Commerce as Desired by Corporate Masters Like Monsanto). What ya gonna do?
Once again, the peruvian subsistance farmer living on $5000 per year has to decide which is financially more secure: letting the wind blow favorably or not, or spending money on Monsanto free seed stock.
Ain’t Reality a Bitch?
In all seriousness, read a neutral article on the issues in this lawsuit at groklaw.com. Monsanto soybeans are 94% of the market.
On the one hand, you have the “should someone be able to patent DNA argument”. On the other hand, if you cannot patent DNA enhancements, is this going to hurt medical research (stem cell research, AIDS cures, cancer research, etc.)
And if ones concludes someone can patent DNA, do their claims extend to children/seeds/offspring.
So there are some medical research funding implications here. This is why I’m interested to see how the court sorts this out.
” ‘You sir are a dork…”/// Ha, ha. That did crack me up. I don’t think many paid shills have that kind of humor…… but unpaid shills do…… and that cracks me up as well. ‘ ”
Occupiers, birthers, Bible thumper, UFO experts, truthers and Tea Party ignoramouses can go talk amongst themselves. I’ll not spend 5 seconds of my time speaking with empty-headed nitwits.
I am highly educated in biology and vapid pedestrian closed-minded trolling “I read something on the internet so it must be true” fucktards can go find their own kind in their own tier of idiocracy to converse with.
To be quite blunt.
I only have interest in speaking with intelligent open-minded people of scientific or factual interest.
HM – you are up late, and rather crabby. Any connection?
WHAT IS YOUR OPINION??? What are you some kind of toady just waiting for the Sup Ct to tell you what is right from wrong? WHAT DO YOU THINK?
We have all the facts. Dandelion Wine. Should Monsanto be paid or not? I totally agree there is equity supporting either answer. I also would be happy with either answer regarding the dandelion farmer. …. Hmmmm…. better slow down and think about that. ….. Yes—I think the law would be “fair” regardless of which position it takes. The equities are just that balanced. So the question really shifts to how efficient a market we want==that starts to favor the dandelion farmer ===even though it would favor and foster a kind of pernicious unfair fraud.
Pro’s and Con’s to every decision/policy made. That is what is so sublime about this question.
No Right or Wrong = just a choice. Yes, quite sublime. I could make a more “fair” rule that would be more fact dependent, more testimony dependent. Sometimes it is more fair to have an unfair rule ((whichEVER way it goes)) that is easy to enforce rather than a more fair rule that is constantly controverted. Kinda like no fault divorce?
blah, blah, blah. Its all pretty clear to me. The “desire” to fund for profit industry….. amusing.
Supposedly we want Monsanto to survive in order to have advancements in seed technology. Sounds like a good issue for non-for-profit organizations to be funded and to step in.
Oh the horror. some other alternative to for profits running the world.
Yea, verily.
“HM – you are up late, and rather crabby. Any connection?”
Haha. You noticed I was both up late and rather crabby.
Being crabby is rather out of character but I was irritated I couldn’t sleep and the movie I got at RedBox had an interesting premise but really, really sucked (Man on a Ledge).
“I’ll not spend 5 seconds of my time speaking with empty-headed nitwits.”
“I only have interest in speaking with intelligent open-minded people of scientific or factual interest.”
At least we know that hmeyers doesn’t talk to himself, but it’s too bad he’ll never learn from those he disagrees with.
I was rather perturbed to have back-to-back stupid character assassin attempts just for actually having some knowledge of the background of the larger picture of the Monsanto lawsuit.
I hate ignorance. And wasn’t in the best of moods at the time either.
Life happens.
What they are doing to seeds is killing the bees and when the bees go we starve.
I have followed the BCC (Bee Colony Collapse) issue fairly closely as a friend of mine “ranches” bees and gives me honey. NO ONE claims GMO seeds is part of BCC.
Try again. Soybeans might even be wind propagated. Bees would help of course, but not be the main vector. Or not. I forget.
I just read the header again: “Monsanto – Buy Our Seeds Once, Pay Us Forever” /// I don’t think THAT question is open to debate at all. You buy the seeds then want year two to be free from the seeds you allow to grow? PURE licensing/sale issue/contract issue for me. MONSANTO WINS and they should.
Its the dandelion grower where the issue becomes somewhat of a toss up. Not in a contractual relationship, but that is where the law and social policy has a role.
Already covered above.
I look at this side if it, the farmers who are close to Monsanto fields that are cross pollinated are an unintended beneficiary but should not be help fiscally responsible for the cross pollination as this is not something they can control nor did they agree to purchase or license said pollen.
This is similar to a neighbor benefiting from me getting pest removal service, there are now less pests in the area thanks to me paying a company to use their product but you would never think to charge the neighbor for the benefit.
I don’t get why those farmers aren’t putting together a class counter suit against Monsanto (or at least the neighboring farms who bought from Monsanto) for damaging their crops. If i buy a dog and don’t take steps to keep it out of my neighbors’ yards, i am responsible for any damage he causes.
