U.S. Supreme Court Hears Monsanto Seed Patent Case

[chiro]

The comments about conspiracy theories are interesting.

A conspiracy is something where a group of people get together in secret to do something that is against the law (illegal). If someone can prove that a group of people are doing this then they can be charged with conspiracy.

Now anti-trust is a real law that has real consequences for economics and competition amongst other things.

If Monsanto was conspiring to get all seeds out there under one form of patent that they owned in order to become a monopoly in that market in secret, then it may actually meet the definition for conspiracy since there is a large body of law that is meant to deal with anti-trust.

I get a feeling that a lot of people that throw around the word "conspiracy" actually fail to understand exactly what it means and simply interpret it as some derogatory word that's associated with a kook or a crazy person without actually understanding what it really means.

There are people out there that do plan to do things that are potentially illegal in secret and if they do, then they are engaging in a real conspiracy.

 

[russ_watters]

Posted by aqutaine.

That is pushing it a bit. Why is it that anyone who questions the wisdom of a never ending series of patented GM crops which will eventually lose their desired effect is promoting a conspiracy theory?

Was it the term locked in?

It's the "lock them in" part. They are no more locked-in to their particular brand of pesticides than I am to my google phone. Did I buy 3 in a row because I'm "locked-in"? No, I bought 3 in a row because it is the best product for me.

(not originally mine). I can get a locked in low interest rate is that a conspiracy?

The term implies in this case that they are being forced. They are not. And an interest rate lock is completely unrelated and done for the consumer's protection.

Farmers were locked into what appeared to be the best deal at the time. In the long run it didn't work out that way.

1. Farmers are not "locked in" to anything. They make a choice every year what seeds they want to plant!
2. It did/does work out - otherwise they wouldn't keep making the same choice every year!

 

[russ_watters]

Now anti-trust is a real law that has real consequences for economics and competition amongst other things.

If Monsanto was conspiring to get all seeds out there under one form of patent that they owned in order to become a monopoly in that market in secret, then it may actually meet the definition for conspiracy since there is a large body of law that is meant to deal with anti-trust.

I've never heard a monopoly action in any context described as a conspiracy. It isn't helpful to apply it here.

I get a feeling that a lot of people that throw around the word "conspiracy" actually fail to understand exactly what it means and simply interpret it as some derogatory word that's associated with a kook or a crazy person without actually understanding what it really means.

There are people out there that do plan to do things that are potentially illegal in secret and if they do, then they are engaging in a real conspiracy.

"Conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory" are not the same thing. By definition, a "conspiracy theory" is crackpottery. Real conspiracies are never described with the term "conspiracy theory".

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

They make a choice every year what seeds they want to plant!
2. It did/does work out - otherwise they wouldn't keep making the same choice every year!

DuPont or Monsanto isn't much of a choice.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding resistance to pesticides, you guys are reading that issue backwards. The reason pesticides/herbicides create resistance is that they work. Yes, it's a never-ending struggle, but the other choice is to let the weeds/bugs win. Just like with antibiotics. Bacteria become resistant because most of them die. So the choice is to either let people die from treatable infections or kill most of the bacteria, saving the people, and creating resistance. The worst case scenario is that after a while, no pesticide/herbicide/antibiotics will work anymore, but if that happens, we're still ahead of where we would have been without them: at least we had some decades (centuries?) where the bugs/weeds/bacteria didn't win. Worst case scenario is just ending up back where we started.

Besides: you ant-GM'ers/anti-corporaters should be in favor of resistance: it has a chance of making these crops fail and causing Monsanto to make less money (and so what if it hurts the farmers, as long as it hurts Monsanto more, right?).

 

[aquitaine]

DuPont or Monsanto isn't much of a choice.

There's also Bayer and I'm sure there's some others. But again, why don't you start your own company to do this kind of thing if you think there isn't enough choice?

Regarding resistance to pesticides, you guys are reading that issue backwards. The reason pesticides/herbicides create resistance is that they work.

