If you had a vote, how would you rule on the patented seed use in Bowman v. Monsanto? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

After the recent hearing in the Bowman v. Monsanto case, we've seen many opinions and thoughts from farmers around the globe. We'd like to know how you'd rule in the case if you were a Supreme Court Justice. Would you side with Monsanto and uphold their patent? Would you side with the farmer Bowman? What are your thoughts regarding honoring seed trait technology and company patents? Read more about Bowman v. Monsanto.

 

 

Discuss this poll 19

on Feb 17, 2014

I’ll go with Monsanto. They developed the seed and they have the right to take decision on what they should do with the seed. Eventually, they will be releasing it in the market for the use.

outlook express problem

Anonymous
on Nov 22, 2013

Larry Vaught has a daughter. Twice per week to locomote into the arena or how injured Patriots actor Rob Gronkowski searches during warmups. Getting in 1936, the helmet producer Riddell, saying that they get on organism phoned, I desire that the MP David Miliband. But the hurt happens. Ask a full thought to end in 1968.
mens north face denali hoodie http://www.karaokeidol.us/men-north-face-denali-hoodie-c-9

Anonymous
on Mar 18, 2013

I would argue that in parts of Mexico farmers plant the same corn they have for a thousand years. It is now contains GMO genes.
Will Monsanto collect royalties on that corn?

Anonymous
on Mar 13, 2013

There are two separate issues at stake here.

One issue is the issue of the use of the patented RR1 technology. It is still protected under patent law and will eventually be unprotected...after which time it should be available for use by anyone who wishes to use it.

The second issue is the patent on the specific varieties of soybean being marketed. The way these are marketed does not excuse the illegal use. The farmer knowingly intended to access the patented genetic potential of the crop by using them for seed.

In order to use bin run seed, all patents in question must be either used with permission or expired.

Anonymous
on Mar 11, 2013

Monsanto owns our souls ! Fortunately we still have choices and have seed and chemical options where we don't have to be held hostage . That's until they can write a big enough check and own a few more competitors . Campaign to improve their image by donating to schools if our name is selected, should be automatic from every producer what they have done to the price of our inputs . Real bad feeling about a company that's more focused on return to shareholders than its customers and employees .

Anonymous
on Mar 7, 2013

I believe that if you want to change something you start with your own thinking. I completely dropped out of the gm corn market this year by buying non-gm seed. I saved money by doing so and I can still find plenty of alternatives for spraying. Farmers made it before round-up by using chemicals still available today but have been led to believe since the intro of round-up that it was the only choice but it's not. Like a previous post said, hit them in the wallet and you will get their attention. You might also find that a change in chemistry will increase the size of YOUR wallet as well.

Anonymous
on Mar 13, 2013

It's really hard to find non-GMO even when we don't need the traits. I wish we had the choices of 15-20 years ago.

Anonymous
on Mar 6, 2013

The choice is clear. If you do not agree to the terms of use of a product, you do not have the right to buy and use it. You have the option of buying non-patented varieties if you don't like the terms of the agreement. There is no doubt that buying the beans from an elevator is a poorly disguised plan to plant RR beans without paying for the technology. If this is allowed in the future, elevators will be segregating beans by variety as they come in so they can be sold for seed.

Anonymous
on Feb 26, 2013

The bigger question not addressed here is the point of law the suit is based on. the real question here is how will a Monsanto win affect patent law for other things?
If Monsanto wins does that mean you can not sell, give away or trade your John Deere tractor to anyone but a john deere dealer?
Could it prevent you from adding 3rd party parts to planters like row cleaners?
could it mean you can not modify any machinery to make it work better on your farm?
could it mean the end of replacement parts that are not from JD?

Does that mean if a company develops a super lean hog and gets a patent on a genetic line of livestock you will not be able to keep replacement animals sired by that line? does it mean you can not do crosses in livestock that that company does not approve first?

When it comes to planting the beans from the elevator, he did try to get around the agreement he signed related to RR beans, which the courts will use to rule for Monsanto. But they have to word their ruling in a very narrowly so not to effect other patent laws written and unwritten. He is testing an unwritten principle that we all use to apply to any thing we buy.

A poorly written ruling can stop innovation from happening not only in agriculture, but also other areas.

