[skosuri]

They aren't patenting natural organisms. In this case, they are patenting specific modifications that provides glyophosphate resistance. This is a fairly legit patent, and if you don't believe this should occur; then basically any patent modifying organisms should be banned, which will have far reaching consequences not just to agriculture, but medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials.

[jrs235]

They are not patenting specific modifications, they are patenting certain DNA sequences. These patents as completely bogus. Monsanto also has a patent for a certain DNA sequence found in hogs/pigs that causes them to produce more meat. The DNA sequence was naturally found in a certain breed/line of hogs/pigs in Germany and Monsanto has gone after the farmers that have these pigs, which have been raised naturally for generations, and sued them to make them pay for their pigs having a certain DNA sequence. It's ludicrous!

EDIT: One could say that those pigs could be considered prior art... even so, you have a multibillion multinational company vs several small family farmers. Who's going to pay the lawyers to defend the family farmers... even to show prior "art"? What realm of delusion and craziness do we have to go to stop arguing about this?

EDIT 2: "patenting specific modifications" tries to imply patenting a process, and fails. "patenting certain DNA sequences" implies patenting the end result of a process.

EDIT 3: I don't have a problem with them having a patent on a particular process to generate the DNA sequences so long as the process reliably results in the organism having the desired DNA sequence. Otherwise the patent would be for a generic process to modify DNA sequences. These patents restrict the use of the methods but not the end results. Monsanto wants to charge and claim ownership of any organism that has the desired DNA sequences. Monsantos business model is flawed and the patent system should not be used to protect Monsantos revenue streams.

[Androsynth]

This is a good example of why patenting a process is acceptable, but patenting the end result is bad.

If Monsanto patented the process itself to create these dna sequences, the German farmers would not be infringing on their patent because they use completely different processes to produce the DNA: one is generated in a lab, the other is consummated in a sty.

If Monsanto found this strain of DNA and managed to reproduce it in a lab and developed a process of mass production, there is no reason they should not be able to profit from the endeavor. There is also no reason why they should be able to sue the farmers. The farmers aren't using their process for producing the dna sequences.

The fact that they could patent the sequences and sue the farmers speaks volumes about the broken state of patents. (As most everyone in tech already knew)

[fleitz]

How could a patent on a specific sequence withstand the machine transformation test?

It would seem a patent on sequence only would be the patenting of information/expression alone which would fall under copyright rather than patent.

[Androsynth]

It probably wouldn't. Copyright in this situation isnt bad per se, but we've all seen how much its been abused in practice, so clearly the moral/ethical issues would be astounding.

[jrs235]

EDIT 4: Perhaps, they might say or claim that through their R&D they were able to identify and produce a pig (or plant) that contains the desired sequence of DNA then if they find that desired sequence of DNA in another pig (or plant) they assume that their process was used/abused to obtain the DNA sequence and immediately sue putting an undue burden on the defendants who often don't have the resources to effectively defend themselves. This is still abusing the patent/legal system.

What do you think about changing civil suits like this (that someone has stolen someone else's "property") to require a criminal conviction first? What other ideas do you have for "fixing" this problem?

[skosuri]

Honestly, I think you are saying things that are just plain untrue. Can you actually point to a single actual monsanto patent that is claiming some sequence and not the invention of making a plant glypshosphate resistant? My guess is you can't, because it would almost be impossible to issue and even it was it wouldn't hold up in court.

[jacquesm]

That's what I meant with 'people splitting legal hairs'.

Which part of 'modifying a natural organism and patenting that modification which then can spread through the normal means of natural replication is fundamentally wrong' is it that is giving you problems?

I know the patent is legit, I understand that such patents are common and that is exactly where I see the problem.

What the far reaching consequences are is beyond my grasp, all I see is a money grab by a very large company at the expense of those that do the hard work to feed us, and that they are concentrating on staple foods because getting a substantial royalty on staple foods puts the world at their feet.

See 'basmati' and a bunch of other stunts they've tried.

[dionidium]

What? This is exactly the opposite situation. It is a money grab, all right, but by a farmer who wants to extract all of the value out of Monsanto's tech by exploiting a "loop hole" in the agreement he signed with them.