Yeah, I really don't understand this argument. Technology always becomes obsolete eventually.

The comments about conspiracy theories are interesting.

The problem is the anti-GMO and (usually) the anti-conventional farming crowd have convinced themselves that choosing this path is financially a bad choice for those farmers, so therefore the only way they would choose it is if there was some sort of coercion. They then turn people like Schmeiser and Bowman into heroes, no matter how illegal and/or unethical your behavior might be, its all good as long as its against Monsanto.

Consider the 1925 Scopes case as an example of a test case. It was illegal to teach the theory of evolution in any Tennessee public school. There was a desire to challenge the law in court. A court may strike down a law, but only in the course of ruling on a case. The only way to produce a case is to break the law. The ACLU searched for a volunteer. John Scopes volunteered to do that. It was a big media occasion, they notified the police of their intent to break the law, he gave a lesson on evolution in a Tennessee school, and was arrested. The trial drew great national attention. The jury found Scopes guilty and the judge fined Scopes one hundred dollars. The Supreme Court of Tennessee overturned the fine on a technicality and refused to rule on the constitutionality of the law.

Civil disobedience such as practiced by Gandhi is similar. He announced his intent to evaporate ocean water for the salt, marched to the ocean, did so, and encouraged other Indians to follow his example en masse. He and 80,000 other Indians were imprisoned. In both cases a law believed to be unjust is challenged by openly breaking it. The difference is that in the case of civil disobedience it is usually assumed that the judicial branch will rule against you.

I read in this forum that Bowman informed Monsanto of his actions. If so we can conclude that his is a test case.

This cannot be compared to the Scopes trial, and this cannot be compared to fighting for the independence of India from foreign control. Here's some text from the http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1068.pdf cited from the Wikipedia page:

Pioneer Hi-Bred (“Pioneer”) is one of Monsanto’s licensed seed producers. In 2002, Pioneer sold Pioneer HiBred® brand seeds containing the Roundup Ready® technology to Bowman, a grower in Knox County, Indiana. In
making the sale, Pioneer required Bowman to execute the
“Pioneer Hi-Bred Technology Agreement,” which contains
language and restrictions identical to the Technology
Agreements discussed above. See J.A. 673. Bowman
purchased from Pioneer and planted seeds containing the
Roundup Ready® technology each year, beginning as early
as 1999. Bowman planted Roundup Ready® seeds as his
first-crop in each growing season during the years 1999
through 2007. Consistent with the terms of the Technology Agreement, Bowman did not save seed from his firstcrop during any of those years.
In 1999, Bowman also purchased commodity seed
from a local grain elevator, Huey Soil Service, for a lateseason planting, or “second-crop.” Because Bowman
considered the second-crop to be a riskier planting, he
purchased the commodity seed to avoid paying the significantly higher price for Pioneer’s Roundup Ready® seed.
That same year, Bowman applied glyphosate-based
herbicide to the fields in which he had planted the commodity seeds to control weeds and to determine whether
the plants would exhibit glyphosate resistance. He confirmed that many of the plants were, indeed, resistant. In
each subsequent year, from 2000 through 2007, Bowman
treated his second-crop with glyphosate-based herbicide.
Unlike his first-crop, Bowman saved the seed harvested
from his second-crop for replanting additional secondcrops in later years. He also supplemented his secondcrop planting supply with periodic additional purchases of
commodity seed from the grain elevator. Bowman did not
attempt to hide his activities, and he candidly explained
his practices with respect to his second-crop soybeans in
various correspondence with Monsanto’s representatives.
In winter 2006, Monsanto contacted Bowman, seeking
to investigate his planting activities. On October 12,
2007, Monsanto sued Bowman in the Southern District of
Indiana alleging infringement of the ’605 and ’247E
Patents. On November 2, 2007, Monsanto investigated
eight of Bowman’s fields, totaling 299.1 acres, and confirmed that Bowman’s second-crop soybean seeds (the progeny of the commodity seeds) contained the patented
Roundup Ready® technology. The Technology Agreement
signed by Bowman extended only to seeds purchased from
Monsanto or a licensed dealer; thus, Bowman’s use of the
commodity seeds was not within the scope of the agreement. Monsanto did not allege infringement or breach of
the Technology Agreement with respect to Bowman’s
planting of first-generation seeds purchased from Pioneer.

