Latest Breaking News

msanthrope

(37,549 posts)

14. Why wouldn't the Obama administration agree with the lower court's ruling

Wed Feb 20, 2013, 03:34 PM

Feb 2013

on exhaustion doctrine?

Monsanto may be 'evil' but we don't decide legal doctrine based on that. This is a fairly technical application of patent law.

Why is the Obama administration wrong? I think Bayh-Dole is worth upholding.

On edit--sometimes, the law makes strange bedfellows. You don't always get to make law with angels.....

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/432/43/case.html

On edit again....if you take a look at the amici, the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, Association of American Universities, The Regents of the University of California, The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, University of Florida, Duke University, Emory University, University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc., Iowa State University of Science and Technology, NDSU Research Foundation, University of Iowa, University of Missouri-Columbia, South Dakota State University, NUtech Ventures, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Kentucky, University of Kansas, Kansas State University, Montana State University, and University of Delaware filed in support of Monsanto.

Why are they wrong?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Justices skeptical of farmer who planted patented Monsanto seeds [View all] naaman fletcher Feb 2013 OP

I guess MynameisBlarney Feb 2013 #1

Ah..."exhaustion doctrine." This case will be an interesting read, no matter how it comes down. msanthrope Feb 2013 #2

does that apply to a book? nt DeadEyeDyck Feb 2013 #27

Does what apply to a book? nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #29

OK, here's the scenario 40 years hence Kelvin Mace Feb 2013 #3

I would argue that the next generation of seeds has undergone random mutations... Ian David Feb 2013 #4

The lower courts rejected that argument-- msanthrope Feb 2013 #7

Well, at least my idea was good enough that someone actually tried to use it. n/t Ian David Feb 2013 #11

Here's a pretty good article on the case....clear delineation of the issues. msanthrope Feb 2013 #18

Thanks! n/t Ian David Feb 2013 #34

HA! I'm skeptical of Justices Monsanto planted Ligyron Feb 2013 #5

Yup, that's how I feel naaman fletcher Feb 2013 #6

Looks like Bowman didn't buy the seeds from Monsanto-- msanthrope Feb 2013 #19

"An Obama administration lawyer joined sides with Monsanto..." Poll_Blind Feb 2013 #8

Why wouldn't the Obama administration agree with the lower court's ruling msanthrope Feb 2013 #14

I am surprised they took the case in the first place iandhr Feb 2013 #9

Could the farmer feed the seeds to his pigs and then use the feces? geek tragedy Feb 2013 #10

Let's patent Alito's DNA and claim his children as property. nt Xipe Totec Feb 2013 #12

Not sure if you know, Justice Roberts was born and bred in Indiana LittleGirl Feb 2013 #13

if i buy a puppy from a dog breeder, does the dog breeder own all future generations as well? unblock Feb 2013 #15

Yes-, they can--depending on the type of sale. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #16

So what if all the other farmers in the region grew non-Monsanto seed. One farmer grows OregonBlue Feb 2013 #17

There's the problem with your hypo--the Monsanto farmer cannot sell to the msanthrope Feb 2013 #20

Ok, naaman fletcher Feb 2013 #22

Monsanto has the right to recourse against him. Monsanto also has a right of msanthrope Feb 2013 #23

No, that's not what happened. OregonBlue Feb 2013 #31

Right--Bowman thought he found a loophole around the patent. He didn't. msanthrope Feb 2013 #32

Not all the seed was roundup ready. Unless they have a way to prove which are their seeds and which OregonBlue Feb 2013 #37

No--the seed was about 80% Roundup Ready. That's already established in the facts of the msanthrope Feb 2013 #38

Seed companies regularly develop and sell seeds that one can store for re-use the next year riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #21

Well, Monsanto has pretty strict licensing agreements. See, it isn't a typical sale--i.e. msanthrope Feb 2013 #24

But they are producers of seeds that are being sold like this under the Burpee name riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #25

The monopoly argument isn't relevant to the patent issue, although it's one that msanthrope Feb 2013 #28

Monsanto has gone after farmers for inadvertent contamination. riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #30

Sorry, but the defendant dropped his claim of 'accidental' contamination. Read your link. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #33

More nuanced than that. riderinthestorm Feb 2013 #35

Right--he deliberately used Monsanto's seeds. He should pay for them. nt msanthrope Feb 2013 #36

The problem is the idea of patenting organisms in the first place Scootaloo Feb 2013 #26