A farmers stand against monsanto.

[Burbert]

Boohoo poor Monsanto, feeding the world
wit it technology, then (hopefully)
getting a kick in the knackers cousin
some old framer has infringed on their
patent. Yup all seed research'll stop
and the world will begin ta starve, once
this stupid patent is voided. Oh me, oh
my, the sky is falling, the sky is
falling, clasping and winging of hands,
poor multi-billion air Monsanto we all
loves them out here in framer land!!!!!

[TOM4CWB]

WD9,

If the farmer grew the RR soybeans for his own
commercial/feed/food use... didn't sell them as seed
for planting purposes... and Monsanto had NO contract
with this farmer.... preventing seeding... he didn't
break the law. Then The person who sold the RR
Soybeans to this farmer(to be used as planting seed)...
was the responsible party... to make sure the soybeans
were NOT used as planting seed... if Monsanto had a
contract to prevent the soybeans being used as seed.

I do not believe a farmer using the soybeans (for
commercial use/NOT selling as planting seed)... is
going to hurt Monsanto or other tech companies or
future development. Contract law should easily resolve
this... if Monsanto did NOT have proper contracts in
place... they need to fix that problem.

[FarmRanger]

So Tom, if I give a copy of my favorite movie to you, that gives you the right to make and sell all the copies you want, because you didn't buy the original?

[Goodtime]

I despise Monsanto like everyone else but I think this is a tough one for this fellow to win. This is Percy S all over again, but could you imagine not having to pay for RR canola seed every year? Would mean I would actually have a little money left over to go to a Ritchie Bro sale.

[FarmRanger]

I hear ya, it makes me so angry when those nasty companies want to protect their property. Why should their shareholders benefit when I could make more money from stealing their investment?
/sarc

[sumdumguy]

Canada Seed Act says you cant call it by name
unless its registered, so why the double
standard? Unregistered is unregistered seed, just
saying.

[Goodtime]

Is anyone else wondering who this Farmranger clown is spewing the sarcasm?

[Goodtime]

We get it FarmRanger you are all about protecting property etc etc now go to one of your GreenPeace rallys or whatever makes you feel good about yourself.

[ColevilleH2S]

I agree with farmranger. If it wasn't
for the protection of intellectual
property rights what's the point of
doing anything innovative.

[TOM4CWB]

Farm,

"So Tom, if I give a copy of my favorite movie to you,
that gives you the right to make and sell all the copies
you want, because you didn't buy the original?"

This farmer did buy the grain. And clearly I said IF he
was using it ONLY for his OWN farm use... NOT selling
it for planting seed to others... IF he had NO contract
with monsanto preventing him from growing the RR
Soybeans... that should be legal.

Like buying a used book... and hand copying out a
section of that book... for your own use.... is NOT
illegal or ethically wrong.

Cheers!

[TOM4CWB]

FarmRanger,

It looks like there is much MORE to this case;

"it grew [the case before the US Supreme Court] from a simple contract violation"

Since Bowman signed a contract...saying he wouldn't use Monsanto RR Soybeans for planting seed.. he broke the contract law he voluntarily signed...

"Bowman was a regular customer for Monsanto’s herbicide-resistant soya beans for his main crop, but bypassed the company by purchasing seed for a late-season crop from a grain elevator known to contain Monsanto’s transgenic seed. In 2007, Monsanto sued him. As the case climbed through the court system, it grew from a simple contract violation to a challenge of the idea that companies can use patents to limit the offspring of naturally ‘self-replicating’ technologies."

http://www.nature.com/news/seed-patent-case-in-supreme-court-1.12445

[bucket]

All good points for a good discussion but don't let Monsanto off the hook.

They have been extending their patents well past what is realistic, to continue to collect their TUA.

In reality, the patent for RR canola should have expired a few years ago.

The process is well paid for and I don't mind having to pay a fee, but what do you get for the fee anymore?

Better yields have nothing to do with using roundup, its not a fertilizer. Better agronomic practices have increased the value of the crop more than being able to use round up, and I am not convinced better farming is patentable?

I am on the fence. There should be a fee but how much is fair? If you find a variety you like, why not be able to keep it and grow your own stocks as long as you pay a smaller fee - call it a patronage fee.