- #71
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,333
- 10,596
Well, since I generally think the courts have gotten pretty activist liberal, I tend to think a decision with a conservative slant must have been pretty ironclad to get through!ImaLooser said:I'm not willing to look at the case all that closely, but it seems to me that GMOs are a new type of invention and that the legislature should deal with it by passing a law that covers it.
Regardless, it is certainly the job of the courts to decide if a law applies to a situation that may not have exactly existed when the law was crafted. But let me ask you this: if the court decides against Monsanto here, what makes you think the legislature wouldn't immediately plug that hole in their patent protection? Congress has shown a willingness to help protect Monsanto's patents in the past.
While I agree, I think you are creating a false dichotomy, saying that Monsanto's gain is the farmers' loss. Again, GM seeds are the farmers' gains as well. In this particular case, the farmer was clearly getting an economic benefit that he didn't pay for.I think the legislature is the appropriate place to trade off economic interests.
Er, since always? I guess you never read the licensing agreements on the software you install, do you...?This finding that a seed is a "copy of an invention" seems dubious to me, as does Monsanto's assertion that they can sell the seeds with restrictions on their use. Since when do they get to tell me how I can use their invention? I never heard of such a thing...