Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in Indiana farmer's GM seeds case

[wtmusic]

"The US Supreme Court came down solidly on the side of the agricultural giant Monsanto on Monday, ruling unanimously that an Indiana farmer could not use patented genetically modified soybeans to create new seeds without paying the company.

The case – which was cast by the farmer's supporters as a classic tale of David vs Goliath – could well dictate the future of modern farming.

In an unanimous ruling written by Justice Elena Kagan, the court ruled that the farmer, Vernon Bowman, had infringed on Monsanto's patent for its GM soybeans when he bought some of those seeds from a local grain elevator and planted them for a second, late-season crop. Monsanto sued, arguing that Bowman had signed a contract when he initially bought the Roundup Ready soybeans in the spring, agreeing not to save any of the harvest for replanting. The seeds are genetically modified to be resistant to Roundup Ready weedkiller."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/13/supreme-court-monsanto-indiana-soybean-seeds

[Demeter]

1. The Dancing Supremes Strike Again

Arrest them for assault.

[FBaggins]

3. wrong perspective

Go to the congress to change the law. The job of the courts is to interpret what congress gives them.

It's unlikely that they get the law wrong when they're unanimous.

[pscot]

2. If you accept gm as a legitimate practice

Monsanto's case seems pretty obvious. If the farmer bought roundup ready seed, he knew the terms of the deal. He's hardly a victim.

[Demeter]

4. As if there were an alternative to Monsanto Seed

They've put everyone else out of business. Can you spell M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y?