No doubt its the Farmer who bought the seeds that would be responsible in combo with whatever the Nations Laws are?
“Free us from stupid litigation or we won’t sell our seeds in your country and your people can starve or go out of business with their out of date old seed technology. Your choice.”
Thats a fair deal. You don’t want to allow green technology? Fine. See ya.
Unlike Monsanto.
To the next step: patented human genes. Suppose you are treated with a genetic modification, and the patent owner only licenses, doesn’t sell, the patented gene. And you have to pay them a license fee for the rest of your life. Still so sanguine with Monsanto’s model?
Don’t treat me with a patented human gene modification, bro.
My question is, when a person is given gene therapy, does the company that developed the method and tools for that now own that person and any children (grandchildren, etc) he has from then on?
Patents should never be applied to lifeforms.
Sorry, Geno. Didn’t read far enough down to see you already covered that. 😀
A plant is a lifeform.
Exactly what i am saying. I know they are being applied to lifeforms. Seeds that haven’t even been modified are being patented. I am saying that it is wrong that they can and are being patented.
BINGO!
Plus our source of life.
Genes are not patentable. This is a gross misconception.
What is patented is the process by which they are isolated. There are numerous ways to isolate a gene but it is usually cheaper to pay the last guy who figured out how to do it.
Gene therapy (the result of the therapy) is not patentable.
The process by which the therapy is applied is patentable.
If you are cured by gene therapy, only the process is paid for, not the results.
In the case of the soybean, the process that is patented is the growing of the bean from seed to bean. That is patentable because it is constantly being used (millions of times in the same field).
If you compare it to gene therapy, it would be like going to the doctor every week for your shot. You owe the doctor for your shot but not for the life in between the shots.
The idea of genes being patentable is a bit disgusting, at the same time if they can’t have limited patents why would a medical research company pursue DNA research if they have little chance of a return on investment?
What if a company discovered a way to counter-act sickle cell anemia that could easily be copied by another large medical research company?
They mapped the human genome, but it is potentially problematic if researchers cannot have assured financial benefits from a breakthrough, and that type of research is expensive. And requires financial backing.
You buy the seeds they belong to you. Monsanto is trying to extend ownership past the initial purchase.
All of Intellectual Property law is like that. Each area of the law with slightly different application and rules. Corps have more “control” when they license. Can you license a seed? Not in the standard/historical sense… but balance that with the law of a given jurisdiction, the cost of developing the IP at issue, and so forth.
There are valid issues, that are taken too far.
Same as it always is.
Monsanto had a choice: work ethically with farmers and people that consumed their products or NOT work ethically with farmers and the people that consumed their products.
They wanted to monopolize the industry and take all of the profits for themselves. It can’t happen. People forget that farming is an evolutionary process.
Monsanto’s seed evolution created harmful products which have been scientifically proven to make people sick with chronic lifetime conditions and cause permanent internal organ damage. Thus they should have allowed the smaller farmers, with much more practical knowledge, to come and fix what they had destroyed.They didn’t.
They need to pay the price. They should be shut down. In America there should be a class action RICO lawsuit filed because they took their crime wave monopoly against farmers across state and federal lines. There actions became crimes the minute a scientist told them their products were harmful, then judges around the world began banning them, and they STILL continued to make farmers buy seed that they knew was contaminated.
Poisoned seed is a dangerous transportable weapon that causes serious bodily injury. The seeds also been proven to disable the human endocrine system. Their business model also causes corporate and legal conflicts of interest. They also made committed fraud by releasing known false statements about their product which caused harm to global citizens. They break quite a few tenets of the American RICO statute. The countries just need to band together to take them down.
Sign me up.
I’m about to go to bed so I’ll miss the narrowing focus… but… yes, patents of dna/life forms is accepted practice. thats how Monsanto is able to sue to begin with.
I would definitely draw a distinction between developing new dna patterns in plants versus gene therapy in humans. Describe the line as you will. The issue that is close to this is who “owns” the dna therapy that is developed from a donor patient that has the specific genes that provide the therapy. It appears to be “contract law” and of course the gene companies won’t study “your” dna if you don’t give it up at the start. Seems fair enough to me. Same with plants and diseases with certain Countries refusing to enforce claims of ownership of their “indigenous dna.”
Pro’s and Con’s to all we do. consequences. People wanting to rewrite deals once benefits are exchanged. Companies wanting a monopoly on whatever they can get.
People being people. Is society best organized to benefit individuals or society? What justifies for-profit if Open Source will in most instances provide the same or similar products and services? Why should certain services (health/food related to start) EVER be subject to for profit restrictions?
And the list goes on. Pro’s and Cons.
Grace demonstrating the irrelevance of naivete says:
6/5/2012 at 7:25 am
Monsanto had a choice: work ethically with farmers and people that consumed their products or NOT work ethically with farmers and the people that consumed their products. /// Ethics? Ha, ha. The ONLY requirement is to conform to law. One persons ethics is another persons crime. Its not written. It changes on a bird’s song. The law: written/known/stable. GET REAL.
