Guy, you're not alone

[C0ckney]

why does that matter?

[giblets]

Because Monsanto can't "control the food supply", make independent farmers dependent on large corporations, or reduce the world to a "company town" after its patents have expired? I think pretty much any business will use technologies that used to be protected by patents. Patents that ensured that the people who invested in developing those technologies were able to recoup the cost of R&D.

[C0ckney]

that's a rather strange way of looking at it. it's as if you believe that all these companies do is 'develop' a seed, get a patent and wait patiently for it to expire. must i really point out that there's a bit more to it than that?

to give a small example, monsanto controls around 95% of the indian cotton seed market. do you think that this control will evaporate or even lessen as this or that patent expires?

[giblets]

After the patent expires, anyone can legally produce that seed, and farmers can legally save that seed and replant/sell it, so Monsanto no longer has the ability to extract monopoly profits. They could only keep 95% market share by keeping prices low enough that no one else will enter the industry.

[Elok]

You might add the bit where they don't allow farmers to plant seeds the farmers themselves produce. So every single planting season they have to keep buying more. That acts as a powerful disincentive to R&D, since until such time as the patent does expire they can't possibly saturate the market with their product. They have the farmers over a barrel. And, if Monsanto's lawyers and lobbyists know what they are doing, that patent will last a very long time. Disney still has the copyright on Steamboat ****ing Willy, and that's not nearly as lucrative.

Be that as it may, the ridiculous alarmism of the OP is counterproductive. Any actual legitimate concern about Monsanto or GMOs is going to get drowned out by a million hippies posting links to studies where a bunch of rats got colon growths from a specific product. Therefore OMG ALL GMOS ARE POISON! You know it's evil because corporations are involved--just not the corporations which produce organic food and suchlike. The evil level of a corporation is determined by whether or not it sells quinoa-acai berry shake powder mix.

[giblets]

Elok, Steamboat Willie is copyrighted, not patented. Copyrights last 70 years after the death of the author (I'd say this is ridiculous) and patents are 20 years at most.

[C0ckney]

monsanto introduced its BT technology to india in 1995 and its stranglehold on the market is almost complete; patents typically last for 20 years. if we look at global trends, we see that 40% of the world seed market is controlled by four companies. this figure is higher in developed countries, the US for example has 90% of its corn and 80% of its soya bean seeds attributable to monsanto (monsanto licenses its seed traits to other companies). the big companies' share of the global seed market is increasing year on year.

your theory doesn't seem to match what is happening.

[Elok]

I know the difference between copyrights and patents. My point was that good lobbyists can get into all sorts of fun hanky-panky with this sort of thing.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx

Says that the patent on their 1996 soybeans expired this year. BUT there's something called a "variety patent" which still applies for many years after. Check with your seed supplier to find out if you're finally allowed to plant your own damned seeds, poor Indian sharecropper. Oooh, and there's some complicated licensing involved, too!

[giblets]

monsanto introduced its BT technology to india in 1995 and its stranglehold on the market is almost complete; patents typically last for 20 years.

So we've just now reached the end of the patent's term?

if we look at global trends, we see that 40% of the world seed market is controlled by four companies. this figure is higher in developed countries, the US for example has 90% of its corn and 80% of its soya bean seeds attributable to monsanto (monsanto licenses its seed traits to other companies). the big companies' share of the global seed market is increasing year on year.

your theory doesn't seem to match what is happening.

When did the relevant patents expire? If the patents are still in effect then of course their market share is improving. That's the whole point of patents.

[giblets]

I know the difference between copyrights and patents. My point was that good lobbyists can get into all sorts of fun hanky-panky with this sort of thing.

http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/roundup-ready-patent-expiration.aspx

Says that the patent on their 1996 soybeans expired this year. BUT there's something called a "variety patent" which still applies for many years after. Check with your seed supplier to find out if you're finally allowed to plant your own damned seeds, poor Indian sharecropper. Oooh, and there's some complicated licensing involved, too!

Yes, if they make a new seed variety in 2009 that's better than the seed variety they created in the 90s then they can continue to make money.

[Elok]

You didn't read it. The "variety patents" continue to apply to many types of 1996 soybeans. Even where they don't, licensing and restrictions still apply for some unfathomable reason. Monsanto is still covered.

[giblets]

You didn't read it. The "variety patents" continue to apply to many types of 1996 soybeans. Even where they don't, licensing and restrictions still apply for some unfathomable reason. Monsanto is still covered.

Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology is the next-generation of the Roundup Ready soybean trait. Monsanto developed Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology to deliver more yield and profit potential to farmers while maintaining the weed control benefits of the original Roundup Ready system. Farmers have planted more than 50 million acres of the second-generation trait since it launched in 2009.

Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology and Roundup Ready trait technology are protected by different patents.

The variety patent covers "Genuity Roundup Ready 2 Yield trait technology" which was launched in 2009. I READ. YOU DIDN'T.

[C0ckney]

So we've just now reached the end of the patent's term?

When did the relevant patents expire? If the patents are still in effect then of course their market share is improving. That's the whole point of patents.

one of the points i made is about their control of the market, which is increasing. you seemed to want to deny this based on the fact that patents expire. however, it seems that here:

Yes, if they make a new seed variety in 2009 that's better than the seed variety they created in the 90s then they can continue to make money.

you have discovered why your objection doesn't make sense. that's progress i suppose.

[giblets]

one of the points i made is about their control of the market, which is increasing. you seemed to want to deny this based on the fact the patents expire. however, it seems that here:



you have discovered why your objection doesn't make sense. that's progress i suppose.

They have "increasing control of the market" as long as they continue to invent new seed varieties that are clearly better than old seed varieties. Your nightmare scenario apparently is that seed companies will introduce the next generation of seeds once every 20 years making old seeds obsolete. What political alternative to patents are you proposing?

[C0ckney]

well there are a few problems here. firstly, the idea of free choice, as in farmers freely choosing. in clear monopoly or oligopoly situation such as that we see here, the idea of choice is reduced to a fiction. secondly, the idea of better, better for whom, from whose point of view. but perhaps these are a little too broad for this discussion, so i'll skip to the third problem, which is the misdiagnosis of the issue itself. the issue is the control a small group of companies have and are establishing over the food supply and farmers around the world; patents are merely a tool, a means to this end.

as for political solutions, it seems to me that it's necessary to ensure the independence of peasant farmers and to take steps to reverse the consolidation we've seen in recent years. a number of options are available, from strict regulation of seed companies' activities to banning patents on seeds altogether. the real long term solutions for farming lie in land reform and a more or less complete rethink of how we do agriculture.