Here's the deal: farmers are under zero obligation to use genetically modified seeds. They are free to use traditional seeds. Why don't they do that, then? Because Monsanto's technology is a really, really good deal for them! It produces better yields at lower costs. It is not ridiculous to establish legal systems that protect the further development of such technologies and your small-farmer-versus-the-mega-corp Disney movie synopsis adds nothing to the conversation.

[skosuri]

I'm not sure what you are quoting, but the problem I have with your quote is that you are saying all modern biotechnology should have no intellectual property protection.

[toomuchtodo]

Yes, patenting any modification to an organism should be banned.

It's fun an games when we laugh about the patent wars between Google/Samsung and Apple. But our food supply? I'll be the first to grab a torch and a pitchfork. Fark Monsanto.

[angersock]

Then let us cry tears for those poor, oppressed corporations in agriculture, medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials. It's getting hard to even clear a billion on the ledgers annually.

Truly, these institutions of capital and ~=SCIENCE=~ are more worthy of our aid than the starving, the poor, and the destitute humans across the world.

EDIT: Do you support software patents? All this seems to be doing is reprogramming a living organism, no?

[rayiner]

All these companies in agriculture, medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials have made the world a dramatically better place as a result of their capital investment into science. They work in fields where scientific innovation is very expensive, and keep working because there is a potential return on their investment. Their inventions benefit everyone--the patent system simply lets them capture some of that benefit to justify their investment.

Without Monsanto, the hardy seeds in this case wouldn't even exist. The patent here isn't just protecting Monsanto from poor destitute farmers (and suing farmers is a terrible PR move for Monsanto here). What it's really protecting Monsanto from the inevitable copycat company that would come along, buy a bag of Monsanto seeds, and cultivate them, undercutting Monsanto on price because they didn't have to put in any capital investment.

[angersock]

All these companies in agriculture, medicine, bioenergy, chemicals, and biomaterials have made the world a dramatically better place as a result of their capital investment into science.

Be careful here--this is not an airtight statement. Many of the innovations are arguably simply correcting earlier innovations...mass insulin production is a great feat, but how much of that is used to fix diabetes caused by overconsumption of bad food? How much agriculture research is spent making poorly-processed food more palatable, or making crops resistant to synthetic pesticides?

A lot of innovation may simply be correcting problems that didn't exist before some other innovation happened.

They work in fields where scientific innovation is very expensive, and keep working because there is a potential return on their investment.

Perhaps we should find ways of driving the cost of innovation down? Like, say, loosening patent and licensing burdens to make equipment more easily attainable?

What it's really protecting Monsanto from the inevitable copycat company that would come along, buy a bag of Monsanto seeds, and cultivate them, undercutting Monsanto on price because they didn't have to put in any capital investment.

Agreed, but I do not see the necessary harm in this--again, having a strong brand and good distribution networks and quality products is how they can protect themselves against such a thing. In an optimized market, profit margins are indeed slim--and I suggest that for food production we want an optimized market.

[jrkelly]

mass insulin production is a great feat, but how much of that is used to fix diabetes caused by overconsumption of bad food?

wow, this is a stretch. You realize that there is also Type I (juvenile) diabetes that is an auto-immune/genetic disorder that has nothing to do with unhealthy eating? GMO-produced human insulin (and subsequent engineered insulin analogs that are faster-acting) were major milestone for making that disease into a lifelong treatable condition. As someone with a father who is a juvenile diabetic now pushing into his 60s I'm pretty glad we're OK making capital investments in hard sciences.

[rayiner]

> Perhaps we should find ways of driving the cost of innovation down? Like, say, loosening patent and licensing burdens to make equipment more easily attainable?

A very small portion of R&D budgets go to patent licensing. At the end of the day, what's expensive is that hundreds of PhD's expect to make six figure salaries even if their work is benefitting mankind.

> Agreed, but I do not see the necessary harm in this--again, having a strong brand and good distribution networks and quality products is how they can protect themselves against such a thing

Well now you're trading one kind of IP (patents) for another (Trademark). And what if the other company that swoops in is Con Agra?

[olefoo]

just because patents are the regulatory regime that exist at this time, in this place does not mean that that is the only way to regulate and encourage research in any given field of endeavor.

Given the extremity of the consequences and the enormity of the benefits that the biological sciences could provide us; it is worth questioning a regulatory regime that provides such painful distortions of society and that seems to act as much to prevent the benefits from being widespread as it does to allow the researchers to evade liability for the negative externalities.