In the discussion thread: Monsanto sued small famers to protect seed patents, report says [View all]
Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)
Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:46 PM
farminator3000 (2,112 posts)
21. more about Bowman + pdf of the suit
from the OP article- (they could have stopped right at the bold part...)
Monsanto, which has won its case against Bowman in lower courts, vociferously disagrees. It argues that it needs its patents in order to protect its business interests and provide a motivation for spending millions of dollars on research and development of hardier, disease-resistant seeds that can boost food yields.
On a website set up to put forward its point of view on the Bowman case, the company argues that if the supreme court rules against it, vast swathes of research and patent-reliant industries will be under threat. Strong patent protection that covers genetic innovations, and is passed on in subsequent generations of crops, is vital to preserving the motivation for developing new agricultural products, the firm insists.
"If Bowman prevails, however, this field of research could be altered severely, as would many others in medicine, biofuels, and environmental science, as easily replicable technologies would no longer enjoy any meaningful protection under the patent laws," the firm said in a statement.
what a load of crap all around. genetic innovations are easily replicable? wtf?
edit #1: who the F needs motivation to spend millions? huh?
link from the OP- (check the picture- my hoodie is green, and i'm 30+ years younger, but same tractors!)
Monsanto, alarmed at the possibilities of what the Supreme Court might do, has circled the wagons.
The Biotechnology Industry Organization warns that advancements in agricultural, medical and environmental research “depend critically on a strong, stable and nationally uniform system of patent rights and protections.”
Universities, economists, intellectual property experts and seed companies have weighed in on Monsanto’s behalf.
Bowman originally represented himself, with the help of a local attorney, in the legal proceedings. But now Seattle lawyer Mark P. Walters and his intellectual property law firm are working pro bono on Bowman’s behalf.
Walters calls Monsanto’s dire claims “really such an exaggeration.” Monsanto can protect itself through contracts, for instance, requiring grain elevators to impose restrictions against planting commodity seed. The company could even ensure that its Roundup resistance does not pass on to the next generation of soybeans, ensuring that farmers would have to buy, rather than save, seed.
Monsanto rejects those alternatives as unworkable.
here's the Bowman suit- kinda long! looks pretty kick-ass, though, i'd say.
Over 150 years ago, in McQuewan, this Court drew a
critical distinction between purchasers of “the exclusive
privilege of making or vending” a patented product and
purchasers of the product itself “for the purpose of using
it in the ordinary pursuits of life . . . .” 55 U.S. at 549.
McQuewan explained that when a patented article “passes
to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the
limits of the monopoly. It passes outside of it, and
is no longer under the protection of the act of Congress.”
The Federal Circuit’s decision provides Monsanto with
an unprecedented level of protection. It permits Monsanto
to sue farmers for patent infringement when they plant
seeds that have been purchased on the open market in
authorized and unrestricted sales. This decision confl icts
with more than 150 years of law from this Court holding
that patent rights terminate after an authorized sale. It
also expands those rights by providing an exception to
patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.
Absent congressional action, self-replicating
technologies deserve no special consideration under the
exhaustion doctrine. The fact that products embodying
these inventions will self-replicate by normal use should
be of no consequence to an accused infringer’s exhaustion
defense. If Monsanto wants to restrict farmers’ use of
its self-replicating inventions, then it must do so under
contract law. Under this Court’s cases, Monsanto’s patent
rights terminated upon the authorized sale of seeds
embodying the invention to Bowman, and it could no longer
restrict his use of those seeds through patent law.
The judgment of the Federal Circuit should be
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Judi Lynn||Feb 2013||OP|
|Kelvin Mace||Feb 2013||#11|
|Jack Rabbit||Feb 2013||#22|
|Faryn Balyncd||Feb 2013||#13|
more about Bowman + pdf of the suit
|Le Taz Hot||Feb 2013||#25|
Please login to view edit histories.