Top EU Court Rules Public Interest Is More Important Than Protection Of Commercial Interests

from the healthy-precedent dept

As Techdirt noted some years back, there has been a steady push to strengthen the protection afforded to trade secrets. Similarly, the argument is often made that transparency must be subordinated to protecting commercial interests, as happened recently in an important struggle over access to information in the EU. It concerned the safety of the chemical glyphosate, widely used as a herbicide, for example in Roundup from Monsanto (now owned by the German chemical giant, Bayer). The EU body responsible for assessing risks associated with the food chain is EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). As part of the process of renewing approval for glyphosate, which was granted in 2017 for five more years, EFSA conducted a review of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of the chemical, drawing on a variety of published and unpublished data. Whether glyphosate increases the risk of cancer is a highly contentious area, with widely differing expert views:

In March 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) working group of experts classified Glyphosate in Group 2A (probable human carcinogens) with strong evidence for a genotoxic mechanism of carcinogenicity. The Joint WHO/FAO Expert Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), which is responsible for assessing the risk of pesticide residues in Food in Codex, originally evaluated Glyphosate in 2004. JMPR did not find evidence for carcinogenicity in humans and assigned an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI).

In 2018, a US court ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to a former school groundkeeper who sued the company after he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which he claimed was caused by his exposure to glyphosate. The award was later reduced to $78 million, still a significant sum.

In the EU, a group of four members of the European Parliament, and another individual, asked separately to see two key industry studies that were used by EFSA in coming to its decision in favor of approval. EFSA refused, because it claimed that disclosure of the information might seriously harm the commercial and financial interests of the companies that had submitted the data, and that there was no overriding public interest justifying disclosure. Those seeking access appealed to one of the EU's highest, but least-known, courts, the General Court of the European Union. Its job is to hear actions taken against the institutions of the EU, as in this case. The court has just issued its judgment (pdf):

an overriding public interest in disclosing the studies is deemed to exist. EFSA could not therefore refuse to disclose them on the ground that that would have an adverse effect on the protection of the commercial interests of the owners of the requested studies.

Potentially, that ruling could have a big impact on future cases where EU institutions seek to prevent information relating to health and the environment being released on the grounds it would allegedly harm commercial interests. It's also a setback for the general idea that business secrets should trump transparency.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: commercial interests, efsa, eu, glyphosate, public interest, roundup, studies, toxicity
Companies: bayer, monsanto

Big Ag Gets Ag-Gag Envy, Helps Bring In 'Seed-Preemption' Laws Across The US

from the local-democracy,-who-needs-it? dept

As multiple Techdirt stories attest, farmers do love their "ag-gag" laws, which effectively make it illegal for activists to expose animal abuse in agricultural establishments -- although, strangely, farmers don't phrase it quite like that. Big Ag -- the giant seed and agricultural chemical companies such as Monsanto, Bayer, and DuPont -- seem to have decided they want something similar for seeds. As an article in Mother Jones, originally published by Food and Environment Reporting Network, reports, it looks like they are getting it:

With little notice, more than two dozen state legislatures have passed "seed-preemption laws" designed to block counties and cities from adopting their own rules on the use of seeds, including bans on GMOs. Opponents say that there's nothing more fundamental than a seed, and that now, in many parts of the country, decisions about what can be grown have been taken out of local control and put solely in the hands of the state.

Supporters of the move claim that a system of local seed rules would be complicated to navigate. That's a fair point, but it's hard to believe Big Ag really cares about farmers that much. Some of the new laws go well beyond seeds:

Language in the Texas version of the bill preempts not only local laws that affect seeds but also local laws that deal with "cultivating plants grown from seed.” In theory, that could extend to almost anything: what kinds of manure or fertilizer can be used, or whether a county can limit irrigation during a drought, says Judith McGeary, executive director of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. Along with other activists, her organization was able to force an amendment to the Texas bill guaranteeing the right to impose local water restrictions. Still, the law's wording remains uncomfortably open to interpretation, she says.

