[doublescoop]

Check the Monsanto Wikipedia page for more details, but the short version is that Monsanto patented its genetically engineered seeds and then sued farmers for patent infringement if they were found to be growing crops from that seed without a license.

The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.

Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.

As might be expected, this rubs A LOT of people the wrong way.

[Eridrus]

> The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.

Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?

I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.

> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new licenses from the patent holder.

I found this court case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.

"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for replanting"

I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.

I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.

[DubiousPusher]

There is one case that is frequently cited of a Canadian canola farmer but it seems he intentionally harvested and replanted the seed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

>In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...

>The courts at all three levels noted that the case of accidental contamination beyond the farmer's control was not under consideration but rather that Mr. Schmeiser's action of having identified, isolated and saved the Roundup-resistant seed placed the case in a different category.

[aclimatt]

I'm not sure that anybody is against the ruling itself, but more that a company would decide to institute that policy in the first place. It was well within Mylan's right[0] to raise the price of EpiPens an egregious amount for no real reason other than to increase profit, just as it's well within Monsanto's right to have you sign an agreement prohibiting you from using new seeds for re-planting, but that doesn't mean people aren't pissed off about those business practices.

Fundamentally yes, some are also angered by the fact that current IP law / court rulings allow those types of agreements to be legal, and there's potentially an argument / opportunity to change the law to prohibit that type of agreement, but primarily it's just a BS move by a company that makes people mad. To your music point, many also consider it a BS move to prohibit saving the music you "buy" on iTunes to more than N devices. It's completely legal, and you definitely agreed to those terms when you bought it, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating.

[0] However they may have gotten in hot water for that being considered anti-competitive via deals they signed with public schools. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/06/epipen-pric...

[nitrogen]

this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.

Many pro-copyright arguments are accompanied by "You don't need it, so if you don't like the [price, terms, DRM] just don't consume it."

This is dealing with actual food, which we most definitely do need, so people will understandably be a bit more motivated.

[Digital-Citizen]

I take it as sign of failing moderation that the parent comment was moderated down and rendered harder to read by default. It's quite right--music copyright licensing is not foreseeably an issue of life and death. Any music copyright holder depending on that income can try and get another paying job, even a non-musical job to earn money. I'm not a fan of that approach (for reasons outside the scope of this discussion) but it is more practical than waiting for a license check and starving. Planting seeds, harvesting plants for food, and replanting the seeds that naturally grow was a process big agriculture had to spend effort to stymie because the natural way got in the way of profits. That's harmful to us all.

Also, the grandparent article is conflating copyright and patent laws in the language of "intellectual property" and ought not be allowed to go without comment. These laws work very differently, cost different amounts of money to acquire and defend, and conflating them is a sign of ignorance or a sham. These laws have far more separating them than they share (one sentence in the US Constitution). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Intellect... explains more in-depth.

[wtallis]

> I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original buyers explicitly agreed to the license.

The mere idea that you can license seeds is highly objectionable and seems very likely to be against the public interest. Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.

[throwawayjava]

> Even if intellectual property laws apply, the concepts of exhaustion and first sale doctrine should apply.

I agree that exhaustion and first sale doctrines should apply for Monsanto seeds, but I don't think that either of those doctrines are applicable to the Bowman v. Monsanto case.

Exhaustion or first sale would apply only to the first copy; i.e., if Bowman had purchased a seed from Monsanto and then resold that same seed to someone else.

But neither would apply to the next generation of seeds, just like exhaustion and first sale don't give you the right to sell N>1 copies of a single purchased mp3.

[kgwgk]

https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/gmo-contaminat...

Myth: Monsanto sues farmers when GM seed is accidentally in their fields.

Fact: Monsanto has never sued a farmer when trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits were present in the farmer’s field as an accident or as a result of inadvertent means.

[SauciestGNU]

While I appreciate that you've provided a source, I am disinclined to trust Monsanto on matters concerning themselves.

[donarb]

You don't have to trust Monsanto. If people were sued as was alleged, there are public records of these lawsuits. To date, no one has provided a record of one.

[RIMR]

Exactly. "But this came from Monsanto" discredits nothing.

Monsanto has provided a list of factual statements. If you don't trust them, you can fact-check them. You either are going to have proof that they are lying, or proof that they are telling the truth.

Refusing to accept what Monsanto says by virtue of them being Monsanto is, again, just another part of the anti-GMO hysteria...

[Paul-ish]

Do you have another source?

[kgwgk]

https://www.biofortified.org/2015/12/lawsuits-for-inadverten...

"To conclude this series, I have found no evidence that farmers are sued by Monsanto for inadvertent contamination. The lawsuits that I examined were for cases where farmers knowingly and admittedly used Monsanto seeds without licensing contracts."

