A farmers stand against monsanto.

[samhill]

Pretty much a waste of time and of course $ to fight
Monsanto. However, I question "intellectual
property" because they didn't invent or create the
gene. The process to use it they may have, but at
any rate they own that process. The rest of the
process of isolating and growing out the seed is
used in almost every modern item that we all
purchase. So for how long do they own the process.
Other's would have eventually and obviously have
done it with different genes, innovations,
microchips, whatever. I don't agree it is their's
forever.

[wd9]

They don't own it forever. Its over in
2014. you can do whatever you want with
it at that point.

They do however own the process within
the seed to allow you to use roundup
until then. And they will protect it
like every other company. The gene,
RT73, is registered in the 7 top canola
exporting countries.

Patents are in place to allow the
inventor who came up with a unique, 'non
obvious' and 'novel' idea sufficient
time to recoup and have an advantage
over all competitors preventing them
from copying the idea and selling it as
their own.

Patents are 20 years in the US. There is
some allowance when it comes to
registration of especially things like
sprays that extend the patent to include
the years of testing for registration
and safety. ie herbicides.

Many examples exist of a unique process,
device, whatever, that is utilized with
another common process, device, seed, on
and on.

Patents occur in every aspect of our
lives in products, services, software,
business, advertising, EVERYTHING!

But it continually and absolutely
baffles me that farmers think the rules
don't apply to them because the
patentable idea is within a seed! You
can try, but you are gonna lose in court
cuz stealing is against the law.

There are 3 ways in the real world to
deal with patents:

1. Steal it and be big enough to tie up
the patent holder in court till they go
broke and use it as your own.

2. Make the patentable process
ridiculously complex and expensive that
it is self protecting - Liberty
herbicide is a good example, also
Lontrel.

3. Pay the holder of the patent a
licensing fee. ie the TUA.

4. Either wait for the patent to expire,
or create your own novel idea. You are
free to use patentable material to
create new ideas.

[grassfarmer]

You work hard on behalf of "the company" w9 I
hope they pay you well.
I don't grow RR crops so I'll use cattle to illustrate
this scenario as I see it. I have a strain of purebred
cattle that are unique in the marketplace developed
using my money and intellect. I haven't patented
the line or claimed "intellectual property rights"
over it although I know one breeder who does
something along those lines.
I sell bulls to other cattlemen and they are free to
use them as they wish. If I operated the same way
as Monsanto I would go after my second generation
customer - the feedlot buying my customer's calves
and demand that they pay me for using "my"
genetics. At the same time if the bull I sold to my
customer broke in with his neighbour's purebred
herd of another breed and caused him financial
duress for which he wanted compensated I would in
no way be responsible for that.
Bottom line - you can't have it both ways. You
either take on all the responsibility for the genes
that you created or you take on none.

[bucket]

grassfarmer

I agree. You buy RR canola or soybeans for the season. Then, if it volunteers its your problem as a weed its your problem, if it makes a crop it becomes monsanto's crop.

Monsanto wants the petent but not the responsibilty of cleaning up what isn't supposed to be there.

But if they were held accountable, I think the terminator gene would soon be introduced.

[bucket]

wd9

I think the problem is the patent should be off on canola already but monsanto has found a loophole to extend it. They really are doing nothing new, just insert the gene into a CDC unnamed variety, multiply it and call it new.

No different than the usual breeding techniques other than an extra step that has been paid for 1000's of times over.

Not to be argumentative, I have no problem paying a fee, I understand that.
But the first RR canola I bought was only 1.99 a lb plus the 15 dollar an acre TUA. Total cost of seed per acre was around 25 bucks. Now its running close to 3 times that.

[samhill]

WD, thanks for the explanation and info, I didn't know
what the expiry date was on M's patent. I have nothing
against patents and protection of property rights, it
makes innovation go.
But have you ever tried to copyright or patent your
own DNA. I've been told it's not possible.

[TOM4CWB]

Grassy,

If you expect people to respect your personal property
rights... while saying others can break the rule of law
and NOT respect the property rights of others. WHY?

END of Story. There is NO LAW saying farmers must
deal with or grow RR Canola... in fact many do NOT.

You want to be protected... but are not willing to
extend the same courtesy to others. WHY?

[bucket]

But TOM, I think the issue becomes when does Monsanto's responsibilty end?

If they want to own the crop because it is their technology, then do they also own the problem of volunteers 1,2,or even 5 years down the road?

As an example. If a farmer buys RR canola pays monsanto their fee, his right ends at the end of the growing season. He can not re use the seed. As a matter of fact, if the crop got hailed out and volunteers the following year the farmer is expected to pay monsanto a fee (is true). But if the crop has the odd volunteer in the following crops, its not monsanto's problem.

Do you see the double standard?

[wd9]

Grassfarmer. Yes, but a new business
model would be to not allow the farmer
to use those calves and make more calves
of your 'novel' trait. Sign an agreement
accordingly. You are just too poor to
enforce it, so you give it away. See
option 1 above.

Monsanto says, don't grow my seed, only
sell it. If they didn't, they would be
just like you giving away your novel
idea for almost free.

Not a company representative. I just
have plenty of experience in this in my
former life in medicine and watched my
employer take my patentable ideas. Rules
suck, but are the rules. I'm a farmer,
that is all.

Bucket, this is gonna sound horrible but
if its too expensive, don't buy it.

RR canola in Canada was caught in that
first to file vs first to patent rule
change and got extended. Also, patents
within patents can extend expiry of
older patents.

Samhill, your own DNA is obvious
therefore is not patentable. Fails first
test. Just like no one can patent
canola, a tree, etc.

That said, add a trait to cure cancer in
canola, voila, non obvious, unique,
distinct from every other canola,
therefore patentable.

Bucket, there will always be ambiguity
in law. The more money you have, the
more ambiguous the law is!

Farmers got to suck it up, we have to
pay for technology or don't use it.
Steal it, you're gonna lose.

[TOM4CWB]

BUCKET;
When the guy intentionally reseeded the RR soy for
many years... to make planting SEED... then he
breached the contract signed in the first place not to
reproduce RR soyabeans.

If RR technology voluntary seed reproduces... we know
when we sign the contract this will need to be
controlled... not to be harvested and subsequently
reseeded... Like Bowman did.

Volunteer canola escapes in another crop... are NOT
what Monsanto are going after.

Bowman intentionally broke the law... and knew he
broke the contract law he signed.

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

"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"