For years he knowingly broke an agreement he made for his own personal gain at the expense of the company. He wasn't fighting for an ideal, he was fighting to line his pockets. Do you really want to encourage this type of behavior?

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

But again, why don't you start your own company to do this kind of thing if you think there isn't enough choice?

It's analogous to starting your own railroad company and trying to compete against Union Pacific and BNSF.

 

[ImaLooser]

For years he knowingly broke an agreement he made for his own personal gain at the expense of the company. He wasn't fighting for an ideal, he was fighting to line his pockets. Do you really want to encourage this type of behavior?

[edit] The wiki does kind of imply this was a setup, as he informed Monsanto of his actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#Other_legal_actions_in_North_America

So he told Monsanto that he was ripping them off? I find this very confusing.

 

[russ_watters]

Posted by Russ Waters:

Yes it did work out until weeds became resistant to it.

http://www.minnpost.com/earth-journ...inst-weeds-new-weapons-extend-losing-strategy

C'mon, don't say "did". The word is "does" and you know it. Again, if it no longer worked - as in past tense, "did" - farmers would stop buying it.

Not working as well as it did when first introduced is still better than not having the product at all.

The writer of that story you linked may have been surprised at the metaphor "arms race", but his ignorance is not my problem. Scientists/engineers know that that's exactly how these things work.

 

[russ_watters]

I suppose this prejudice taints my views of all GMOs...

She took it as a slam against GMOs. I just don't like Monsanto.

Those statements contradict each other.

I don't think people are anti-corporation. We just hate Monsanto.

My perception is that Monsanto has become the named nameless face of GMOs, for people who have a "taint[ed] view of all GMOs". A convenient boogeyman.

And btw, anti-globalization (which is pretty much the same as anti-corporatism) is the other half of this nut's tagline - they tend to be related parts of the same ideology:

Vandana Shiva on Bowman v. Monsanto: This Case Is About Every Farmer, Person and Seed in the World

Though my friend from Hyderabad says she's a bit of a nut case.

After 10 seconds I'm already considering her a nut/crackpot (and the comments! Sheesh!) and won't go any further.

I'd be careful with references to "Democracy Now". Not a reputable source.

But the case of Indian suicides is pretty compelling:

I believe Vandana puts the number of suicides at 250,000. Wiki states around 18,000 per year. Another source puts it at 1.5 lakh (which is apparently 150,000).

1.5 lakh farmers committed suicide between 1997 and 2005

Compelling how? The article says the suicide rate went up when the state withdrew subsidies, creating an economic crisis for farmers. I don't see how that could possibly have anything to do with Monsanto. Heck, the US government would bear some pretty direct responsibility by subsidizing US farmers, making a situation where it is harder for Indian farmers to compete.

Based on the wiki link, that nut you linked above invented the connection and others just ran with it. Just because crackpot nonsense gets repeated by Frontline doesn't make it any less crackpottery. I'll give her props for duping so many people though!

I know where my food comes from. It comes from the farmers. Why would I want to hurt farmers?

Misguided pseudo-environmentalism/anti-corporatism. Heck, I suspect you may even erroneously believe you're supporting them.

I frankly don't care how much money Monsanto makes. I just want them to earn it, without having to resort to suing farmers...

Er, what? You want farmers to be able to do whatever they want and Monsanto can't do anything about it? Lawsuits are how companies protect their patents! That's ridiculous!

And what the hell is this?

An expert in pharma law working for the FDA?! Insane! I suppose we should also prohibit private lawyers from joining the justice department too...

