|
|
|
| Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 10:23 PM EST |
Or they wouldn't be saying such dumb-as-a-stump things.
I'm trying to
have some respect for them, but it has become
impossible for me to do. They do
not know that they do not
understand.
The concept that they are missing is
so old that it shows up
thousands of years ago. And I quote:
From the
Gospel of Mark, Chapter 4:
Seed Grows of Itself.
26
He said,
“This is how it is with the kingdom of God;* it is
as if a man were to scatter
seed on the land
27
and would sleep and rise night and day and the seed
would
sprout and grow, he knows not how.
28
Of its own accord the land
yields fruit, first the blade,
then the ear, then the full grain in the
ear.
29
And when the grain is ripe, he wields the sickle at once,
for the
harvest has come.”
This is still true today, no matter what
anyone says -
anonymous, journalist, Monsanto or Supreme Court Justice. No
matter what you do, the seed does not follow your
instructions. You can exert
your will all you want, and set
up the environment to be as favorable or as
unfavorable as
you wish, but the seed will do what it is going to do.
Remember
the drought this summer? With all the supposed
advantages of modern hybrids and
GMO traits, there was still
a shortfall in yield because there wasn't enough
water.
Monsanto is still not the Almighty.
---
Userfriendly on WGA
server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 10:50 PM EST |
Justice Stephen Breyer said Bowman could make
many uses of the
soybeans he bought from the grain elevator.
"Feed it to the animals. Feed it
your family or make tofu
turkey," Breyer said. But patent law makes it illegal
for
Bowman to plant them. "What it prohibits here is making a
copy of the
patented invention and that is what he did,"
Breyer said.
None
of his ideas work. Pure ignorance again. Errors of
fact.
First off,
soybeans are indigestible for man & beast unless
they are cooked first.
Soybeans for feed are sold as soybean
meal. It is what is left over after the
oil is extracted.
Second, the soybeans that are at issue in this case do
not
make tofu. Tofu is made from a different type of soybean
than that raised
in most of America. Feed-grade soybeans are
usually used for oil production.
Food-grade soybeans are
usually raised organically, because that is what the
Asian
market demands. Soybeans are raised over most of Iowa, but
the
food-grade production is concentrated in western Iowa,
close to the buyers that
can process it or send it to Asia.
See these references if you really want
to know how far the
Justices missed the mark:
Northern Food Grade Soybean
Association
(NFGSA)
History
and Characteristics of Food-grade Soybean
Varieties
Alternative Grain Crop: Food Grade Soybeans
To summarize, Justice
Breyer, field bean varieties are
selected for their ability to produce oil.
Food-grade bean
varieties are selected for their ability to produce a number
of things, but primarily protein. The two are not
interchangeable. Might I
suggest that you be put on a diet
of field beans until you learn the
difference?
And to reiterate a point from another post, man does not
make
plants. Seeds make plants without any help from man.
Man helps sometimes on the
periphery, but does not play a
part in the role of seeds to naturally produce
another
plant.
This is what you get when you let corporate agribusiness
take over agriculture - you get PHBs running the show. Now
in farming PHBs are
naturally selected against. In the
corporate world, I turn once again to the
wisdom of the
hourly employees when they told me "Supply chain and brand
recognition excuse a host of stupid mistakes."
---
Userfriendly on
WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: artp on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 11:26 PM EST |
Chief Justice John Roberts wondered "why in
the world would
anybody" invest time and money on seeds if
it was so easy to evade patent
protection....
Once again, I am dumbfounded by the lack of
knowledge
brought into this case. Is it pure stupid, or is it
intentional?
Neither case is very flattering.
There is a huge market for seeds that are
not GMO. It has
been around for millenia. It is still going strong
today.
If you would like to participate in this non-GMO market,
there are
many ways to find it. Since it is seed catalog
season, I thought I'd list a few
places to get some non-GMO,
usually organic seed that provides you with access
to some
very tasty, very interesting varieties of fruits, vegetables
and
herbs. Browse through this, and you will forget that the
weather is nor
conducive to gardening right now (in the
Northern Hemisphere).
If nothing
else, get a clay pot, and plant some parsley,
thyme, chives and basil. Your
cooking will be much better.
Parsley and thyme can go dormant and revivify.
Basil and
thyme can last for a long time if you keep pinching them.
Mostly
organic:
Seeds of
Change
Southern
Exposure Seed
Exchange
Seed Savers'
Exchange
Fedco Seeds
Peaceful Valley
Farm & Garden
Supply
Renee’s Garden
Territorial
Seed
Commercial:
Johnny's
Selected
Seeds
A list of several more seed companies:
Organic Gardening Magazine: It’s
Seed Catalog Time
Or Google "organic
seed" and wait for the avalanche.
Other Resources:
Organic Seed
Alliance
AOSCA
Organic Seed Finder
Organic Seed Growers &
Trade
Association
And look what I found while off on a mad tear. Monsanto has
other cases heading for the Supreme Court - hopefully.
OSGATA et al. v.
Monsanto
Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association et al.
v. Monsanto was filed in federal district court in
Manhattan, NY, on March 29,
2011, on behalf of 60 family
farmers, seed businesses and agricultural
organizations and
challenges Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed.
Following an oral hearing in January of 2012, Judge Naomi
Buchwald sided with
Monsanto in honoring their motion to
dismiss. On July 5, 2012 the plaintiff
group −which
has
grown to represent over 300,000 individuals and 4,500
farms−
filed a brief with the United States Court of Appeals for
the
Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., asking the
appellate court to reverse the
lower court’s decision from
February dismissing protective legal action against
agricultural giant Monsanto’s patents on genetically
engineered
seed.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server
outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 19 2013 @ 11:42 PM EST |
It says "Official - Subject to Final Review"
argument_transcripts/11-796 PDF 61pp plus concordance.
I'm only
about halfway thru, but I'm right alongside artp here. The Justices seem
bound
by the lower courts' acceptance of the validity of the patent. And it's all
downhill
from there. Their interlocutions reveal the incompetence of the patent
system to deal with
a) natural propagation, or b) self-replicating technology,
and the ignorance of the Justices
to that incompetence.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Transcript - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 04:20 AM EST
- True. - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 10:17 AM EST
- True. - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:11 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 12:24 AM EST |
Why indeed would anyone invest in such a foolish business plan?
But it's not the courts domain to make Monsanto's business plan profitable.
Monsanto could have done additional work to make the resulting soybeans
non-viable. Why didn't they? Presumably because it was cheaper for them to
skip the additional genetic engineering needed, and vastly cheaper to use the
natural ability of the modified soybean to self-replicate so that Monsanto can
easily grow their seed crop.
So instead Monsanto expects the government to make their business work by
telling purchasers of soybeans that they can't use them for the primary reason
they exist -- what nature intended them to be used for -- creating the next
generation of plants.
I think this case isn't the right one, and it's not causing the right questions
to be asked. I fear the public might lose, since a bad precedent forced by the
wrong case won't be revisited for decades.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
