Most people that know me, know that I had a short stint working for Monsanto at their world headquarters in St Louis, no less. I've always defended Monsanto for making drought and pesticide resistant crops as well as developing things like Vit A enriched Golden Rice. I do believe that they play a HUGE role in ridding world hunger. These are complex issues that will be reserved for another day.
What I have been hating them for, and consistently hate them for, is there intellectual property (IP) defense. They go after small time farmers that can't afford any other seeds at large volume and bleed them dry, just because the farmers did what farmers should do. Plant crops.
Today, he Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Monsanto in Bowman v. Monsanto violated Monsanto's IP rights because he decided to buy grain at a grain elevator. Everyone working with (for) Monsanto has to sign an agreement that says you will not save seed, a violation of a central tenet of farming. Mr. Bowman bought some seed and planted it, and since 85%-90% of world soybean is genetically altered and somehow tied with Monsanto, chances are he violated his "no saving" clause.
So here's where my beef starts with Monsanto. Patent law has something called patent exhaustion, as in where does this shit end? For example, if you buy a cellphone, you get to use that cell phone HOWEVER you want and you can sell it, gift it, whatever! Until you reach point two: reproduction.
You CANNOT reproduce it and sell it. That is an obvious patent violation. Seems legit...
Here's the problem... 80% of market is controlled by one entity. And Mr. Bowman, being your typical mid-west honest to God farmer, needs more crop. He can't afford other seed since 80% gives you a strangle hold over prices. So he goes to the local grain elevator to get seeds.
He didn't plant those seeds he bought!
He didn't fucking "reproduce" them!
He was just being a farmer, doing what he does. The rest is nature.
But SCOTUS has said that this is a no no. Since he knew full well that these seeds probably contain the Monsanto altered gene. So, he violated Monsanto's IP rights, and thus needs to fork over some $80K.
Monsanto needs to stop this. IP laws needs to do something about this. If something (i.e. plants, seeds, etc.) naturally reproduce if left in the state of nature, then that reproduction CANNOT or SHOULD NOT be protect by the original patent! Reproduction isn't something that is engineered, it just happens! If you didn't want your genes to be reproduced into next seasons crop, then engineer crops that don't produce seed!! Like seedless grapes... or watermelons.
Monsanto, please stop your bullshit.
What really scares me is this: there is a Supreme Court case on IP law dealing with a naturally occurring gene mutation. A company wishes to patent this gene mutation, though it didn't "invent" it, nor did they engineer it. So, using this standard now set UNANIMOUSLY, if you had this gene, this company owns a part of you (scary enough). But then you have kids, and your kids also have this gene, does this company suddenly own a part of your children? It's a reproduction.... it's genetic....
I understand that engineered gene sequences are patent-able, and i think that's right, since you developed it and all that jazz. But I really think we need to draw the line at reproduction. If your IP can, by it's own mechanism in a state of nature, can reproduce itself, then the product of that reproduction is NOT protected by the original patent!
In short, LET FARMERS BE FARMERS, let them keep seeds like we've done for eons, and let them plant those seeds! NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT!
What I have been hating them for, and consistently hate them for, is there intellectual property (IP) defense. They go after small time farmers that can't afford any other seeds at large volume and bleed them dry, just because the farmers did what farmers should do. Plant crops.
Today, he Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Monsanto in Bowman v. Monsanto violated Monsanto's IP rights because he decided to buy grain at a grain elevator. Everyone working with (for) Monsanto has to sign an agreement that says you will not save seed, a violation of a central tenet of farming. Mr. Bowman bought some seed and planted it, and since 85%-90% of world soybean is genetically altered and somehow tied with Monsanto, chances are he violated his "no saving" clause.
So here's where my beef starts with Monsanto. Patent law has something called patent exhaustion, as in where does this shit end? For example, if you buy a cellphone, you get to use that cell phone HOWEVER you want and you can sell it, gift it, whatever! Until you reach point two: reproduction.
You CANNOT reproduce it and sell it. That is an obvious patent violation. Seems legit...
Here's the problem... 80% of market is controlled by one entity. And Mr. Bowman, being your typical mid-west honest to God farmer, needs more crop. He can't afford other seed since 80% gives you a strangle hold over prices. So he goes to the local grain elevator to get seeds.
He didn't plant those seeds he bought!
He didn't fucking "reproduce" them!
He was just being a farmer, doing what he does. The rest is nature.
But SCOTUS has said that this is a no no. Since he knew full well that these seeds probably contain the Monsanto altered gene. So, he violated Monsanto's IP rights, and thus needs to fork over some $80K.
Monsanto needs to stop this. IP laws needs to do something about this. If something (i.e. plants, seeds, etc.) naturally reproduce if left in the state of nature, then that reproduction CANNOT or SHOULD NOT be protect by the original patent! Reproduction isn't something that is engineered, it just happens! If you didn't want your genes to be reproduced into next seasons crop, then engineer crops that don't produce seed!! Like seedless grapes... or watermelons.
Monsanto, please stop your bullshit.
What really scares me is this: there is a Supreme Court case on IP law dealing with a naturally occurring gene mutation. A company wishes to patent this gene mutation, though it didn't "invent" it, nor did they engineer it. So, using this standard now set UNANIMOUSLY, if you had this gene, this company owns a part of you (scary enough). But then you have kids, and your kids also have this gene, does this company suddenly own a part of your children? It's a reproduction.... it's genetic....
I understand that engineered gene sequences are patent-able, and i think that's right, since you developed it and all that jazz. But I really think we need to draw the line at reproduction. If your IP can, by it's own mechanism in a state of nature, can reproduce itself, then the product of that reproduction is NOT protected by the original patent!
In short, LET FARMERS BE FARMERS, let them keep seeds like we've done for eons, and let them plant those seeds! NOT A NOVEL CONCEPT!
No comments:
Post a Comment