Farmer’s Supreme Court Challenge Puts Monsanto Patents at Risk

[joshcryer]

56. In the Schmeiser case "active participation" was cited.

In other words, they'll probably fall back to the same old stupid ass logic that Bowmans active participation in saving seeds that were roundup-proof is intentionally and knowingly propagating the patent.

He will lose this one. His argument is rather elegant and logical, though. I buy a TV, it's patented, can I resell that TV? Well his argument is that he bought seeds. They're patented. Then he grows second generation seeds. Can he resell those seeds (or crops from those seeds)? Logically, he should be able to do whatever he wishes with his property. But the courts have almost always favored the patent holders in this case. Basically, because we have control over something that can self-propagate, which the original founders could not have foreseen, the "intent" is that the patent still works regardless of generation.