HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » So will our Corporate Con...

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:16 PM

So will our Corporate Controlled SCOTUS rule for Monsanto??

Both Sotomayor and Kagen are Monsanto-friendly, and were probably chosen by Obama as much for their support for this new technology that the Big Agri firms love as for their being female.


On edit: And of course, the Republicans on SCOTUS have rarely ever met a Big Corporation that they didn't treat like a family friend. I certainly do not envy Walters, the small time farmer, in taking this case up against these nine puppets of our Corporate Owned Government.


The news on SCOTUS blog Dot Com doesn't sound good for those of us who want the small family farmers in this country to be able to still farm their land. Once a bird, or the wind, carries a GM seed into your field, you have to hope to Goddess it doesn't sprout, because if it does, the "farm agents" in the hire of Big Agri firms might find out, and you will lose your land to Monsanto. (And since RoundUp has had recorded drifts of up to 1500 feet, an organic farmer who has never purchased RoundUp can find the stuff on his or her farm.)

Anyone here on DU wishing to update these remarks and this post, pls feel free to chime in. Here is a link and a paragraph from SCOTUSBLOG.COM :

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/02/argument-recap-justices-wary-of-cutting-patent-rights-to-genetically-modified-seeds/#more-159730
When the unremitting assault on Walters finally came to an end, the argument took another unusual turn: The United States appeared as an amicus in support of Monsanto, but Seth Waxman had the Assistant to the Solicitor General (Melissa Arbus Sherry) speak before him, rather than after him (presumably so he could respond to anything she said about the enforceability of Monsanto’s license – a point on which the United States parts ways from Monsanto). Her argument was uncommonly smooth – in large part because the perspective she took was so much in tune with the Justices’ predisposition. The basic position she offered was that Monsanto’s patent rights are exhausted with respect to the seed it sells, but not with respect to other seeds that are later generated; that position resonated with all the Justices who spoke during Walters’ argument.

12 replies, 1236 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:22 PM

1. naybe our corporate controlled government will change the laws lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:21 PM

5. If I weren't so cynical, I would suggest us activists starting with

Michelle Obama and persuading her to get busy on this issue. After all, she was so up in arms, dramatically so, over her organic garden near the Rose Garden.

But I have come to believe that was not only a publicity stunt, but something she did to offer cover for her husband, who was busy appointing Big Agri People for the more powerful agriculture positions at the same time she was raving about the value of eating organic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:02 PM

9. ^^^ nailed

 

The goes on and on

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to green for victory (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:00 PM

11. Luv-ving yr graphic - like

My husband says, Beets can't be beet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:29 PM

2. If Monsanto dared sued nonfarmers for infringement they'd change the laws

Monsanto's whole business plan these days is basically extortion simply because Nature does what it does, has plants try to spread their seeds and grow without farmers help. You shouldn't be allowed to patent DNA, or genetic modifications of anything.

Monsanto has only been able to get away with this because it's only farmers they go after. If they started going after everyone living in some suburban areas where a neighbor or two buys and plants some Monsanto GM seeds then public outrage over Monsanto would quickly get the laws changed, and Monsanto's patents probably invalidated.

Unfortunately, a few months ago Monsanto won their last case just like this in a supreme court in another country (Australia I think?), so it's always possible the idiots will rule in their favor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:34 PM

3. Opus Dei MonSatanto Cabal, Inc. (R)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 06:52 PM

4. Is there any doubt?

of course they will 9-0
It is in the agreement when you plant the seeds.
Farmers are at the mercy of Monsanto and will get none.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThomThom (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:30 PM

7. Bowman doesn't concern a farmer who signed the agreement--this is a farmer

who sought the seeds off-license.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:35 PM

8. yes I know, that is why it got this far

Monsanto still controls their seed and will prevail

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 08:28 PM

6. Why wouldn't SCOTUS affirm? To rule for the farmer, you are asking for a change in

exhaustion doctrine. This would affect patents for research, vaccines, etc....

There was a prior thread on this in LBN yesterday, and while we can all agree that Monsanto is evil, no poster came up with a reason for SCOTUS to change patent law to the detriment of Monsanto.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 10:04 PM

10. Will the sun rise tomorrow? Is the sky really falling? Did Bullwinkle really have something up his

...sleave?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truedelphi (Original post)

Thu Feb 21, 2013, 11:08 PM

12. Now should Monsanto win, here's a question for any legal beagles:

The man buys some seeds, which are labeled/sold as being cattle food.

You may read about it here:
http://biotech.about.com/b/2013/02/20/scotus-hears-monsanto-suit-against-indiana-farmer-that-grew-gmo-soybeans.htm

If this crap GM "food" that Mosnato has "offered" the world is now so ubiquitous that you can't buy a bag of food for your animals without encountering it, shouldn't that be grounds for the beginning of an Anti Trust Suit? A Dairy collective in Wisconsin, which has done a most excellent job of keeping small time dairy farmers in existence, was recently shuttered and ended, due to an Anti Trust lawsuit.

Or does the label "Anti Trust" now only apply to small and medium sized companies - not Too Big To Fail Types like Monsanto?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread