Monsanto wins unanimous ruling VS Bowman

Well, yes...that the legal way they look at it.

The contact is a Royality arrangemnent. And keeping seed corn and not getting new seed is a rip off of the patent per the contract.

America! Fuck Yeah!
 
We find a way to abuse everything science gives us....... who cares about saving the world when we can wollar around in currency!

He still has to buy the weed killer to use on them correct? Arn't they are just normal soy beans unless used with the specific weed killer? i fail to see how this is anything more than gross corporate greed trying to monopolize an entire industry.

Let them develop the seeds to bolster their weed killer market, not to patent the rest of the population out of food.
 
Ay, I agree. Why rumble in the jungle when we can wollar in the dollar?.....Hurrah!
 
DonPepe said:
We find a way to abuse everything science gives us....... who cares about saving the world when we can wollar around in currency!

He still has to buy the weed killer to use on them correct? or they are just normal soy beans then? i fail to see how this is anything more than gross corporate greed trying to monopolizer an entire industry.

Let them develop the seeds to bolster their weed killer market not to patent the rest of the population out of food.
Click to expand...

Bowman could have just used regular soybean seeds instead of stealing Monsanto's seeds.
 
desert dude said:
Bowman could have just used regular soybean seeds instead of stealing Monsanto's seeds.
Click to expand...

I like your use of the word "stealing", i suppose by the definition of our high court it is accurate, much the same way homosexuality has been "illegal".

Certain words have associated connotations with them and i find your use of the word stealing misleading. I personally do not consider his acts stealing, just as i personally differ from our high courts on many many opinions.
 
Certain words have connotations.

fail to see how this is anything more than gross corporate greed trying to monopolizer an entire industry.

You reveal your entire world.....you are not in the middle, not really a Constitutionality.This charged phrase, is your connotation...from out in a field..."gross corp greed:" is a flimsy undefined moral, not legal concept.

In the middle is rule of law.
 
DonPepe said:
I like your use of the word "stealing", i suppose by the definition of our high court it is accurate, much the same way homosexuality has been "illegal".

Certain words have associated connotations with them and i find your use of the word stealing misleading. I personally do not consider his acts stealing, just as i personally differ from our high courts on many many opinions.
Click to expand...

I too differ with SCOTUS on many of their decisions, so I respect your position on this.

Bowman bought a bunch of soybeans from a local farm supply. Bowman reasoned that some of those seeds would be Monsanto seeds. He planted those seeds then sprayed his crop with round-up. The Monsanto soybeans survived and the non-GMO plants died. He then harvested the seeds produced by his culled crop and used those to plant his next crop of beans. So, yes, he did indeed steal Monsanto's seeds.

Monsanto spent a lot of money to develop their strain of soybeans. They have a legitimate interest in getting paid for their efforts. We all have a legitimate interest in making sure that efforts are rewarded.
 
What! Fuck monsanto! what are yall waiting for phillip morris to click up with them to sell the final processed product.FUCK THAT SHIT!
 
Doer said:
Certain words have connotations.

fail to see how this is anything more than gross corporate greed trying to monopolizer an entire industry.

You reveal your entire world.....you are not in the middle, not really a Constitutionality.This charged phrase, is your connotation...from out in a field..."gross corp greed:" is a flimsy undefined moral, not legal concept.

In the middle is rule of law.
Click to expand...


I did not say he was wrong for saying "stealing", and i do not deny doing the same thing myself. I only wanted to point out that i did not agree with term stealing in this particular situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by revealing my entire world or the rest of that sentence. I would be happy to expound on my reasoning if anyone were interested in a depth discussion.
 
desert dude said:
I too differ with SCOTUS on many of their decisions, so I respect your position on this.

Bowman bought a bunch of soybeans from a local farm supply. Bowman reasoned that some of those seeds would be Monsanto seeds. He planted those seeds then sprayed his crop with round-up. The Monsanto soybeans survived and the non-GMO plants died. He then harvested the seeds produced by his culled crop and used those to plant his next crop of beans. So, yes, he did indeed steal Monsanto's seeds.

Monsanto spent a lot of money to develop their strain of soybeans. They have a legitimate interest in getting paid for their efforts. We all have a legitimate interest in making sure that efforts are rewarded.
Click to expand...


I understand what you are saying, and see the reasoning behind your argument. You choose the word stealing, i would prefer replicating, or even illegally replicating. I prefer this because to me it better describes the actions. He did not take an item directly from them, he purchased an item from them and using natural means replicated the item at no "empirical" cost to monsanto. In the age of "digital" we are hashing out this difference apparently on a case by case basis.

In fact i actually agree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court on copyright grounds, but i feel the specific case in question should be addresses from a broadened perspective with less concern for current copyright law and how it can be applied and more for the impacts of this new, unique, situation.

How long before you can't buy "normal" soybean seed?
 
DonPepe said:
I did not say he was wrong for saying "stealing", and i do not deny doing the same thing myself. I only wanted to point out that i did not agree with term stealing in this particular situation.

