News U.S. Supreme Court Hears Monsanto Seed Patent Case

[aquitaine]

I understand your point of view. I am not sure you understand the point of view of farmers in India, who are indeed rather religious, and who perceive Monsanto's intrusion in their market as disruptive.

Disruptive technological change and advance is often viewed with suspicion, either by the ignorant or by those with entrenched interests. In this case the problems most Indian farmers face are much more due to the still common practice of absentee landlordism and an underdeveloped industrial sector (according to the World Bank as of 2008 2/3 of their work force is still in the fields) that can't soak up that excess labor. All of these are far more relevant than what type of seed they use.

It is not fair to compare her to members of the New Age movement, because she does not seek out to a different culture from her own : instead, she is a voice for some people in India with rural origins. It is possible that there were victims of this US corporation in India (I realize that this is disputed), and you have to take her message in this context. Here is a longer article from her.

Actually it is fair, if two ducks have the same quack then they should get called out, you will find no double standards with me. If she really was so interested in giving a voice to rural people then why not speak out more about those issues, which really are far more important than whether or not they use GMO? I googled her name along with the phrase "absentee landordism" (without the quotes) and ran across exactly one article of hers discussing it. And who gets the blame? First the British, then the WTO. Nevermind that such a system existed before any of that, but let's not let such inconvenient details get in the way of her scapegoating.

So, what if there was a strand of GMO that could help alleviate a problem poor people have and it was being handed out FOR FREE to poor farmers in developing countries? You'd think that'd be good, but she doesn't. That's right, she's opposed to Golden Rice. If her concern was really for "giving voice to poor victims of an evil corporation" then she would welcome such a thing, but she doesn't because giving a voice is not what she does. She's a reactionary demagogue, exploiting the fears of others and drumming up an irrational hysteria for her own personal gain.

But it is all too easy to live in a black-and-white world, and dismiss dissonant voices as "crackpots" to silence them.

I don't call her a crackpot to silence her, I call her a crackpot because her positions have little, if any real scientific merit. She's a philosopher pretending to be a scientist, should we not call other people who behave in this manner crackpots as well like Kevin Trudeau?

I went to a lecture by Steven Chu last night, and much of what he talked about was what I would describe as "interconnectedness". Specific to this thread, he discussed Norman Borlaug, and his contribution in ending world hunger.

Of course, everyone has their critics.

Funny you should bring up that quote because she is one of those elitists who opposed his work. She opposed the green revolution, even though it brought an end to a bad famine and eventually allowed India to become a major wheat exporter. It seems that "better dead then fed" is a common theme here.

As far as the Monsanto/Bowman case, my complaint is that the legislature should be making patent law, and I feel nothing but suspicion when law is being crafted by an undemocratic, unaccountable body. I think that this is being done to circumvent the democratic process. That seems to be the overall goal. The particulars of this case or anyone case don't matter.

The issue is R&D isn't free. If their work isn't patented for a reasonable amount of time, what incentive is there for them to develop and distribute new innovations?

 

[humanino]

If she really was so interested in giving a voice to rural people then why not speak out more about those issues, which really are far more important than whether or not they use GMO?

It is not for you to judge, you can not redefine their priorities. Again, as a matter of fact, the moratorium stands, and that "accomplishment" alone means she is not a mere "crackpot".

 

[russ_watters]

It is not for you to judge, you can not redefine their priorities. Again, as a matter of fact, the moratorium stands, and that "accomplishment" alone means she is not a mere "crackpot".

Success at getting people to buy-in to your position has little to do with whether it is a crackpot position. I'm thinking you might be buying-in to the fallacy that if a lot of people accept a position, that means it isn't crackpottery. But popularity among the public has little to do with what makes a position crackpottery.

 

[humanino]

Success at getting people to buy-in to your position has little to do with whether it is a crackpot position. I'm thinking you might be buying-in to the fallacy that if a lot of people accept a position, that means it isn't crackpottery. But popularity among the public has little to do with what makes a position crackpottery.

"crackpot" : one given to eccentric or lunatic notions

When one acts as spokesperson for enough people in a country that their proposal becomes a law upheld by the Supreme Court, I do no think this person should be dismissed as "eccentric" or "lunatic", and their opinion discarded in a political discussion. Even if I personally disagree with this person.

