[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.