Hacker News Reader

Comment by va_coder | Hacker News Reader

It's my understanding Monsanto isn't a company that relies on free markets. They use lawyers heavily. If their seeds blow from a customer's farm to a non customer's farm and the non customer doesn't actively try to remove the Monsanto seeds, they sue. They are like the seed mafia.

View on HN

"If their seeds blow from a customer's farm to a non customer's farm and the non customer doesn't actively try to remove the Monsanto seeds, they sue"

Got a source for that claim?

There's an article on huffington post which conflicts with the claim: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/monsanto-lawsuit-or...

"The Runyons say they signed no agreements, and if they were contaminated with the genetically modified seed, it blew over from a neighboring farm.

"Pollination occurs, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their products from landing in our fields," David said.

"What Monsanto is doing across the country is often, and according to farmers, trespassing even, on their land, examining their crops and trying to find some of their patented crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, with the Center For Food Safety. "And if they do, they sue those farmers for their entire crop." "

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html

Not sure about the US but it's possible he's referring to Monsanto vs Schmeiser, a Canadian case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...

In that case, Schmeiser's field was contaminated by his neighbour's field which was planted with Roundup resistant Canola seed.

"... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in 1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent."

Right, so it's not that they'll sue you if their seeds blow onto your property, it's that they'll sue you if their seeds blow onto your property, you harvest, separate and and save the seeds from the plants that grow, then you plant 'em.

I'm still not sure that counts as infringement, but hey, who am I to disagree with a Canadian court's interpretation of Canadian law?

Just enter "monsanto sues farmer" into your favourite search engine. The wealth of results, mostly partisan in nature however, would suggest that this is a significant issue.

Got a source for that claim?

Who needs a source (or nuanced facts, for that matter) when you've got such an impossibly sticky narrative? True or not, Monsanto will always be known as the people who sued over their seeds.

Which is a shame, because there are plenty of perfectly good reasons to hate Monsanto without delving into half-truths.

Agreed. There's the whole moral question of patenting life.

One thing, that Huffington Post article doesn't quite contradict the claim. It says:

"The court ruling said there was no likelihood that Monsanto would pursue patent-infringement cases against the organic farmers, who have no interest in using the company's patented seed products."

So long as the organic farmers didn't replant the contaminated seed or sell it, they are safe from lawsuits. If a farmer does replant the seed and benefit from the use of weedkiller resistance, they can expect to be sued.

So what are they supposed to do? Sort through the seeds one-by-one? The problem isn't that Monsanto is necessarily asking for anything that is obviously crazy, it's the implementation that causes problems.

It's a lot like software patents in some sense. You can't actually insulate yourself from infringement.

Google is your friend. Here's one of many:

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...

And do they win such claims? Seems to me the farmer whose field was polluted should be able sue for damages instead?

Your average farmer doesn't have the resources required to field a lawsuit against a multi-national company.

Then that seems to be a flaw in the law system. Still, even if they don't start it, why would the company win frivolous claims?

Surely you don't think that frivolous claims are never won?

Not sure, certainly they shouldn't be won as a rule. Maybe there are exceptions, but it shouldn't be just a case of whoever hires the most expensive lawyers wins.

There's a massive gulf between "shouldn't" and "isn't". :/

So basically you are saying the legal system (in the US?) is worthless?

Draw your own conclusions.

"Monsanto won its case against Parr, but the company, which won't comment on specific cases, has stopped its legal action <edit>for PR reasons</edit>against the Runyons."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com