You would have thought that farmers would welcome the ability to shape local agricultural laws according to local needs and local factors like weather, water and soil. But apparently ag-gagging activists to stop them doing the same is much more important.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: ag-gag, cities, farmers, local rights, seed preemption, seeds, states
Companies: bayer, dupont, monsanto

Tanzanian Farmers Face 12 Years In Prison For Selling Seeds As They've Done For Generations

from the why-not-adopt-big-ag's-patented-approach-instead? dept

Seeds might not seem to have much to do with digital technology, but the DNA that lies at their heart is in fact digital information, and thus many of the issues that concern Techdirt also apply here. One of the key battlegrounds for seeds and their ownership is Africa, as we discussed back in 2013. The Belgian site Mondiaal Nieuws has an update on what's happening in one of the poorest African countries, Tanzania. Things aren't looking good there following a change in the relevant law:

"If you buy seeds from Syngenta or Monsanto under the new legislation, they will retain the intellectual property rights. If you save seeds from your first harvest, you can use them only on your own piece of land for non-commercial purposes. You're not allowed to share them with your neighbors or with your sister-in-law in a different village, and you cannot sell them for sure. But that's the entire foundation of the seed system in Africa", says Michael Farrelly [from an organic farming movement in Tanzania].

Under the new law, Tanzanian farmers risk a prison sentence of at least 12 years or a fine of over €205,300 [about $213,000], or both, if they sell seeds that are not certified.

"That's an amount that a Tanzanian farmer cannot even start to imagine. The average wage is still less than 2 US dollars a day", says Janet Maro, head of Sustainable Agriculture Tanzania (SAT).

The article indicates that "certified" in this context means patented. That's obviously a problem for small-scale farmers, since they would be unable to afford to go through the patenting process, even if that were even a realistic option. For multinationals like Syngenta or Monsanto, by contrast, patenting is as natural as breathing, and so the new system will strengthen their hand considerably.

"As a result, the farmers' seed system will collapse, because they can't sell their own seeds", according to Janet Maro. "Multinationals will provide our country with seeds and all the farmers will have to buy them from them. That means that we will lose biodiversity, because it is impossible for them to investigate and patent all the seeds we need. We're going to end up with fewer types of seeds."

Here's why this is all happening:

Tanzania applied the legislation concerning intellectual property rights on seeds as a condition for receiving development assistance through the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition (NAFSN). The NAFSN was launched in 2012 by the G8 with the goal to help 50 million people out of poverty and hunger in the ten African partner countries through a public-private partnership. The initiative receives the support of the EU, the US, the UK, the World Bank and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

What's particularly regrettable here is not just the loss of biodiversity, and the fact that African farmers will be beholden to Western corporations, but that the NAFSN program will achieve the opposite of its stated aims, and end up taking away what little independence Tanzanian farmers enjoyed under the traditional seed system. No wonder, then, that last year Members of the European Parliament called for the NAFSN to "radically alter its mission". Judging by what's happening in Tanzania, there's no sign of that happening.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: farming, jail, patents, seeds, tanzania
Companies: monsanto, syngenta

DailyDirt: GMO, GMO, Wherefore Art Thou, GMO?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Genetically modifying animals and plants is a growing concern -- with some people totally against the idea. And there are now a variety of biotech tools that make defining GMOs a bit less clear-cut for the general public. Taking a gene from a sea animal and putting into a pig sounds extremely unnatural, but does simply removing a gene sound as bad? Or what if farmers used traditional breeding techniques to get to a particular genetic end goal that was discovered by less "natural" genetic experimentation?

• If scientists merely remove genes, not add any new genes, does that qualify as a genetically modified organism? Using CRISPR/Cas9 techniques, a researcher created a button mushroom that doesn't brown after it's cut -- by removing some genetic material to turn off an enzyme -- and the USDA says that's not a GMO mushroom. (However, this decision may change.) [url]
• There are at least a couple engineered genetic "kill switches" for genetically modified microbes. Have researchers not seen/read Jurassic Park? Or Blade Runner? [url]
• Off-patent generic GMO soy beans are starting to enter the market since it's been about 20 years since Monsanto developed them. Out of about 84 million acres of soybeans planted in the US, only a couple thousand or so acres will be seeded with generic Roundup Ready knockoffs. Monsanto has a Roundup Ready 2 variant that's still under patent protection (as well as another version still pending approval), so don't worry about not being able to buy the authentic stuff. [url]

After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: biotech, crispr, genetically modified organism, gmo, jurassic park, kill switch, roundup ready
Companies: monsanto

