I have written a couple of posts on Organically Modified Food,Monsanto Company and how the Corporate company’s product and its Policies are destroying the livelihood of the Farmers and Farmers in India to such an extent that over 2000 farmers committed suicide.
The Supreme Court of The United States had upheld the submission of Monsanto that the use of seeds of the produce from Monsanto seeds is illegal and violates Monsanto Patent .
This means that once the farmer buys and used the Monsanto seeds he is stuck with them for seeds forever for the seeds and it is also a fact that the land, where these seeds are used, will not yield for any other seeds, natural or otherwise.
Well, Law, being an Ass and one that swings to those who control Money always sees the correct implication of The Law, a in ‘Patent’ here,, conveniently overlooks, intentionally or otherwise, that i is he livelihood of the Farmers and the land which supports the World!
The Supreme Court is on a summer break, after a session that was controversial and history making. However, behind the high-profile cases making headlines were more than 70 other important cases decided without much fanfare.
Our holding today is limited—addressing the situa-
tion before us, rather than every one involving a selfreplicating product. We recognize that such inventions
are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse.
In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur
outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary
but incidental step in using the item for another purpose.
Cf. 17 U. S. C. §117(a)(1) (“[I]t is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program
to make . . . another copy or adaptation of that computer
program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation is
created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program”). We need not address here whether or
how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such
circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted
Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market
replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article.
Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct. We
accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit.
The case development and Link:
There seems to be undue haste in promoting BT Brinjals in India,when Monsanto has already ruined our Agriculturists.
The side effects of BT on soil and the health of humans are yet to be fully studied.
Karnataka is Right.
Karnataka Horticulture Minister Umesh Katti on Monday (February 8) said that the state government would enforce ban on the commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal in the state. “We will ban commercial cultivation of Bt Brinjal. We have already written to the Centre seeking its deferment,” Horticulture Minister Umesh Katti said. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh has already said that the Centre would announce its decision on commercial production of the genetically modified crop on February 10″..
“Indigenous cotton varieties can be intercropped with food crops. Bt-cotton can only be grown as a monoculture. Indigenous cotton is rain fed. Bt-cotton needs irrigation. Indigenous varieties are pest resistant. Bt-cotton, even though promoted as resistant to the bollworm, has created new pests, and to control these new pests, farmers are using 13 times more pesticides then they were using prior to introduction of Bt-cotton. And finally, Monsanto sells its GMO seeds on fraudulent claims of yields of 1500/kg/year when farmers harvest 300-400 kg/year on an average.”
Monsanto Legal Actions around the World:
Monsanto has had a controversial history in India, starting with the accusation that Monsanto used terminator genes in its seeds, causing demonstrations against the company. Later, its GM cotton seed was the subject of NGO agitation because of its higher cost. Indian farmers cross GM varieties with local varieties using plant breeding to yield better strains, an illegal practice termed “seed piracy”. In 2009, high prices of Bt Cotton were blamed for forcing farmers of the district Jhabua into severe debts when the crops died due to lack of rain.
In 2009, Monsanto scientists initially discovered that insects had developed resistance to the Bt Cotton planted in Gujarat and when studies were completed, Monsanto communicated this to the Indian government and its customers, stating that “Resistance is natural and expected, so measures to delay resistance are important. Among the factors that may have contributed to pink bollworm resistance to the Cry1Ac protein in Bollgard I in Gujarat are limited refuge planting and early use of unapproved Bt cotton seed, planted prior to GEAC approval of Bollgard I cotton, which may have had lower protein expression levels.” The company advised farmers to switch to its second generation of Bt cotton – Bolguard II – which had two resistance genes instead of one. However, this advice was criticized; an article in The Hindu reported that “an internal analysis of the statement of the Ministry of Environment and Forests says it ‘appears that this could be a business strategy to phase out single gene events [that is, the first generation Bollgard I product] and promote double genes [the second generation Bollgard II] which would fetch higher price.'”
Andhra Pradesh state government
In the early 2000s, farmers in the state of Andhra Pradesh, were in economic crisis due to high interest rates and crop failures, leading to widespread social unrest and suicides. Monsanto was one focus of protests with respect to the price of Bt seed and yields of Bt seed. In 2005, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the Indian regulatory authority, released a study on field tests of certain Bt cotton strains in Andhra Pradesh and ruled that Monsanto could not market those strains in Andhra Pradesh because the yields were poor, and extended the ban on one of them, Mech-12 Bt, to all of south India. At about the same time, the state agriculture minister barred the company from selling any Bt cotton seeds in the state, because Monsanto refused a request by the state government to provide a compensation package of about Rs 4.5 crore (about 1 Million US$) to indebted farmers in some districts, and because the government blamed Monsanto’s Bt seeds for crop failures. The order was later lifted. In 2006, the Andhra Pradesh state government tried to convince Monsanto to reduce the price at which it sold Bt seeds. When Monsanto did not reduce the price enough to satisfy the government, the state filed several cases against Monsanto and its Mumbai based licensee Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds.
