Monsano's '435 Patent: Now You See It, Now You Don't

[chlamor]

Monsanto's '435 patent: Now you see it, now you don't

by Robert Schubert
CropChoice editor

Patents are the cornerstone of the biotech revolution. Without them, there would be no profit or control. For years Monsanto, the St. Louis-based chemical and biotechnology corporation, has used the patents on its genetically engineered seed varieties as the legal basis for persecuting farmers.

But when Mississippi farmer Mitchell Scruggs recently questioned the validity of what is perhaps one of Monsanto's most valued patents in a lawsuit the company initiated, the presiding judge allowed it to remove the patent from the case. Monsanto wouldn't return calls or e-mails about this matter.

The '435 patent (No. 5,633,435) covers a gene that Monsanto engineered into canola, corn, cotton and soybeans. Armed with the gene, the crop plants are RoundUp Ready; they resist the glyphosate herbicide that Monsanto makes and markets as RoundUp. The technology allows farmers to spray RoundUp to kill weeds without harming the RoundUp Ready crops.

<snip>

"Monsanto has been hammering farmers with this RoundUp Ready patent since 1998," Robertson said. "We’ve seen some 20 suits Monsanto has filed, citing the 435 patent as Count One. For at least five years, Monsanto has used the 435 patent to force farmers into costly settlements, preliminary injunctions and a few big damage awards, plus Monsanto’s attorney’s fees...The practice was particularly pernicious because of a doctrine holding that a patent upheld in one case is evidence of its validity in the next. For example, in January 2001 in the Scruggs case, Monsanto presented the 435 patent in Count One. Its expert told the Court how wonderful it was. Scruggs had no patent lawyer and no expert and got killed with a preliminary injunction. Three months later, Monsanto got a preliminary injunction hearing in April 2001 in St. Louis against Homan McFarling http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=2540 >. Monsanto presented the 435 patent again, just like in Scruggs, but added 'Judge, this patent has been upheld in Scruggs case, and you should consider that as evidence of its validity here' and on and on. When a farmer finally has the wherewithal to stand up and fight, Monsanto moves heaven and earth to get its important ‘435 patent out of the line of fire."

http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry2f5b.html?recid=2634

[illflem]

1. People get pissed when criminals get off though a loophole

I see this as just the same, the guy obviously stole intellectual property by saving seed and planting it.
I work in crop development and it's too bad but protecting our patents is just the way it is if we want payback for years of R&D. Just because Monsanto is a big nasty company is no excuse, the farmer broke the law.

[chlamor]

2. Patenting life

is as grotesque a crime as their can be. Seeds are the orign of life. "Intellectual property" is just a capital ruse for CONTROL.Monsanto is a criminal organization that has left quite a toxic legacy. Seeds are to be shared in the commons.

[Snap]

3. thanks chlamor

It's sad, Monsanto can just barely make ends meet after years and years of slaving away researchin' and developen'. Check out their balance sheet.

I think, be prepared if you depend for your living on the common property of earth, your profits may be compromised.

[illflem]

4. The farmer is nothing more than a thief

no matter how you try to justify it. If he didn't want to pay for Roundup Ready seed he could have chosen from the thousands of non-patented varieties available. He obviously preferred the Monsanto seed if he stole it, but was just too cheap to pay.

[chlamor]

5. Monsanto and all Agribusiness is a Crime

This is just a new form of feudalism. All small farmers are in jeopardy. All corporate/industrial farming is toxic and criminal. Let's arrest the colossal bandits and all their bribe takers in politics.


"Farmers are going out of business... The corporations are becoming the barons and lords, which are what my grandparents thought they'd escaped," writes Robert Schubert, quoting Percy Schmeiser in his article, "Farming's New Feudalism," featured in the May/June 2005 edition of World Watch magazine.

Using biological (genetic engineering) and social (patenting) means, agriculture giants consolidated their power in the latter half of the last century in a strategy that has bolstered their bottom lines. 

But, for farmers such as Schmeiser, the world is closing in and options are disappearing.  Biotech crops are clearly a bad deal in many ways: farmers can’t save the seed, they risk litigation from drifting patented traits, weeds are developing herbicide resistance, and important markets may decline to buy biotech food.  Yet they are still planting them for one reason: to stay competitive.

Sources and Resources for “Farming’s New Feudalism”

ActionAid report on effects of worldwide consolidation on farmers and free trade, http://www.actionaid.org.uk/wps/content/documents/power-hungry.pdf

Agricultural Policy Analysis Center's report on ag policy, “Finding a New Way,” http://www.agpolicy.org/blueprint

Center for Food Safety (report on farmer investigations, "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers"), http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org

CropChoice, “Federal judge's opinion shows understanding of patented gene spread,” http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry1659.html?recid=2560

CropChoice, “Monsanto's '435 patent: Now you see it, now you don't,” http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry2f5b.html?recid=2634

ETC Group, http://www.etcgroup.org

Genetic Resources Action International, http://www.grain.org

Philip Matera, “USDA, Inc.: How agribusiness has hijacked regulatory policy at the US Department of Agriculture,” http://www.agribusinessaccountability.org/page/325/1

Monsanto, http://www.monsanto.com

National Farmers Union of Canada, http://www.nfu.ca

U.S. National Farmers Union, http://www.nfu.org