7 votes

SCOTUS Rules 9-0 For Monsanto Against Farmer

Individual Rights have completely evaporated.
Supreme Court Rules For Monsanto In Case Against Farmer
By Mark Memmott Mon May 13, 2013 10:50 am

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that an Indiana farmer infringed on Monsanto's patent when he planted soybeans that had been genetically modified by Monsanto without buying them from the agribusiness giant.

In the decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan, the nine justices ruled that "patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through planting and harvesting without the patent holder's permission."

Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" soybeans can survive sprayings of the nation's most popular weedkiller.
Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court
Published time: May 13, 2013 14:56

The United States Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of biotech giant Monsanto, closing the door on a patent case that has pitted a smalltime farmer from Indiana against a titan of the agriculture industry.

The high court said early Monday that 75-year-old farmer Vernon Bowman of Indiana violated Monsanto’s patent rights when he purchased a mix of seeds from a grain elevator that he later planted on his Midwest farm. That mix included patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds manufactured by Monsanto that are sold under license because they can hold up against their namesake, a nasty pesticide regularly used on farms.

Bowman argued that he could do whatever he wanted with the Roundup Ready seeds since he obtained them rightfully from a grain elevator and the terms of Monsanto’s licensing agreement under the patent did not apply to him. Under Monsanto’s terms, Roundup Ready seeds can only be harvested once and must not be saved or reused.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

oh man, should've refreshed the page first before posting.o)

just saw yours.


but I found some additional WaPo, LATimes, Wiki, and Cornell links, if you want to check them out: ALERT! Corporatism Wins, Again: SCOTUS Unanimously rules in favor of Monsanto, vs an Indiana Farmer!

the case isn't really even about IP in the finality, per-se, it's about a natural right to voluntarily associate and exchange products and services via second hand market.

All of which, is pretty odd, considering the fact that the very same SCOTUS saw fit to side with natural right of voluntary exchange in the 2nd hand market when it came to published books, just a few months ago, in a 6-3 decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtsaeng_v._John_Wiley_%26_So....

Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

SteveMT's picture

You know something. I like your headline better.

Lets go with your story. Great job!

The March Against Monsanto has gone Global!

Mark your calendars: May 25th. To find an event near you:


When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

Shared on Twitter

Thanks for posting this bad news.

It's activists like you and so many others that give me hope Mon-satan can be defeated.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

How did THIS case get to SCOTUS?

Trust me, no one wants Monsatan bankrupted more than me, but this case is so ridiculous it is almost like they LET it get to SCOTUS while preventing the gazillion legitimate claims against Monsanto to be heard. Now any farmer with a gripe about Monsanto will be assumed to be like this one.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I can see where they are

I can see where they are coming from with the way they ruled on it. This is practically the same with software. You cant buy the software and then copy it and sell it.
They looked at this as a narrow issue and I think they got it correct in that regard: that you cant buy something and then copy it for profit. The problem though is that software doesnt spread by itself when the wind catches it and spreads its pollen around.
I think that, however, things are being looked at far too narrowly. They shouldnt rule in their favor if the pollen drifts on to someone elses field, thats like saying you have to charge someone because you splattered paint on them.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

ummm.... yes, he bought them


yes, he bought them from someone else and planted them....but patents apply.