 

[russ_watters]

This is a scientific issue and politicians are notoriously bad at making decisions on scientific issues. What defines crackpot or not is scientific acceptance only.

 

[ImaLooser]

The issue is R&D isn't free. If their work isn't patented for a reasonable amount of time, what incentive is there for them to develop and distribute new innovations?

I wrote that the legislature should make law, not the court. I do not see how your statement has any relation to that.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not seeing anything here that implies the courts are legislating: they are just confirming that the law was properly applied. Can you be specific about what you think the courts are changing?

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Funny you should bring up that quote because she is one of those elitists who opposed his work. She opposed the green revolution, even though it brought an end to a bad famine and eventually allowed India to become a major wheat exporter. It seems that "better dead then fed" is a common theme here.

Funny how Borlaug listened to her though. I like criticism, when it comes from the right person. But when it's simply; "I'm right and your wrong", I stop listening.

After initially dismissing them as elitist, he acknowledged they did have a point about the dangers of excessive use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers

(ref)

and what's this?

although he never once gave up his fundamental thesis that the world's exploding population could not be fed without scientific intervention -- for which reason he also supported GM and trangenic crops.

I like Borlaug, so I've decided GM and transgenic crops are ok.

I still hate Monsanto though.

 

[ImaLooser]

I'm not seeing anything here that implies the courts are legislating: they are just confirming that the law was properly applied. Can you be specific about what you think the courts are changing?

I'm not willing to look at the case all that closely, but it seems to me that GMOs are a new type of invention and that the legislature should deal with it by passing a law that covers it. I think the legislature is the appropriate place to trade off economic interests. This finding that a seed is a "copy of an invention" seems dubious to me, as does Monsanto's assertion that they can sell the seeds with restrictions on their use. Since when do they get to tell me how I can use their invention? I never heard of such a thing, and this seems to me like something that would lead to a legal morass. I would prefer that law be made by an accountable body such as the legislature.

 

[russ_watters]

From OC's post:

Borlaug dismissed most claims of critics, but did take certain concerns seriously. He stated that his work has been "a change in the right direction, but it has not transformed the world into a Utopia". Of environmental lobbyists he stated, "

Some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things.

(ref)

That's why I find the crackpot level anti-corporate/anti-GM ideology so abhorrent. In the US, the only things really at stake are money and political power. But when Greenpeace sells that ideology to African governments (or Catholic priests vs condoms, for that matter), it causes real people to die of starvation (AIDS). That disgusts me.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not willing to look at the case all that closely, but it seems to me that GMOs are a new type of invention and that the legislature should deal with it by passing a law that covers it.

Well, since I generally think the courts have gotten pretty activist liberal, I tend to think a decision with a conservative slant must have been pretty ironclad to get through!

Regardless, it is certainly the job of the courts to decide if a law applies to a situation that may not have exactly existed when the law was crafted. But let me ask you this: if the court decides against Monsanto here, what makes you think the legislature wouldn't immediately plug that hole in their patent protection? Congress has shown a willingness to help protect Monsanto's patents in the past.

I think the legislature is the appropriate place to trade off economic interests.

While I agree, I think you are creating a false dichotomy, saying that Monsanto's gain is the farmers' loss. Again, GM seeds are the farmers' gains as well. In this particular case, the farmer was clearly getting an economic benefit that he didn't pay for.

This finding that a seed is a "copy of an invention" seems dubious to me, as does Monsanto's assertion that they can sell the seeds with restrictions on their use. Since when do they get to tell me how I can use their invention? I never heard of such a thing...

Er, since always? I guess you never read the licensing agreements on the software you install, do you...?

 

[ImaLooser]

Or did the DOJ presume that DuPont would continue it's own case and decided to get government out of it. It is hard to tell because the silence about the situation was very unusual.

Right. The Department of Justice works for us. What's with the silence? I want to know what they are doing. I pay them.

 

[ImaLooser]

if the court decides against Monsanto here, what makes you think the legislature wouldn't immediately plug that hole in their patent

They might. But it would be an open process by accountable representatives. Popular opinion would play a role, as it should.

 

[Evo]

It seems that there is little interest in discussing the thread topic. There have been more off topic posts than on topic. Thread closed.