2016: Ron Paul elected president, deregulates everything.

[ I think you mean regulates Monsanto out of existence.]
2017: Monsanto goes out of business.
2020: Crop yields drop, farmers' poverty rate rises due to lack of innovative new seeds and chemicals.

 

[edward]

C'mon, don't say "did". The word is "does" and you know it. Again, if it no longer worked - as in past tense, "did" - farmers would stop buying it.

Not working as well as it did when first introduced is still better than not having the product at all.

The writer of that story you linked may have been surprised at the metaphor "arms race", but his ignorance is not my problem. Scientists/engineers know that that's exactly how these things work.

Roundup quit working as it "did" originally starting some years ago. It does work now but there are a growing number of weeds becoming resistant to it.

The problem with your logic is that Scientists/engineers don't write material that is distributed to the general public.

The writer of the newspaper article used this source: Chemical and Engineering news. This was noted in the article, and a clickable link was provided, and their ignorance is not my problem.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i21/War-Weeds.html

You can call the process of a number of companies rushing to bring new herbicides and herbicide resistant crops to the market whatever you wish.

 

[russ_watters]

Roundup quit working as it "did" originally starting some years ago. It does work now but there are a growing number of weeds becoming resistant to it.

Right: does not work as well, but still works. Clarification accepted.

The problem with your logic is that Scientists/engineers don't write material that is distributed to the general public.

I don't see how that has anything to do with my logic, nor do I see how that excuses ignorance. It doesn't help that you linked an ignorant response to a technical article instead of the original technical article!

The writer of the newspaper article used this source: Chemical and Engineering news. This was noted in the article, and a clickable link was provided, and their ignorance is not my problem.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/90/i21/War-Weeds.html

There is nothing ignorant about that article - it uses none of the shock language what you linked uses. It is the author's response to it that you linked that was ignorant. And you citing it as if it was somehow new/profound/unknown/damning evidence of Roundup no longer working.

You can call the process of a number of companies rushing to bring new herbicides and herbicide resistant crops to the market whatever you wish.

I think the appropriate word is progress.

 

[humanino]

I'd be careful with references to "Democracy Now". Not a reputable source

Would you care to elaborate or retract ?

 

[russ_watters]

Would you care to elaborate or retract ?

Um. Ok... It is not a reputable source, it is a highly biased "advocacy" group of reporters to put it charitably. Think a leftist Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

 

[humanino]

Um. Ok... It is not a reputable source, it is a highly biased "advocacy" group to put it charitably.

Independent journalism may displease your taste, but you did not elaborate. You merely repeated your opinion. It is indeed very valuable for a well functioning *democracy* to have educated people investigating and reporting without advertisers, corporate or government money. I would agree with you if your remark was that one needs more than one point of view. But "not reputable" is not warranted.

Anyway, it is off-topic and I do not wish to pursue it. But I would appreciate if you do not censore this.

Think a leftist Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck.

This is _not_ a fair comparison by any standard.

 

[russ_watters]

Independent journalism may displease your taste, but you did not elaborate. You merely repeated your opinion. It is indeed very valuable for a well functioning *democracy* to have educated people investigating and reporting without advertisers, corporate or government money. I would agree with you if your remark was that one needs more than one point of view. But "not reputable" is not warranted.

Anyway, it is off-topic and I do not wish to pursue it. But I would appreciate if you do not censore this.

The Youtube video's extremism speaks for itself and I had considered reporting it and discussing its appropriateness with the other mentors but didn't feel like bothering with it.

One obvious flaw is that - and this is in the linked wiki article - the suicide rate started to rise years before widespread use of GM crops.

Also, this has nothing to do with being "independent" and I don't even agree that that's a meaningful concept here. Just a cloak people wear that makes them feel superior. It does not hide, much less eliminate extreme bias. Heck, it can even provide extra freedom to exercise biased reporting.

