Organic growers lose decision in suit versus Monsanto over seeds

Originally posted by Realtruth

Bowman replanted second-generation seeds
Monsanto argued that Bowman was in violation of the Technology Agreement for the seeds.
Bowman contends that Monsanto’s patent rights were exhausted once he bought the seeds and that use of progeny seeds is an expected use of the product.

A remarkably poor example if you're trying to make any kind of point here.
It has been well understood since the beginning of time that the seed you buy from Monsanto is for one time use only, and that is written (as your post says) in the "Technology Agreement".

What Bowman did was just say "oh what the hell, I'll just blatantly break the agreement I signed".

Like making a copy of a Hollywood movie that you bought on DVD, or putting your copy of Microsoft Windows on multiple computers. Saying afterwards that "I dont believe in the agreement anymore, now that I'm using it" isnt going to win your courtcase.

I suggest you try it sometime. Download a whole bunch of music off the internet, and when they come for you, just say that pirate copies are "expected use of the product".

reply to post by alfa1



For someone that claims to be poor you sure are a big cheerleader for Monsanto.

Your colors are showing bigtime here.

I don't think in all my years here at ATS have I ever seen such a huge fan of a large corporation, with newly created members that post in Monsanto's threads supporting your posts. Very interesting.

Originally posted by Realtruth
For someone that claims to be poor you sure are a big cheerleader for Monsanto.

Your colors are showing bigtime here.

Do I take it then that you're not at all interested in discussing the topic at hand?
Are ad hominen personal attacks the only path you wish to travel?
You dont have a single counter to throw back at me? I'm kind of dissappointed, because I like a good argument, but you've decided not to give me one.

Edit - and no, I never claimed to be poor.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by Realtruth

Bowman replanted second-generation seeds
Monsanto argued that Bowman was in violation of the Technology Agreement for the seeds.
Bowman contends that Monsanto’s patent rights were exhausted once he bought the seeds and that use of progeny seeds is an expected use of the product.

A remarkably poor example if you're trying to make any kind of point here.

It only takes one example to prove Monsanto are bullies.

Here is another case and example of Monsanto's flawed shotgun tactics.

wlrn.org...

The lawyer for Monsanto, Seth Waxman, was being questioned by Judge William Bryson, from the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit. In the case, a group of mostly organic farmers had hauled Monsanto into court, claiming that they are being damaged by the possibility that Monsanto might sue them. Bryson wanted to know what actions would convince Monsanto to sue a farmer, and Waxman came up with this:

"In the real world, Judge Bryson, the cases Monsanto brings are cases in which it has come to learn that the farmer is not purchasing any Roundup Ready seed, but is spraying his fields with Roundup, and the plants are surviving. If the farmer were not spraying, by definition he wouldn't be taking advantage of Monsanto's technology."

Under Waxman's common-sense standard, Monsanto wouldn't have brought its case against Schmeiser. That's because in that case, the company did not produce any evidence that Schmeiser was taking advantage of Monsanto's technology by spraying his crop with Roundup.

There are weeds that are now resistant to Round-up called super weeds, so if plants that farmers are planting somehow develop a resistance then they can be sued?

But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

www.nytimes.com...

Too bad there wasnt a a group like an Anonymous that
was taking out the members of monsanto and ANY supporting
corporation,. Like they all start to disappear,.. one by one.

Hmmm,. maybe someone could contract some mexican cartel groups,.
since monsanto is so dirty,. it would be a fair game

No different than bringing in snakes to eradicate a rat population

So a summary of the thread so far.

It was mentioned that the Organic Growers case was dismissed in court.
The assertion was made that it was due to bribery and corrupt Judges that the case was lost.

When it was pointed out that it was an appeal of a previously lost case, and that it is simply impossible for any court to rule on situations that may possibly occur at some undefined point in the future, that argument was abandoned.

The assertion was then made that Monsanto would sue organic growers over any GMO traits that crept into their crops. When it was pointed out that this question came up in the trial and was shown to be not true, this argument was abandoned.

Ad hominem arguments were then used.

The assertion was then made that Monsanto sues again farmers for wind blown contamination. When it was pointed out that the court decision shows this to not be the case, this argument was abandoned.

The "Monsanto Immunity Act" was thrown into the mix. When it was pointed out that it was not what people thought it was, this argument was abandoned.

It was then asserted that "Monsanto owns all crops or seeds contaminated". When it was pointed out that if you take the time to actually read the court decision, that assertion is not true. This argument was abandoned.