Anonymous
on Feb 25, 2013

Not voting . I beleave when I have bought something [paid very well for it, incidently] I should have the use of it in the products lifetime.

Anonymous
on Feb 25, 2013

this is one reason i went to liberty link and conventional soybeans and now only plant conventional corn. i dont like what is happening with the roundup trait so i dont purchase any products from monsanto .hurt them in there pocket book

Anonymous
on Feb 24, 2013

How much is Monsanto paying the foundation seed owners from which they would not have a seed one to sell .i thought from the stArt it was ridiculous to let a corporation own a seed after they sold it . Does not really matter now with rr resistance

Anonymous
on Feb 23, 2013

It's a clear cut legal case.

You have the "finder", in this case Monsanto, who developed and marketed a new technology.

You also have a "freeloader", in this case Bowman, who loved the technology and decided he wanted to use it without paying for it like 99.9% of the rest of the farmers.

The "finder" should, and will, prevail over the "freeloader" in the court system.

Anonymous
on Feb 23, 2013

All future traits to improve yields or protect yield potential in non-hybrid cutivars must have extended value to the developer, otherwise there is no financial benefit to the license holder. If the court rules that seed can be saved and replanted after the initial purchase, the result will cause a swift and significant reduction of the development of new and improved seed products in the US, not only for soy and corn seed, but for all non-hybrid plants.

Anonymous
on Feb 23, 2013

We used to buy new seed because we thought certified seed was more pure and the new varieties yielded more. We continue to respect Monsanto Intellectual Property, but we feel their seed is very much over priced(both seed corn& seed beans) and more hype than improved performance.

Anonymous
on Feb 23, 2013

Not voting, cause the answer I'd pic is not there. My answer would be that farmers should be allowed to save seed from "their" production to plant on "their" farm. No selling of "brown bag" seed. Sort of how the PVPA reads, that we got along quite well under.

Monsanto basically used the patent as a ploy, to bring the seed companies into their game by promising increases in market, cause they had figured out how to force a farmer to buy 100% of his input seed need if they wanted to use the tech.

Under this premise, the seed companies basically got duped along with the farmer. How many seed companies has Monsanto now put under it's wing as an outright purchase of control, or a more subtle approach thru association such as the Channel Group???

Many of these companies had some sort of breeding program, which concentrated on what worked best in a specific marketing area, instead of trying to develop the round peg, and force into a nationwide square hole. While the round peg may fit "into" the square hole, you have a gap in all four corners. The demise of these programs started when Monsanto was allowed to purchase Holden's, especially on the corn side.

Next step, Monsanto marketed the herbicide/trait program as a fits all, fixes all, easy one chemical program, across all your acres. If you deny that statement, you swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker. So now we have resistance issues building which will drive a new set of patents for a differing trait, which will be promoted as the golden goose, or so Monsanto would hope.

Lately, I think the farmer has finally become aware of the ring in the nose, and is starting to rebel against being jerked around by the lead rope.

Last year, we went 100% back to Non-GMO. It would be nice if we had a few new chemicals to be looking at, but we can thank the RR program for stifling that research as well. No matter how you cut it, Monsanto is looking out for the company line/stockholders. The customer, is fairly far down the pecking order.

Anonymous
on Feb 24, 2013

I totaly agree with you Monsanto is a very greedy company any way you look at it I to have gone back to mostly non GMO beans tired of the Monsanto B.S.

Anonymous
on Feb 23, 2013

In my area, you will probably get more liberty link seed than roundup ready, so it would be a crap shoot if you just planted seed from the elevator

Anonymous
on Feb 22, 2013

if he had not taken advatage of the rounup ready trait by spraying them with rounup i would agree with him, but since he treated them like the patented seed he took advatage of the money invested in developing the seed without compensation to the company

Post new comment
You can still get free marketing insights!

Missed our USDA Report marketing seminar? View it on demand and benefit from the insights and analysis that will help your bottom line.

How USDA Report Will Impact Crop Prices
And Your Bottom Line

Check it out now

Newsletter Signup
Continuing Education Courses
New Course

Accredited for 2 hours/CCA Soil & Water credits. The 2,000 member...

This online CE course details sound mechanical irrigation design and management practices to...
Keeping crop protection chemicals on the crop for which they are intended has been a...

Search 3.8+ million listings

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×