It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: FyreByrd
originally posted by: rickymouse
a reply to: Sabiduria
I don't understand how Monsanto has the right to sue Maui. If they do not want GMO there they should have a right to say no and not be challenged. Just because the feds allow it doesn't mean that every state or county has to allow it. The rights of the states are supposed to supersede the Feds on an issue like this. If a county wants to ban the import of any unnatural invasive species they should be allowed to do so. Since Monsanto's products disrupt the environment by cross pollination, they are an invasive species
Howdy - corporations do have the right - it is what these 'free trade' agreements are all about. Look into NAFTA.
The Federal Circuit did not find, as Monsanto claims, “no justiciable case or controversy” between the parties. Opp. 14. Instead, the Federal Circuit mooted the existing justiciable case by binding Monsanto to a limited interpretation of its previously non-binding statements. App. 19a. Thus the issue being appealed is not whether the threat of
infringement accusations exists. Until the Federal Circuit ruled, that threat existed even for contamination of less than one percent. The question that remains is whether Petitioners may sue given the reality that they will suffer contamination of over one percent
Monsanto's rationale is that, because Petitioners seek to avoid use of transgenic seeds for additional reasons independent of the threat of being found infringers, the threat of infringement no longer applies as a cause of their
injuries in fact for Article III purposes
Like the declaratory judgment plaintiffs in the above cases, Petitioners here are indeed injured by
multiple independent causes. In order to reclaim the unburdened use of their property that they seek, they will have to not only invalidate Monsanto's patents to avoid the risk of being accused infringers; they will also have to address the source of contamination (also ultimately Monsanto) in a different way to stop the contamination. But until the patents are no longer a threat, calling attention to any contamination is equivalent to making oneself a target for patent infringement. Thus like Dey and Caraco, Petitioners face multiple barriers to redressing their injuries, and like those plaintiffs, Petitioners must be allowed to eliminate them in turn. The fact that Monsanto's infectious invention has
harmed Petitioners in multiple ways is no reason not to let them address the most economically crippling consequence of contamination in this suit.
Indeed, one of the principal reasons Petitioners have brought this suit is to enable themselves to bring actions for trespass or nuisance when they are contaminated by Monsanto's GM seed, something no one disputes will happen. Petitioners today would hesitate to bring such actions because doing so would require that they admit possession of Monsanto's GM seed, an admission that would immediately subject them to being counter sued for patent infringement
Monsanto relies on the patent system. Monsanto has obtained several patents covering both traits and seeds, as well as methods for their creation and use. See Pet. App. 5a n.1 (listing 23 patents challenged by petitioners). Monsanto authorizes growers to use its patented biotechnology under a limited-use license, which permits a grower to plant seeds containing that technology in one season. The grower can then consume the resulting crop or sell it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevator or agricultural processor, but he may not save any of the harvested crop for re-planting nor supply it to anyone else for that purpose. See Bowman, 133 S. Ct. at 1764-1765.
Although Monsanto has enforced its patents against growers who intentionally infringe—for example, by planting seed containing Monsanto’s patented traits without obtaining a license, or by replanting harvested seed from crops containing those traits, see, e.g.,Bowman, 133 S. Ct. at 1764-1765—Monsanto has explicitly stated its commitment not to take legal action against growers whose fields might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto’s patented traits. Monsanto’s
website includes “Monsanto’s Commitment: Farmers and Patents,” which states: “It has never been, nor will it be Monsanto policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in [a] farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.” Pet. App. 8a. This statement is meant to assure growers that Monsanto will not assert a patent infringement claim where Monsanto’s patented traits might appear inadvertently (for example, through gene flow from nearby fields where biotech crops are grown, or residue from equipment that was not sufficiently cleaned) and thus are present only in minimal quantities. Pet. App. 17a.
Petitioners likewise do not allege that Monsanto has ever contacted any of them, much less indicated an intent to bring suit, in connection with Monsanto’s patents. Rather, petitioners’ alleged fear of suit stems solely from Monsanto’s alleged “investigation, accusation and litigation of patent infringement claims against other farmers,” including those who allegedly “did not want to be contaminated by transgenic seed[.]” C.A.App. A155 (emphasis added).
1) Non of the complainants had been injured. They were attempting to sue for something that did not happen. There was nothing there.
2) The suit sought to deny Monsanto its intellectual property rights. A wonderful precedent to try to set.
3) The suit sought to preemptively prevent Monsanto from bringing lawsuits against farmers who's crops may be accidentally pollinated. Monsanto has never brought such a lawsuit.
Indeed, one of the principal reasons Petitioners have brought this suit is to enable themselves to bring actions for trespass or nuisance when they are contaminated by Monsanto's GM seed, something no one disputes will happen. Petitioners today would hesitate to bring such actions because doing so would require that they admit possession
of Monsanto's GM seed, an admission that would immediately subject them to being counter sued for patent infringement.
Because, apparently, I know more about how the legal system works than you do.
How can you make the asinine claim that SCOTUS didn't hear the case when they are the ones who made the ruling?
Jan 13 2014 Petition DENIED.
The vast majority of cases filed in the Supreme Court are disposed of summarily by unsigned orders. Such an order will, for example, deny a petition for certiorari without comment. Regularly scheduled lists of orders are issued on each Monday that the Court sits, but "miscellaneous" orders may be issued in individual cases at any time. Scheduled order lists are posted on this Website on the day of their issuance, while miscellaneous orders are posted on the day of issuance or the next day.
That guy is in denial that Monsanto is still actively suing small time farmers and taking their farms over cross-contamination.
It would not matter if I linked a couple of actual cases
Yes. I like to have claims backed up with facts. Silly me.
I know how you try to debate.
I provided you a link but you ignored it. Typical.
Farmers can not keep their crops from being contaminated, and the SCOTUS has ruled that seeds from contaminated cross-politicization are Monsanto property.
The SCOTUS and our legislators are clearly against the citizens and small time farmer in all of this. Most of us can see what Monsanto is doing, none of us are powerful to stop them alone. Maybe in large numbers we can do something.
Cross contamination is the issue. You have not presented a case of Monsanto suing over cross contamination.
Here is another farmer. There are an abundance of cases, be it "crop contamination" or the idea that seeds coming from all Monsanto crops belong to Monsanto and not the people who tended the crop.
The other way they get away with suing, and have done so already ((Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser)), is by claiming that the farmers intentionally knew about the cross-pollination. Monsanto is just biding their time until this has been forgotten about and will proceed again with legal action.
No. The suit was because Schmeiser was knowingly replanting Monsanto seeds. He even did an experiment to make sure they were RoundUp ready seeds before he planted them in his fields. Hundreds of acres of them. He liked the way they performed but he didn't want pay for them.
Monsanto Canada Inc v. Schmeiser is the case I'm referring to where Monsanto sued a farmer for cross-pollination.
The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’. .