FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Indiana Farmer vs. Monsanto - Is A Setup
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:28 pm    Post subject: Indiana Farmer vs. Monsanto - Is A Setup Reply with quote


So, why did THIS guy's seemingly small potatoes case make it to the Supreme Court? Because he's can present a flawed case, and lose? And will he give Monsanto a pedestal from which to launch some seemingly science-y new propaganda, as the poor picked-upon biotech behemoth with the expensive TV ads that say they just want to help farmers (right before they sue them out of their land)? I smell the faint odor of Michael Taylor's slimy ass again. Not to mention former Monsanto employee Judge Clarence Thomas, who was mum in the media, but possibly very vocal in chambers.


By ARIANE DE VOGUE (@Arianedevogue)
WASHINGTON, Feb. 19, 2013

Vernon Bowman travelled to Washington from his Indiana farm to hear the Supreme Court justices discuss his challenge to seed behemoth Monsanto, but the 76-year-old found himself seated too far back in the chamber today to follow the arguments.

But he reiterated what his lawyer had argued: He said the seed company was wrong when it sued him in 2007 for patent infringement.

"I wouldn't have dreamed it would come to the Supreme Court," Bowman, dressed in a suit and windbreaker, told reporters after arguments.

At issue is a dispute over the patent for a soy bean seed developed by Monsanto that is resistant to the powerful weed killer Roundup.

Farmers pay a premium price for the seeds and enter into a contract with the company. Farmers who use the special seeds must buy new seeds for subsequent planting seasons.

Monsanto argues that the restrictions are necessary to protect the company's investment and its patented technology.

According to Monsanto, the seed is now being used in more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the United States. But its popularity has also generated lawsuits: By 2010, Bowman's lawyers say, Monsanto had filed 136 infringement lawsuits against 400 farmers and 53 small businesses.

For years, Bowman has purchased the seeds from Monsanto for his first crop and he has abided by the technology agreement.

But like some other farmers, he sometimes plants a second crop of soybeans in a practice called "late season planting." Because the late season planting is risky due to a short growing time and the threat of drought, Bowman didn't want to invest in the expensive soy bean seed for the second planting.

He had an idea: He would save money and buy a mix of unlabeled seed from a grain elevator, hoping that most of it would be Roundup resistant. After harvesting that crop he would save the progeny and replant it.

"I didn't look at it as a loophole," Bowman said outside court today. He said the Monsanto patent was abandoned once the soybean reached the grain elevator.

Bowman did not hide his actions from Monsanto, asking the company to provide legal guidance.

In 2007 he wrote to the company: "I have been buying soybeans from an elevator for planting after wheat. There is no way of knowing what variety I have planted. However, most of the soybeans I have purchased turned out to be resistant to Roundup."

In 2007, Monsanto sued Bowman for patent infringement. Bowman's lawyers argued that the patent does not cover the purchase from the grain elevator. In the highly technical lingo of patent law Bowman's lawyers say the patent is "exhausted" once the patented article is sold.

A lower court entered a judgment of $84,456.20 in Monsanto's favor.

Inside the Supreme Court today, several of the Justices seemed skeptical of Bowman's claim.

"Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds they want?" Chief Justice John Roberts asked Bowman's lawyer, Mark P. Walters.

Walters said Monsanto's theory is that any farmer who grows a soy bean seed is "infringing the patent but for the grace of Monsanto. And that's a lot of farmers in this country, when we have over 90 percent of the acreage" that uses the so called "Roundup ready" seeds.

He reiterated that his client had always abided by the rules for his first planting, but chose to save money and go to the grain elevator for the risky second planting.

Several of the justices focused not on the purchase of the seed from the grain elevator, but the replanting of those seeds for subsequent crops.

"You know, there are certain things that the law prohibits. What is prohibited here is making a copy of the patented invention. And that is what he did. So it's generation 3 that concerns us," Justice Stephen Breyer said.

"The Exhaustion Doctrine permits you to use the goods that you buy," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. "It never permits you to make another item from the item that you bought."