 

[humanino]

The Youtube video's extremism speaks for itself and I had considered reporting it and discussing its appropriateness with the other mentors but didn't feel like bothering with it.

One obvious flaw is that - and this is in the linked wiki article - the suicide rate started to rise years before widespread use of GM crops.

Also, this has nothing to do with being "independent" and I don't even agree that that's a meaningful concept here. Just a cloak people wear that makes them feel superior. It does not hide, much less eliminate extreme bias.

"Democracy now" is non-profit and provides highly praised investigation journalism and broadcast. They are passionate about their work and understand its importance. They have received multiple awards. I will drop the case and let PF readers judge by themselves from your own comparison with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. I believe they may decide on their own whether your judgement is unbiased.

 

[russ_watters]

"Democracy now" is non-profit and provides highly praised investigation journalism and broadcast. They are passionate about their work and understand its importance. They have received multiple awards.

Er, ok -- All of that except the non-profit applies to Rush Limbaugh as well. And I would dispute the "non-profit" part. They do get paid, right?

I will drop the case and let PF readers judge by themselves from your own comparison with Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. I believe they may decide on their own whether your judgement is unbiased.

No doubt people are aware of my biases. I don't hide them and encourage people to recognize the simple fact that everyone has biases.

Anyway, I guess I should give a more detailed critique of the video:

0:26 "toxic gene". Intentionally inflammatory-sounding word salad.

1:03 "Roundup resistant seeds are not controlling weeds". Lie/intentionally misleading. It's the Roundup that controls weeds, the Roundup resistance just enables its use. And yes, it actually does control weeds -- creation of "superweeds" doesn't change that and is in fact a reflection of it.

1:12 "50% of the farmland in the US is now overtaken by "superweeds"" Intentionally inflammatory yet utterly meaningless rhetoric.

1:15 "Monsanto should be paying two compensations to farmers." (for "toxic genes" and creating superweeds/"creating an unreliable failed technology"). Crackpot demand based on previous crackpot nonsense, with the additional lie that the technology has failed.

1:35 "Lethal herbicides/Agent orange". Intentionally inflammatory reference/rhetoric, with an implied lie about the connection between modern pesticides and Agent Orange (it isn't the D 2.4D that was the issue, it was the dioxin).

2:10 Lie about timing of Indian farmer suicides/Monsanto entering the market.

Phew. Halfway through and I need to stop for now to take a shower. That's some thick crackpot nonsense.

 

[humanino]

After 10 seconds I'm already considering her a nut/crackpot and won't go any further.

The Youtube video's extremism speaks for itself and I had considered reporting it and discussing its appropriateness with the other mentors but didn't feel like bothering with it.

Vandana Shiva is not a nut/crackpot. She is a PhD trained as a physicist. You may disagree with her activism, but please do so respectfully.

Er, ok -- All of that except the non-profit applies to Rush Limbaugh as well. And I would dispute the "non-profit" part. They do get paid, right?

Rush Limbaugh does have advertisers, so no, not all.

Anyway, I guess I should give a more detailed critique of the video

Thank you for actually listening to her arguments and providing with your comments. I hope you realize she is trying to help with a very large body of people, some of whom pay with their life for lack of regulations. I agree with you that their is a large "demonization" of Monsanto in the public eye which in itself is a problem. Certainly, agricultural progress has saved more lives than it has cost.

 

[Evo]

I've deleted the last few posts with unacceptable sources. I've been busy lately, so no infractions, but the next person that posts and links to non-mainstream, biased sources will be hurt. Some of those links are merely opinion pieces and they are not acceptable. We need to stick to verifiable facts.

We need to get back to the actual case.

 

[ImaLooser]

Quote by aquitaine
For years he knowingly broke an agreement he made for his own personal gain at the expense of the company. He wasn't fighting for an ideal, he was fighting to line his pockets. Do you really want to encourage this type of behavior?