Monsanto And Syngenta About To Receive Dozens Of Patents On Unpatentable Plants

from the literally-above-the-law dept

Last month we wrote about the strange case of unpatentable plants becoming patentable in Europe thanks to a decision from the European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal. That cleared the way for companies to obtain such patents, and according to this post on the "no patents on seeds" site -- I think you can probably work out where its biases lie -- that's about to happen:

the European Patent Office (EPO) is about to grant 30 patents on plants derived from conventional breeding to Monsanto and its affiliated companies. The Swiss company Syngenta can expect to receive around a dozen patents very soon. Many of the patents claim vegetables such as tomatoes, peppers, cauliflower, carrots and lettuce.

Leaving aside the important question of whether it should be possible to obtain patents on plants, there are some other issues. For example, Monsanto is currently trying to acquire Syngenta. Although its initial offer of $45 billion was turned down, the view seems to be that Monsanto will go higher because it needs Syngenta's broad portfolio of products to address the growing concerns over glyphosate, which lies at the heart of much of its range. According to a recent report, Monsanto is willing to divest itself of all of Syngenta's "seeds and genetic traits businesses as well as some overlapping chemistry assets to win regulatory approval", but it's not clear whether that would include patents on plants. If it didn't, all of the imminent plant patents mentioned above might end up with Monsanto, which would represent a dangerous concentration of power in this important new area.

The more serious problem concerns the EPO. The decision to extend patentability to plants was taken by the EPO's Enlarged Board of Appeal, which should raise conflict of interest concerns, since the EPO is funded by patent fees. That wouldn't be a serious problem if there were a higher court to which appeals could be made. But as the EPO told Intellectual Property Watch:

Decisions made by the Enlarged Board of Appeal cannot be challenged before another judiciary.

One body that does have the power to revise EPO decisions is the Administrative Council of the EPO, but it is made up largely of senior patent officials from the 40 or so member states of the EPO, and so it is naturally pro-patent and thus unlikely to interfere with extensions to patentability. In fact, there is no democratically-elected body at all that could force the EPO to change its policy on anything. Worse, the EPO is literally above national laws, since its offices enjoy diplomatic immunity of the kind given to embassies. As Wikipedia explains it:

The premises of the European Patent Office enjoy a form of extraterritoriality. In accordance with the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities, which forms an integral part of the European Patent Convention under Article 164(1) EPC, the premises of the European Patent Organisation, and therefore those of the European Patent Office, are inviolable. The authorities of the States in which the Organisation has its premises are not authorized to enter those premises, except with the consent of the President of the European Patent Office.

While that's the case -- and there's very little prospect of it changing in the short-term -- extensions of patentability to non-patentable matter are not just likely to happen, but will be well-nigh impossible to reverse.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: eu, patents, plants
Companies: monsanto, syngenta

Guatemala Resists 'Monsanto Law' Required As Part Of Trade Agreement With US

from the saving-seed-sovereignty dept

One of the less well-known projects of the West is to convince developing countries that they need to convert traditional approaches to agriculture, which have functioned well for hundreds of years, into a system of intellectual monopolies for seeds -- the implicit and patronizing message being that this is the "modern" way to do things. Last year we wrote about how this was happening in Africa, and an article on bilaterals.org reports on similar moves in Guatemala:

On 10 June, the Congress of Guatemala approved Decree 19-2014 or the "Law for the Protection of New Plant Varieties" which led to an outpouring of criticism from various sectors of civil society.

This law, published on 26 June, protects the intellectual property of plant breeders deemed to have "created" or "discovered" new plant varieties, or genetically modified existing ones.

This way, the beneficiaries of the law -- "breeders", which are typically companies producing transgenic seeds like the transnational corporation Monsanto -- obtain property rights over the use of such varieties, in the form of plants or seeds.

Here's how that is likely to impact Guatemalan farmers:

In a publication, the Rural Studies Collective (Cer-Ixim) warned about the consequences of this "Monsanto Law".

They explained that under this law the possession or exchange of seeds of protected varieties without the breeder's authorisation will be illegal and punishable by imprisonment.

It will also be illegal, and punishable by prison, to posses the harvest from such seeds or to save them for future plantings.