Assistant to the Solicitor General Melissa Arbus Sherry argued on behalf of the Department of Justice in support of Monsanto.

"If the concept is the sale of a parent plant exhausts the patent holder's rights not only with respect to that seed but with respect to all the progeny seed," then patented protections would be eviscerated, she argued.

Monsanto lawyer Seth P. Waxman said the company would never have commercialized its invention and "never would have produced what is, by now the most popular agricultural technology in America" if the patent had been so easily exhausted.

Supporters of Bowman say the case highlights a troubling and dangerous situation in which a handful of large agrichemical corporations own a large share of seeds.

"The essence of the case is this: who should control and own seeds, the very product of life," said Debbie Barker, whose group Center for Food Safety has filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of Bowman. "Corporations are saying that they own seed, but in fact seeds have been bred, exchanged and saved by farmers over the centuries."

But Scott McBride, a partner at Chicago-based law firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy, filed an amicus brief on behalf of universities eager to ensure innovative biotechnology continues to be made available for the public benefit.

"If the Supreme Court were to side with Bowman, existing biotechnology patents would be devalued, and the incentive to innovate in biotechnology going forward would be severely harmed," he argued.

The Supreme Court decision could affect many areas of biotechnology, including vaccines, DNA and treatments for cancer, he said.

As for Bowman, he says he's not afraid of losing.

"I know it's a possibility," he said. "I have one good thing going for me: I'm poor as nothing, I was lucky when they brought a suit against me that I was broke anyway. "

"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Btw, I believe Clarence Thomas' conflict of interest issues were the prime target of his whole dramatic, headline-grabbing Anita Hill problem, regarding pop can pubic hairs and eating at Long Dong Silvers.

Ah... the old sex scandal to cover for the real goings on. It's an American political tradition.

"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8495

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skin: ...Because he's can present a flawed case, and lose?

Looks like it. Been wondering the same.

And yeah, we've had a complete loss of democracy at SCOTUS & FDA.
So they might as well lock in the law with the full-on psyop propaganda.

It's a pre-emptive reaction to a California Prop 37 rerun.
Which they would be far less certain to win next time.

Essentially a defensive move on the part of Monsanto.
Defensive, in that --due to global backlash-- they have
only two free and clear markets left: the USA & Africa.

SCOTUS can help with the former.

Pentagon is already handling the latter.


Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 11:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
It's a pre-emptive reaction to a California Prop 37 rerun.
Which they would be far less certain to win next time.

And by now they've probably gotten all the invoices from that one, and it may have been more expensive than they'd budgeted. Laughing

If you're under attack from many angles, always helps to pick out the weakest opponent to go after you - particularly if that opponent can be made to present his case in the best possible light for you to (a) rip it easily to shreds and (b) be able to use the resulting bully pulpit to re-confirm some positive opinions of yourself, even if you have to make them up.

This guy made it quite clear he was "very happy" with his Roundup Ready GMO seeds, in fact he was essentially "stealing them by cloning." See..... even the guys who totally hate Monsanto don't buy into this "irrational fear" of GMO's. Cool

"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8495

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


This case of the plucky Indiana farmer versus Monsanto
in the US Supreme Court is intriguing.

The scope of this SCOTUS ruling will extend well beyond
the narrow confines of Monsanto and it's seed technology:

The case is being closely watched by researchers and businesses
holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other
self-replicating technologies.....

So, while Monsanto is central to this, there are other games in play here.

Here's how it plays.

    - Imagine you are a wide group of lawyers, corporate execs and
    other stakeholders in diverse areas of nanotech / biomolecular
    research beneficial to the whole human race.

    - Imagine that many of you would like to get certain aspects of US
    patent law "clarified" - so that the greedy can lay legal claim on
    this research for their corporate and personal enrichment.

    - Imagine that you have a US Supreme Court in play which is a
    mere tool of the corporate elite - ready to rubber stamp the
    merest whim of the corporate raiders and their legal goons.

    You're good to go!

Ooooops. You're not...... You need just one more thing.

You need a CASE! Because SCOTUS can't just rule out of the blue.

You need a poor case - on the right issue - to copper-fasten patent law.