More ad hominem arguments were then used.
Even more ad hominem arguments were then used.

It was then asserted that the lawsuit against Vernon Hugh Bowman was unfair bullying. When it was pointed out that his case was a blantant clear case of patent agreement violation because Bowman doesnt wish to go by the agreement that he himself signed, this argument was abandoned.

More ad hominem arguments were then used.

When I pointed out that abandoning all these arguments was getting silly, a completely new hitherto unmentioned argument that has nothing to do with this thread, about "super weeds" was thrown into the mix.

I really do start to wonder if there's any point in replying to this last argument, or will it just be abandoned like the rest?

Originally posted by alfa1

So a summary of the thread so far.

I disregard the rest of your post as an attempt to frame an entire thread
not worthy. Why do you attempt this?

I see a lot of great information in the thread, and many star worthy posts....
and of course I disagree with everything you said.

reply to post by burntheships

Do you think the judge's decision in this case was wrong? I suppose you do, but I'm curious as to why you think that.

Yes, I know, Monsanto is a dangerous company (or at least we can assume that for now), but what information did you find in the thread that leads you to think that?

Originally posted by burntheships
I disregard the rest of your post as an attempt to frame an entire thread
not worthy. Why do you attempt this?

The aim was to get people to stand by their arguments and actually defend them, and not abandon those arguments like unloved cockroaches.

I feel that if you make a thread saying "here is an important fact", then at the first signs of trouble you should not change the topic. Either defend what you said, or admit you are wrong.

Simply saying "but what about this other completely different thing over here..." is dumb.

reply to post by alfa1


No one changed the topic, you just dont like to talk about the dozen negative
aspects of GMO, and you dont want others doing it either.

There is no little compartment in which to put the arguments against GMO,
the evidence gathered over the last 10 years is staggering.
GMO food and the herbicides sprayed on them comprise a major
health hazard, a very real threat to the health of those who consume them.

And this doesn’t begin to cover the lying business practices of Monsanto,
who has sold farmers up the creek with coos of how Roundup would kill weeds in the fields.
Instead, the weeds have proliferated to the point where the farmers have to kill everything
growing with Paraquat and now they want to use 2, 4-d.

Not only is GE bad for those who eat it, the farming practices are not sustainable.

Originally posted by charles1952
I suppose you do, but I'm curious as to why you think that.

Dear Charles,

There is no box in which to put GMO....no thread in which it can be contained.
In the US, laws exist to prosecute crimes involving endangerment of health and
crimes related to false marketing practices. Laws such as these are on the are on
the books to protect people who endeavor in honest business practice, and simple
consumers.

When it comes to Monsanto, they’re gathering dust on the shelves. When the fox is
gaurding the henhouse, one must ask why? What is the bottom line, money....
or is there a deeper darkerr agenda at work.

Originally posted by burntheships
No one changed the topic

Yeah, they did actually.
This thread started out as Organic growers lose decision in suit versus Monsanto over seeds and was discussion about that topic - the assertion by the Organic growers that they are under threat of Monsanto "suing farmers if traces of its patented biotech genes are found in crops."

Because that topic held no traction, the topic was changed multiple times as people threw in bucketloads of other non-monsanto-suing-organic-farmers topics.
Personally, I would have liked it to stay on topic so that this "Monsanto suing farmers" issue, which comes up time and time again on ATS, could be nailed down and flattened once and for all. But its like herding cats.

Originally posted by burntheships
...about the dozen negative aspects of GMO

Yeah, just like that.
A topic change.

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by burntheships
...about the dozen negative aspects of GMO

Yeah, just like that.
A topic change.

Well you can not hardly discuss the reasons Monsanto promised not
to sue the little farmers for small amounts of contamination without
discussing the reasons the farmers object to the contamination in the
first place, now could you?

Originally posted by burntheships
Well you can not hardly discuss the reasons Monsanto promised not
to sue the little farmers for small amounts of contamination without
discussing the reasons the farmers object to the contamination in the
first place, now could you?

Fair enough then.
Back to the reasons, as cited in the court judgement:

... a fear of being sued by defendants for patent infringement and “request[s] that Monsanto expressly waive any claim for patent infringement it may ever have against [plaintiffs] and memorialize that waiver by providing a written covenant not to sue.” (Id. )
Plaintiffs asserted that defendants’ failure to respond to the letter would make it “reasonable for [plaintiffs] to feel they would be at risk of having Monsanto assert claims of patent infringement against them should they ever become contaminated by transgenic seed potentially covered by Monsanto’s patents.”