As in much of the developing world and especially in agricultural areas, child labor is widespread in India’s agricultural sector, which employs ~60% of India’s child labor. Child labor is especially used in seed production. The seed production is done mostly through child labor—it is carried out on plots owned by small farmers, who sell the seed to “seed organizers”, who in turn sell the seed to public and private seed agencies and companies. The public and private agencies and companies include Indian state corporations, Mahyco-Monsanto, Syngenta, and others.Monsanto’s website states that the company complies with all child labor laws and that they are working towards minimizing its occurrence.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, public attention was drawn to suicides by indebted farmers in India following crop failures.
Critics, including Vandana Shiva, said that the crop failures could “often be traced to” Monsanto’s Bt cotton, and that the seeds increased farmers’ indebtedness, and argued that Monsanto misrepresented the profitability of their genetically modified cotton, Bt Cotton, causing farmers to suffer losses leading to debt. In 2009, Ms. Shiva wrote that Indian farmers who had previously spent as little as 7 rupees per kilogram were now paying up to Rs. 17,000 per kilo per year after switching to BT cotton. More recently, in 2012 the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the Central Cotton Research Institute (CCRI) stated that for the first time farmer suicides could be linked to a decline in the performance of Bt cotton, and they issued an advisory stating that “cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers.” 
In 2004, in response to a request from the All India Biodynamic and Organic Farming Association, the Mumbai High Court required the Tata Institute to produce a report on farmer suicides inMaharashtra, and the institute submitted its report in March 2005. The survey cited “government apathy, the absence of a safety net for farmers, and lack of access to information related to agriculture as the chief causes for the desperate condition of farmers in the state.”
Judgement Text in pdf.
|Docketed:||December 22, 2011|
|Lower Ct:||United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit|
|Decision Date:||September 21, 2011|
|~~~Date~~~||~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|Dec 20 2011||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 23, 2012)|
|Jan 19 2012||Waiver of right of respondent Monsanto Company to respond filed.|
|Jan 25 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2012.|
|Jan 26 2012||Response Requested . (Due February 27, 2012)|
|Feb 27 2012||Brief of respondents Monsanto Company, et al. in opposition filed.|
|Mar 14 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 30, 2012.|
|Apr 2 2012||The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.|
|Aug 24 2012||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Sep 4 2012||Supplemental brief of petitioner Vernon Hugh Bowman filed.|
|Sep 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Oct 1 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 5, 2012.|
|Oct 5 2012||Petition GRANTED.|
|Nov 8 2012||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner’s brief on the merits is extended to and including December 3, 2012.|
|Nov 9 2012||The time to file respondents’ brief on the merits is extended to and including January 16, 2013.|
|Dec 3 2012||Joint appendix filed (2 volumes). (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Dec 3 2012||Brief of petitioner Vernon Hugh Bowman filed.|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Knowledge Ecology International filed.|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief amici curiae of Automotive Aftermarket Industry Association, et al. filed.|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief amici curiae of American Antitrust Institute, et al. filed.|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief amicus curiae of Public Patent Foundation filed.|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief amici curiae of Center for Food Safety and Save Our Seeds filed.|
|Dec 18 2012||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, February 19, 2013.|
|Jan 4 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Jan 4 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either partry or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents.|
|Jan 8 2013||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 9 2013||Record received form the U.S.C.A. for the Federal Circuit. (1 Box)|
|Jan 11 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jan 16 2013||Brief of respondents Monsanto Company, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 17 2013||Brief amicus curiae of BayhDole25, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 18 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 22 2013||Brief amicus curiae of The New York Intellectual Property Law Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of CropLife America filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of BSA – The Software Alliance filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Seed Trade Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Biotechnology Industry Organization filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of CropLife International filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of Ecomonists filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of law professor Christopher M. Holman filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of CHS Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of Agilent Technologies, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amici curiae of American Soybean Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 23 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Pioneeer Hi-Bred International, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
- Suicide Seeds: HOW MONSANTO DESTROYS FARMING (secretsofthefed.com)