They wanted to monopolize the industry and take all of the profits for themselves. It can’t happen. People forget that farming is an evolutionary process. /// Huh? Gene development is not “farming.” It gets used in farming but people have been claiming ownership of developed plants/animals from the beginning of organized societies. Don’t you have any historical context to fit this issue into?
Monsanto’s seed evolution created harmful products which have been scientifically proven to make people sick with chronic lifetime conditions and cause permanent internal organ damage. /// Name one? Link?? Total BS to make such a statement and not back it up.
Thus they should have allowed the smaller farmers, with much more practical knowledge, to come and fix what they had destroyed.They didn’t. /// This linkage makes NO SENSE AT ALL. Must be one of your “ethical” constructs for you and you alone? Farmers can’t fix what Monsanto injures. What a dolt.
They need to pay the price. They should be shut down. In America there should be a class action RICO lawsuit filed because they took their crime wave monopoly against farmers across state and federal lines. /// Hey Dildo – – it was legal==whatever you are fantasizing about.
There actions became crimes the minute a scientist told them their products were harmful, then judges around the world began banning them, and they STILL continued to make farmers buy seed that they knew was contaminated. /// Oh… I’ll have to guess you are confusing and conflating several different issues. Way to go champ. YOU are contaminating any clear thinking on this issue. Leading by example?
Poisoned seed is a dangerous transportable weapon that causes serious bodily injury. The seeds also been proven to disable the human endocrine system. /// Example/link?
Their business model also causes corporate and legal conflicts of interest. /// Business Model? Like what specifically?
They also made committed fraud by releasing known false statements about their product which caused harm to global citizens. They break quite a few tenets of the American RICO statute. The countries just need to band together to take them down. /// Monotonously retarded. It’s GM chicken little’s like yourself that allows Monsanto to take advantage of you and your entire clutch.
Silly Hoomans. Can’t even argue your case when you are right.
Dolts.
Bobbo, you are out skepticizing me.
Almost making me feel insecure in my role of a being a contrarian.
A Role? Ohhhhh….HM===you aren’t going to confuse ME that I am only role playing. Rolling a dope?==Yes. Not the same thing.
There is a certain kind of idiocy that advocates that their own preferences are actually some kind of reality rather than simply a preference.
Stooges all.
How’s that HFCS working in your diet. Corns a plenty in Happy Fat Americans. I’m trim and not happy, and am very concerned about the food pumped out of middle America with poison pissed all over it. Eat up.
Step back and ask yourself whether any individual or entity has a right to benefit in perpetuity for something they invent, especially when the environment that allowed for the invention’s discovery and development was surely supported in part by public taxes for education, infrastructure, and basic science.
I’m not talking about fair profit. But in perpetuity? With clever laws and documentation, legal monopolies are ensured.
Wasn’t that covered above? Too sleepy to check. Patents/IP are not in perpetuity.
Silly to make facially defective arguments.
Get real, get reasonable….. or get screwed.
Change a formula a little and you’ve got a new patent. Get real.
Sam’s correct, bobbo. Wake up. Monsanto should be on your radar as an evil corporation and an enemy.
First they complained when they made crops that wouldn’t produce seeds for a second generation. Now they complain about the licensing. apparently theft is all people want.
It’s going to amount to peonage. Even people who don’t want to grow Monsanto soy crops find that the genes end up in their crops and they end up paying when they’d really like to sue and collect damage because they don’t want GM crops.
Of course these are also the people that wanted to bring use crops that produce sterile seeds.
How could anyone be so stupid to be fooled by this
Do they not have les of a brain in their head
Then again its on les common sense to vote for our current set of politicians – including Obama and Romney
Wake up before its too late
CORPORATE GREED AND EVIL PERSONIFIED !!! (Corps are PEOPLE – RIGHT ?)
Like all other patents, Monsanto’s are running out. Then the competitive market will have a go. Soy beans patent expired last year. If you don’t like what theyb are doing change the patent laws.
What I find interesting is that on a certain level, there is a correspondence between Monsanto saying you can’t use the seeds you bought however you want (ie, you paid for it, but we retain the rights to it, so you don’t really own it) and the RIAA and MPAA saying you don’t really own music and movies you’ve purchased.
Of course, patents and copyrights are different, but the concept of who owns what after purchase is interesting.
This whole subject makes my head hurt. Implications for the future of crops are mind blowing. Patenting of LIFE be it planthood or animalhood must be outlawed.
Good luck to brazilian farmers but brazilian judges like presents a lot.
Get seeds while you can!!! Organic, heirloom seeds……
Don’t wait!!!
Love Sheila
http://survivingsurvivalism.com
I have nothing nice to say about Montsanto or government the 2 are in bed together raping the shit outta joe public… Only joe public can stop this as everyone else is just queuing up waiting for their turn on Joe’s already sore and bleeding ass
To hell with monsanto
Fuck em
Here’s a video about about problem. Disgusting behavior by the government and corps.
The World According to Monsanto.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4867493254318912106
Good video. Insightful and food for thought (no punn intended)
If they could only own the oxygen too…
CO2 soon 😉