But legal costs would be astronomical thus only a fool would take a really
poor case, so..

    A) You need a lawyer willing to fight Pro Bono, and....

    B) You need a case which --by definition-- is 100% sure to lose.

    In short, and most vitally...

    C) You need a client who is a SCHMUCK!


Enter: Vernon Hugh Bowman, a 75-year-old Indiana soybean farmer.

Enter: Mark P. Walters, a high-flyer among the 75 legal eagles at
Frommer Lawrence & Haug - a leading intellectual property law firm.

I'd love to know when and why a 5th Avenue firm like FL&H
got interested in this pathetic and total loser of a case. Confused

From the moment this case hit the floor of the Supreme Court
it was abundantly clear that it was going down in flames:

Total Loser Case Exhibits:

Justices hostile to farmer's argument against Monsanto
Uphill battle in Supreme Court case against Monsanto
High court seems likely to side with Monsanto

Not because the Justices love Monsanto. (Though they do.)
But because Bowman's case is so poor.

So, why this case, and why now?

Here's the nub of the issue:

May patent holders enforce their rights on the products of self-replicating
technologies, such as replicating seeds, after an authorized sale or does
the patent only apply to the original article?


It might surprise you that Lexmark Inc filed a brief to SCOTUS,
in support of Monsanto - and that Intel and LG have been involved
in patent litigation in this area.

At stake is corporate right to impose restrictive patent licencing terms
on a swathe of nano and micro technologies.


But the case is of vital interest to Monsanto - in the wake of a stunning
decision by the Supreme Court in Brazil to uphold the seed rights
of around 5 million farmers.

The court also ordered that Monsanto repay the farmers around $2Billion!!

On 12 June, 2012 the judges of the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice
ruled against Monsanto

The trouble began in 2009 when a group of farmers from Rio Grande do
Sul challenged Monsanto, claiming that it was impossible to keep Roundup
Ready beans separate from conventional varieties, and that the Monsanto
tax was illegal and unjust.....

In 2011, Monsanto approached the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice in
an effort to restrict any decisions made by the Tribune to Rio Grande do


Monsanto May Lose GM Soya Royalties throughout Brazil

So, Monsanto approached the Brazilian Supreme Court of Justice around mid-2011.
But they ultimately failed in that bid to overturn the decision of a lower court.

A bad day for Monsanto.

But, not to worry.
The first US Supreme Court action in Monsanto v Bowman was on September 21, 2011.

A timely promise of better days ahead for Monsanto! Wink

For the following reasons:

The American Antitrust Institute argues that should the court restrict the
use of second-generation seeds, companies like Monsanto would have a
....legal monopoly
over the market, which could not be challenged by the
antitrust review process
. Link

Anti-Trust protection stripped via SCOTUS. Nice.

The Public Patent Foundation argues that the result of this decision could
have unintended consequences for organic and conventional farmers who
use seeds that are not genetically modified but whose crops have been
by neighboring farmers nonetheless.

Thus avoiding a US repeat of the expensive $2Billion court Brazilian ruling. Nice.

The results of this decision will play a major role in the way that
companies sell their patented information to consumers and how much
control patentees retain after the sale of a self-replicating item

We're not just talking seeds here. It's a post-sale control issue. Nice.


All thanks to Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman and the Pro-Bono work
of the legal team at Frommer Lawrence & Haug.

The firm counsels Fortune 500 companies, growth enterprises, and
individuals in all areas of intellectual property law,... particularly in the
fields of electronics, pharmaceuticals, chemistry, biotechnology....

But it's good to see they have time for the little guy.


The firm's lawyer leading the Bowman case is Mark P. Walters.

He was previously with:

the Agricultural Research Service, the primary research arm of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture
, where he provided technical assistance to
research projects investigating genetic controls of seed dormancy.

In 2012, Mark made it to the exclusive Super-Lawyers league.
Likely the Monsanto v Bowman case greased his path.
Welcome to the Club, Kid.

They got other stellar performers at Frommer Lawrence & Haug.