I'm not sure what you mean by revealing my entire world or the rest of that sentence. I would be happy to expound on my reasoning if anyone were interested in a depth discussion.
Click to expand...

Well, not being unkind, I didn't mean your entire world, like where you are from and is your wife a blond, like that. I meant the entire world of your stance on this. I know where you are coming from. We don't have to accept SCOTUS...I certainly don't mean to say there is no choice. Always choice on the 8 rails of freedom. No law against choosing to break the law. Laws against getting caught.

I mean, I've been there, this world view of "corporate greed." I now believe that to be an oxymoron of the highest order.

It rules out so much freedom to the think a Corporation is or can be "greedy." It allow you to say the same about people. You get to say how much, so you get to define greed...for yourself only. Not me, not Corp. it is a judge full religious concept I've come to learn via Hard Knock Univ.

I will say the same about people. And people run these public Entities. Why you are not a Constitutionality based Citizen and are not helping row the ship of State (not that you have to) is the 9th Amendment says I have the right to be Greedy. In fact that is considered a Chase for Happiness. A Corportation is bound by those and even more strict law, but is still protected by the 9th A.

The 4th A. allows you to say what you want. And because of that, ONLY, I can kinda like it if I want to...or not. :)

So, the 9th is very simple. So, no, I don't care to discuss this world view.

Don't Judge Me, Dude!
 
DonPepe said:
I understand what you are saying, and see the reasoning behind your argument. You choose the word stealing, i would prefer replicating, or even illegally replicating. I prefer this because to me it better describes the actions. He did not take an item directly from them, he purchased an item from them and using natural means replicated the item at no "empirical" cost to monsanto. In the age of "digital" we are hashing out this difference apparently on a case by case basis.

In fact i actually agree with the reasoning of the Supreme Court on copyright grounds, but i feel the specific case in question should be addresses from a broadened perspective with less concern for current copyright law and how it can be applied and more for the impacts of this new, unique, situation.

How long before you can't buy "normal" soybean seed?
Click to expand...

You are not one of the left wing fascists on RIU, so I can compromise on the language if you find it less bothersome to term it "illegal replication". I refuse to compromise on even the slightest point with any of those left wing loons.

By the way, this is a patent infringement, not a copyright infringement.

The situation is not all that unique. Hybrid roses have been patented for years. You can't legally take a cutting from one of your patented roses, propagate it and then sell the new plant. The fact that this SCOTUS decision was 9-0 ought to tell you that Bowman had no case.

I can't answer your "how long" question but I would like to point out that you can buy "heirloom" tomatoes pretty easily. I suspect that pre-GMO soy beans will be available for a long time.
 
I will happily admit when I am wrong. Doing so has nothing to do with compromising with left-wing leaches.

GMO crops are miraculous. Why do you think Monsanto's round-up ready soybeans have 90% of the US market?
 
DonPepe said:
How long before you can't buy "normal" soybean seed?
Click to expand...

What does this case have to do with buying normal soybean seed? If it's not patented, this ruling is irrelevant.

Anyone else is free to develop their own line of genetically modified seeds, obtain a patent, and set whatever conditions they please for their use.
 
desert dude said:
I will happily admit when I am wrong. Doing so has nothing to do with compromising with left-wing leaches.

GMO crops are miraculous. Why do you think Monsanto's round-up ready soybeans have 90% of the US market?
Click to expand...

Food is now a weapon as per kissingers prediction and we need to depopulate the planet ASAFP...
 
DonPepe said:
We find a way to abuse everything science gives us....... who cares about saving the world when we can wollar around in currency!

He still has to buy the weed killer to use on them correct? Arn't they are just normal soy beans unless used with the specific weed killer? i fail to see how this is anything more than gross corporate greed trying to monopolize an entire industry.

Let them develop the seeds to bolster their weed killer market, not to patent the rest of the population out of food.
Click to expand...

Whether you use the weed killer or not, the soybeans are genetically distinct from "normal soy beans." No one has to use the genetically modified seeds Monsanto produced; and their patent on them is only going to last for a limited time, so the industry isn't going to be monopolized either. Indeed, Monsanto's patent for these seeds expires in 2014, which means in 2015 anyone who has the seeds will be able to replant them without paying anything.

The fact that farmers have chosen to plant Monsanto soybeans must reflect a very simple economic reality: when you use normal soybeans, you make less money than when you use Monsanto's seeds and pay them their cut. Otherwise no one would do it, or they would only do it for a single season. What's the problem with Monsanto profiting from that? Didn't the farmer benefit too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DNAprotection
Gov's development of cannabis killing fungal pathogens in bioterrorism Act
Replies
8
Views
4K
MiKron
MiKron
Bill Hayes
No 25 Mile Rule, The Legal Battle Has Begun
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
18K
Classic1952
C
L
Monsanto terminator seeds!!
2
Replies
22
Views
5K
doc111
doc111
bsemaj
James E. Barber Sr. v. City of Vancouver et.al.
Replies
5
Views
2K
bsemaj
bsemaj
malignant
  • Sticky
Veganics Cheat sheet
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
64K
Irrelevanttwat
I
Back
Top