By: elpapacito
snardfox: yes indeed as far as I know manipulation of plants wasn't invented yesterday or a year ago and yes, we probably have eaten some hundred variants. Yet what some companies are doing is not just...
View ArticleBy: troutfishing
None of these finer points address the fact that Monsanto's inventions are polluting and degrading centuries or millenia of genetic heritage. Imagine, for example, having the ability to erase the...
View ArticleBy: D.C.
Yes, FFF, but my comments weren't meant to address what this guy did with the seed. I have no problem with Monsanto having a patent on that gene. The problem I see is Monsanto violating the property...
View ArticleBy: snarfodox
elpapacito> So far, setting aside the fact that we know nothing on the long term effect of modified food on humans... Agriculture has involved the manipulation of crop reproduction to generate...
View ArticleBy: five fresh fish
It's actually more like "copies itself to your computer, and you then use it profitably" or "dump your garbage, and your neighbour then starts selling it to others." The decision came down to this: the...
View ArticleBy: D.C.
If someone creates a piece of self-replicating data which copies itself onto other computers without consent of their owners it is considered a crime. The creators of the computer virus or worm can go...
View ArticleBy: five fresh fish
Seems to me the farmer's field was "raped" by the Monsanto pollen. Why the hell should he then have to purchase new uncontanimated seed, especially if prior practice had been to use his own seed year...
View ArticleBy: troutfishing
livii - genetically modified corn genes have contaminated, now, many native corn stocks and are encroaching on the very epicenter where corn was believed to have been first domesticated - Oaxaca,...
View ArticleBy: livii
Late to the party, but... While I also disliked this ruling, it is likely to only have narrow application given the facts. In this case, Percy Schmeiser did know he was harvesting Roundup Ready canola;...
View ArticleBy: rhyax
when monsanto makes a plant, starting from scratch by all means let them patent it, but when all you do it cut and paste, you have not created anything. They have stolen something from us, they...
View ArticleBy: caddis
With traditional patents, the person violating the patent pretty much has to make a conscious decision to do so - they have to make a physical effort to produce the product, and violation should be...
View ArticleBy: a_green_man
It seems a good part of the problem *is* the delivery system precisely because that system can easily be natural forces, i.e. birds, wind, water, etc. But it also concerns Bio Piracy, a form of theft...
View ArticleBy: Civil_Disobedient
Anyone else see similarities to P2P networks? That is, with things that are reproducable (data :: living organisms) once the cat it out of the bag, your work becomes public domain by default.
View ArticleBy: Jimbob
Just to expand on that (IANAL or an IP expert), my logic goes like this: With traditional patents, the person violating the patent pretty much has to make a conscious decision to do so - they have to...
View ArticleBy: Jimbob
since Monsanto holds a patent on a gene, it can control the use of the plant. The issue with this case is that Monsanto proved they were completely hopeless at "controlling" use of the plant. A major...
View ArticleBy: caddis
Expanding upon this, a case was just decided where the Federal Circuit choked upon a similar issue. Smithkline Beecham licensed a patent to paroxetine and its salts and then started selling paroxetine...
View ArticleBy: elpapacito
triplanetary: the problem isn't in the idea of recognizing somebody effort and achievements with a patent, but rather in how and for how long does one exploit the patent and what are the effects of...
View ArticleBy: solistrato
Isn't patent law hopelessly fucked anyway? And I don't know about you, but I'm hoarding food now for when THE GREAT BIOENGINEERED FAMINE comes. It'll be right after THE COMING GLOBAL SUPERSTORM. I'll...
View ArticleBy: caddis
So does this mean that in the future that an engineered human gene could be patented, and therefore if you receive this gene you will have to make royalty payments? Right now there are just a few ways...
View ArticleBy: Triplanetary
Part of this lawsuit was based on the claim that these seeds drifted into an adjacent plot of land. There seems to be many questions tangled up in this case and ensuing discussion: were the seeds...
View ArticleBy: soyjoy
Monsanto is just about the most evil of all the evil corporations on the surface of the planet Earth, and I'll bet they can give the ones underneath a good run for their money too.
View ArticleBy: bargle
I am against patents on living things or anything that can allow others to control a specific living thing. I am also against alterations done to living things such as the Roundup-proof crops, but...
View ArticleBy: dejah420
This is bad, bad juju. Question for the legal beagles in the crowd, how often do American courts look to Canadian courts for precedent?
View ArticleBy: XQUZYPHYR
Farmers aren't forced to use the new plant. In some cases, they are. Part of this lawsuit was based on the claim that these seeds drifted into an adjacent plot of land. Suddenly nature has assisted in...
View ArticleBy: taumeson
um, triplanetary...sometimes farmers ARE forced to use the plant...cross-pollination and forced royalty payments have already been mentioned. but then does this set some sort of precedent? we're not...
View ArticleBy: sharpener
damn you, Krrrlson! (geez, twice in three threads. I gotta show up sooner)
View ArticleBy: Triplanetary
[...] since Monsanto holds a patent on a gene, it can control the use of the plant. Maybe I'm missing something here, but that sounds pretty reasonable to me. Let's say I design a drug and hold the...
View ArticleBy: kablam
Placed in the "astoundingly bad ideas" catagory, there was a previous ruling that plants downwind of an experimental GM field, that had been wind cross-pollinated, were the property of the owners of...
View ArticleBy: XQUZYPHYR
So does this mean that in the future that an engineered human gene could be patented, and therefore if you receive this gene you will have to make royalty payments? Monsanto: your ass belongs to us....
View ArticleBy: Blue Stone
All your food production are belong to us, and other tired but apposite phrases ... The UN has finally chipped in with the "life is for [our] profit" brigands, spouting the same old shit the GM Corps....
View ArticleBy: elpapacito
1) Make *anything* resistant-Gene, including Genes that let cats watch reruns of Friends without seizures and green colored mouses 2) Exterminate out of market anything that doesn't contain a patented...
View ArticlePatenting Genes
Monsanto Wins Fight to Control Plant The Canadian Supreme court sets international precedent by ruling that since Monsanto holds a patent on a gene, it can control the use of the plant. So does this...
View Article