Like Marilyn Matthes Brogan:

Prior to joining the firm in 1998, she worked in the patent and licensing
department at a multi-national agrochemical company based in Germany

as a patent specialist in the biotechnology area.

A multi-national agrochemical, biotechnology company based in Germany?
Wild guess: Bayer? (Another leading GMO corporate with interest in all this)

Most encouraging is that the FL&H team for this case includes Edgar H. Haug -
a founding partner of the firm and a Super Lawyer for a half-dozen years.

He was a speaker, at the Bear Stearns Annual Health Care Convention,
back in 2008. Those were the days, eh?

But he still finds time for Pro Bono cases backing the little guys.

His Super Lawyers entry proudly lists the pro bono Bowman case.

Actually, it's the only pro bono case in his resume.


We look forward to the Supreme Court decision in June 2013.

It could go any way. Any way, but up.

And after that decision, what's the bets that the US Supreme Court
simply avoids revisiting the GMO seeds issue and allows this staged
Bowman v Monsanto case to define US law.

Thus not only locking down the US arena, but also using the SCOTUS
decision to support Monsanto's international legal battles to hold
back a tide of farmer litigation.

Fintan Dunne
24th Feb, 2013

Meanwhile Back on the Farm:

In January, Farm Industry News reported that the area of U.S. cropland
infested with glyphosate-resistant weeds expanded to 61.2 million acres
in 2012. These "super weeds" are gaining momentum, increasing 25%
in 2011 and 51% in 2012.

In response, farmers resort to more soil-eroding tillage operations
to combat the weeds, and they turn to more toxic chemicals....

And what is the industry's response? Monsanto is planning to seek
approval for dicamba-resistant soybeans, corn and cotton. Dow
AgroSciences is seeking USDA approval of soybeans and corn resistant to
2, 4-D, an active ingredient in Agent Orange.
It is difficult to understand
how such innovation is enhancing the environment.

Finally, the agrochemical industry claims that its seed innovation has
provided farmers more choices. Yet the market concentration of 10
agrochemical companies owning about two-thirds of global commercial
seed for major crops
has narrowed the choice of seeds for farmers and
resulted in higher seed prices. Over an 11-year period, the cost per acre
of planting soybeans has risen a dramatic 325%.



Bowman v. Monsanto Co., Supreme Court 11-796

The Federal Circuit's decision continues to limit the scope of the patent
exhaustion doctrine for self-replicating technologies by allowing owners
of patented self-replicating technology to devise conditional sales and
licensing schemes to prevent use of second-generation articles.

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 2109 - Supreme Court 2008

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Ruling

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.

Last edited by Fintan on Sun Feb 24, 2013 10:54 pm; edited 8 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 2950
Location: 36� 3'N x 86�40'W

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's why you're Fintan. Wink Great job, bud.
"No matter what happens, ever... there's ALWAYS at least one reason. And the top reason is ALWAYS money."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8495

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice catch, Rumpl. Exclamation

Thanks for throwing down that bone.
I can't help gnawing, and gnawing and....

Adding insult to injury is that the Monsanto crony, Clarence Thomas is easily
off the hook. No wonder he declined to recuse himself. Nobody can accuse
him of bias - 'cos this case was always a loser.

It's now a question of how many millions more
Monsanto will maim or kill before we stop them.

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James D

Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 985

PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And also meanwhile back on the farm -

USDA Received Pathogen Warning BEFORE Deregulating GM Alfalfa

Unidentified viral-fungal-like pathogen crosses into multiple kingdoms: Plant & Animal/Human. Rarely, if ever, seen in nature before.

Following a 6 year approval battle, the USDA fully deregulated Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa in January 2011. A week later, they partially deregulated GM sugar beets. This occurred despite Secretary of Agriculture's Tom Vilsack's knowledge of a stark warning letter by Dr. Don M. Huber, Emeritus Professor of Plant Pathology, Purdue University two weeks prior, who found a link between the modified organisms and the proliferation of the new pathogen. Huber knew about its presence in Roundup Ready soy and corn and sought to hold off the GE alfalfa calling the situation an "emergency."
[Disclaimer alert - Actvisit post - Hey, they might get some stuff right, who knows!]