Quote by russ_watters
The wiki does kind of imply this was a setup, as he informed Monsanto of his actions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsant..._North_America

So he told Monsanto that he was ripping them off? I find this very confusing.

How can there be such a contradiction? Was he doing it in hiding or in the open?

 

[aquitaine]

So he told Monsanto that he was ripping them off? I find this very confusing.

Yeah pretty much. He used their seeds without authorization in his second season plantings in order to make more money for himself.

I could have misinterpreted the court document but from what I saw he told them after they started an investigation into his planting activities. If that isn't the case then the most likely explanation is the people he talked to before didn't pass on the message (or it just got lost in the bureaucracy).

Vandana Shiva is not a nut/crackpot. She is a PhD trained as a physicist. You may disagree with her activism, but please do so respectfully.

She abuses her physics background to justify her New Age reactionary positions. She rails against the "mechanistic" view of the scientific revolution, claims that GMOs are bad because they supposedly come from this "patriarchal" perspective and the "real science" is all about "interconnectedness". That's pure quackery and those words in quotations were directly from the first 5 minutes of an interview of her that I saw last winter. I fail to see how this is any different from all the other people out there in the New Age movement doing exactly the same thing.

She's a physicist who isn't practicing physics at all (or anything related to it) and instead is talking about ecology even though she isn't a trained ecologist. While that by itself does not automatically make her wrong, it does warrant closer scrutiny. And that closer scrutiny comes from her page in Wikipedia. Apparently only her bachelors degree is in physics while her masters and PhD were both in philosophy. That's a huge redflag, and explains quite a lot.

 

[humanino]

She abuses her physics background to justify her New Age reactionary positions. She rails against the "mechanistic" view of the scientific revolution, claims that GMOs are bad because they supposedly come from this "patriarchal" perspective and the "real science" is all about "interconnectedness". That's pure quackery and those words in quotations were directly from the first 5 minutes of an interview of her that I saw last winter. I fail to see how this is any different from all the other people out there in the New Age movement doing exactly the same thing.

She's a physicist who isn't practicing physics at all (or anything related to it) and instead is talking about ecology even though she isn't a trained ecologist. While that by itself does not automatically make her wrong, it does warrant closer scrutiny. And that closer scrutiny comes from her page in Wikipedia. Apparently only her bachelors degree is in physics while her masters and PhD were both in philosophy. That's a huge redflag, and explains quite a lot.

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. 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.

While I make those remarks, I fully recognize that bio-engineering has saved many lives over decades from starvation/malnutrition in India, in any case many more that putative victims, and there is a distorted perception of this fact in the public. I personally mostly disagree with her. But it is all too easy to live in a black-and-white world, and dismiss dissonant voices as "crackpots" to silence them. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court of India did recommended a 10-year moratorium on all field trials of GM food last summer.

 

[OmCheeto]

... She rails against the "mechanistic" view of the scientific revolution, claims that GMOs are bad because they supposedly come from this "patriarchal" perspective and the "real science" is all about "interconnectedness".

Sounds like she's seen Mindwalk one too many times. :tongue2: I know I have.

That's pure quackery ...

I don't think so.

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.

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)

 

[ImaLooser]

Quote by Borlaug
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.

I live on a tropical island. Until recently they had one harvest of rice a year. Now they have three. I don't know whether the new rice is GMO or not, but think not. They say that the new rice is less nutritious and bad for your health, which I'm inclined to believe. But I think it has to be better than no rice at all. When I first moved here people had so little food, they were eating dogs.

As for GMO's my prejudice is to be for it. I studied this in college back in 1979 and wanted to be a genetic engineer, though I failed at this. But I have learned to be suspicious of abuse of technology. Simply put, I have learned not to trust big business. They pursue their self-interest, not the public's. There is no secret about this.

I used to have the idea that knowledge was always good. Then I had an idea for a new technology, and decided to keep it secret and let it die. It had far too much potential for abuse. So when I was faced with a real-life decisions, I chose not to trust.

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.

 

[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.