[dionidium]

The claim is that it never happened. Anybody can be a source for that :)

If it’s happened, then there should be some credible source detailing the case in which it happened. No such source exists.

[RIMR]

Monsanto has presented you with a list of factual statements. If you believe them to be inaccurate, you have an ocean of public records at your disposal that would make doing so very easy.

Of course, nobody has ever debunked this page, because there's nothing to debunk.

[bret791]

I think the bigger issue is the "Round-Up Ready" crops and the fact that they produce sterile seeds.

Using Round-Up ready seeds allows the use of Round-Up for weed control on your fields, but this can have negative affects on neighboring farms. For example on Field A, populated with Round-Up ready seeds, Round Up is used to control the weeds. However this same spray can affect neighboring field B, which is not populated by Round-Up Ready seeds, causing weeds and crop die or reduced yields... So basically if your neighbor is using Round-Up, you need to also, and your neighbor...etc. So now everyone is locked into Round-Up ready seeds they have to buy every year.

[Obi_Juan_Kenobi]

> the fact that they produce sterile seeds

An interesting fact, to be sure, since Terminator^TM technology hasn't been used in fields .. ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...

Also interesting, Terminator was developed (primarily by the USDA) to address environmental concerns about potentially contaminating wild populations with transgenes. But of course, it's Monsanto (not actually, though) so it's evil!

You may be confused about hybrid seed, which is germplasm developed from particular parental lines to produce a unusually vigorous progeny. This 'hybrid vigor' only lasts one generation, though. Hybrid seed has been the rule since about the 1950s, well before transgenes, but don't let that pollute the narrative about GMO killing seed saving!

It's also interesting to mention overspray with regard to RoundUp; one of the major selling points for Glyphosate is that you don't need to apply much, and it doesn't persist long in the soil, both highly beneficial traits for eliminating overspray issues. That's not to say there aren't any concerns with Glyphosate, but as far as herbicides go, it's pretty tame. As a bonus, Glyphosate has enabled a huge rise in no-till agriculture, which is terrific for preserving fragile soils, reducing fossil fuel use, etc.

[biotechjones]

Round-up Ready crops are not sterile.

Farmers spraying their neighbours' fields could be a problem I guess. But its a problem that would pre-date GMOs. Farmers have been spraying their crops for hundreds of years? (well at least decades)

[DubiousPusher]

This has actually been a frequent cause of conflict between farmers for several generations now.

[bret791]

Well looks like you're right, I found a shit source (and believed it based on something I'd heard before... https://monsanto.com/company/media/statements/terminator-see... http://web.mit.edu/demoscience/Monsanto/about.html

It seems the drifting argument is a interpretation on Dicamba issues.. Which could go either way: https://www.agweb.com/article/dicamba-lawsuits-mounting--naa...

[dionidium]

The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields

And the problem with this is that it's nothing more than a spurious hypothetical that never actually happened. Monsanto sued and won in cases where farmers were deliberately storing and replanting seeds in knowing violation of their agreement with Monsanto.

[criley2]

"Check the Monsanto Wikipedia page for more details, but the short version is that Monsanto patented its genetically engineered seeds and then sued farmers for patent infringement if they were found to be growing crops from that seed without a license."

This is precisely the hysteria and conspiracy theory I am referring to.

Short answer: it's fake.

Longer answer: The farmers you reference intentionally stole seed, they never purchased it, and they indended to use and grow it. A farmer does not have a little seed blow in and magically entire field after field after field is perfectly planted. They stole, it is what it is.

This is precisely why they should change their name. Even here in a supposedly intellectual forum, vapid nonsense is passed off as fact.

P.S. had you visited Monsanto's wikipedia page, as you instruct others to, you would have been cured of your conspiracy. Here's your link, btw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases#As_plaint...

" That said, Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents"

"The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed. Such activity was unanimously found by the United States Supreme Court to constitute patent infringement in Bowman v. Monsanto Co. (2013)"

AKA it's only an issue when a farmer intentionally replants entire fields of seeds and has nothing to do with "blowing seeds" or trace amounts or any accidents or acts of nature.

Oops!

In Canada, a similar incident occurred where a farmer had an incidental amount of Monsanto seed blow in, and then he isolated it from other varieties and reproduced his own copies of Monsanto seeds to fill all of his fields with his copies of their seeds, and again, he stole from them. He intentionally filled his fields with seeds he knew he wasn't supposed to have (or argued wrongly that he could have).

[skrause]

But this is more a problem with the patent system than with the company. Why are they even allowed to patent genes?