Monsanto - the greatest danger to all humanity ever - I'd suggest carpet bombing and hopefully it won't all go Godzilla!! Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8495

PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, I recall Dr. Huber's warnings of the alfalfa danger - back in 2011.

Of course, he was ignored.

GM Alfalfa compounds the damage already caused by GM corn and soy.

This definitive interview with Huber has Dr. Mercola
holding his head in hands at one point. (13min 15sec)

Why? 'Cos we're talking contamination of the food supply
with: botulism!! (16min)

And we're talking the emergence of a new fungal~viral disease entity! (47mins)

This entity has a structure unknown previously to science, and preliminary
definitive research shows it causes reproductive failure in 40% of Cattle,
Horses, Pigs, Sheep, Poultry and... almost certainly - Humans.

It also causes accelerated aging. Accelerated by 500%!!.

These Monsanto slime and their political minders
are going to end up at an international tribunal for
crimes against humanity. Bank on that.

From your link, this video:







Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
James D

Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 985

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe there's hope yet -

Maine Town Declares Food Sovereignty

Sedgwick, Maine has done what no other town in the United States has done. The town unanimously passed an ordinance giving its citizens the right to produce, process, sell, purchase, and consume local foods of their choosing. This includes raw milk, locally slaughtered meats, and just about anything else you can imagine. Its also a decided bucking of state and federal laws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 08 Mar 2012
Posts: 219

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2013 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just found this gentleman, Michael Schmidt (Canada). It doesn't have that many views that it really deserves to have IMHO. It does show some more recent networking of like minded people when looking at the history of his YouTube channel which is positive news.

PS. Figured the video embedding out Smile Thankyou Fintan.

5:40 mins



CFIA- Leave our Farmers Alone! ~ LIFESTOCK: The Short!

Published on Oct 18, 2012

A brief summary of LIFESTOCK speeches. Support Ontario Farmers Today! Make sure you see Paul Hellyer's comments at the end, as to The Solution.


LIFESTOCK: A CALL TO FARMS! is a one day event at the farm of Montana Jones, where on September 30th farmers and supporters gathered to discuss the implications of an agricultural government agency gone mad with totalitarianism.

See the whole 42 minute edit here:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Site Admin

Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8495

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2013 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sometimes, news sucks.
This is such a time.

And I hate to say I told you...

But, in February, I told you:

See Above in topic thread ^

And here's the sadly
predictable verdict:

US Supreme Court finds for Monsanto in seed patent battle

The high court's unanimous decision focuses specifically on seed
production, but experts say it may also have implications on intellectual
property law in medicine, biotechnology and software

The nine justices ruled that laws limiting patents do "not permit a farmer
to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the
patent holder's permission."

The crux of the argument was over "patent exhaustion" which states that,
after a patented item has been sold, the purchaser has "a right to use or
resell that article
," Justice Elena Kagan explained in the court's 10-page

"Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies
of the patented invention," she added.......

Great news for Monsanto. But "news" is a bad word for "totally inevitable."
I mean, if an apple is released - it drops to the ground. Hardly news.

And considering that the fix was mightily in......
the snively Monsanto spokesperson was triumphant:
(nor a slur - that's his name!)


Monsanto cheered the decision in a statement Monday.

"The Court's ruling today ensures that longstanding principles of patent
law apply to breakthrough 21st century technologies that are central to
meeting the growing demands of our planet and its people," Monsanto
executive vice president David Snively said.

The company had been supported in court by the US government and,
during the hearing, several justices already seemed disposed to rule in
its favor

And, tucked away in the decision is the clause that surely already has lawyers
for medical drugs and software slavering as much as Monsanto at
the prospects of driving a coach and horses through existing patent laws.


Although the decision specifically limited its scope to the seed industry,
"there's one clause saying it may be broader," patent expert Michael
Ward told AFP.

"Where the replication is not inadvertent, as long the replication is not a
necessary but incidental step, that decision would apply," he explained.


Read my original analysis for the gory
details of exactly how you got screwed.

Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.