According to the law, the breeder's right extends to "varieties essentially derived from the protected variety." In this sense, a hybrid produced from a protected variety crossed with an unprotected variety would automatically belong to the breeder of the patented variety.

The law thus promotes privatisation and monopolies over seeds, endangering food sovereignty, especially that of indigenous peoples, said Cer-Ixim. It also warned that Guatemala's biodiversity will fall "under the control of domestic and foreign companies."

The new law was brought in as part of the process of complying with the 2005 CAFTA-DR free trade agreement between Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and the US. Under its terms, signatories are obliged to sign up to the International Convention for the Protection of New Plant Varieties -- exactly the same one that was being foisted on Africa last year. However, as bilaterals.org reports, despite that obligation, there is mounting resistance to handing over the country's seed sovereignty in this way:

The growing opposition to the "Monsanto Law" comes from diverse sectors of civil society such as indigenous organisations, environmental groups, scientists, artists and members of Congress.

...

Artists and television celebrities have joined an online signature campaign to reject the law.

Their petition is addressed to the President, Otto Perez Molina, via the Avaaz website, and argues that the law is unconstitutional.

"This law violates articles of the Constitution relating to the Protection of Individuals, Cultural Identity, Natural Heritage, Right to Health, the principles of the Economic and Social Regime, in addition to the obligation of the state to protect consumers," the petition states.

Just recently, the Constitutional Court, Guatemala's highest legal body, provisionally suspended the entry into force of the law, giving 15 days for the various parties to to present their arguments. Despite the broad-based support for repealing or modifying the law, it is not clear what options the government has. After all, passing the law is a requirement of CAFTA-DR, and if Guatemala refuses to comply, we can expect the US to apply considerable pressure to encourage it to toe the line. Ultimately, the US can refuse to bring into force the agreement; given the presence of corporate sovereignty (pdf) and other onerous provisions in CAFTA-DR, maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing for the people of Guatemala.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: agriculture, cafta, guatemala, intellectual property, monopolies, monsanto law, plants, seeds, trade agreements
Companies: monsanto

Bracket Watch: EA Upset Early, Comcast Beats Monsanto For 'Worst Company' Award

from the cinderella-story dept

It's the time of year, when victories are had or not, dreams are realized or dashed along the playing surface, and champions are either born or unseated. Being from Chicago, I've been through this before. I've seen my heroes fall and experienced the heartbreak of having victory snatched from my guys in heartbreaking fashion. Still, even with that experience, it never gets easier.

Which is why we should all be standing up and doing a slow-clap for Electronic Arts, whose "Worst Company" championship string has finally come to an end. And it's all thanks to Comcast, who narrowly defeated cartoonishly evil megacorporation Monsanto in the final showdown. The road to not-glory, however, was not without its controversy.

Comcast’s road to the Poo started out without a speedbump, as the company powered through the first three rounds without ever giving up more than 30% of the vote. And with two-time reigning champ EA eliminated in Round One by Comcast’s merger partner Time Warner Cable, followed by three-time consecutive runner-up Bank of America’s surprise defeat at the hands of Walmart, Comcast seemed destined for the Final Death Match.

But the nation’s largest cable and Internet provider (which is trying to become even larger), almost got stopped in its track by first-time contender SeaWorld, riding high on waves of negative publicity tied to the documentary Blackfish. Comcast pulled off a buzzer-beater to hold off SeaWorld and earn its place in the Final Death Match. From the onset of the day-long bout, lawsuit-lovin’, herbicide-makin’ Monsanto was within striking distance of the Philly Kid, but Comcast gained a hair-thin edge early on and never ceded the lead.

It's been a good run for EA these past two years, in which they deftly ran the treat-customers-like-criminals offense and the delete-yo-crap defense. That kind of strategy led to their distinction for being the only two-time winning and repeat "Worst Company" champion. But if Michael Jordan retired (multiple times), Muhammed Ali fell, and the Lakers turned into whatever you call whatever they are now, then it was only a matter of time before a new, more youthfully horrible champion arose to unseat EA. And that example of awful is Comcast, who appears to think that Mr. Potter from It's A Wondeful Life was a template for how to do things.

And, just so we're all clear here, they beat Monsanto, a company that is attempting to put a corporate and IP stranglehold on food. Food. You know, that thing you need every day in order to live. That means that if you sat the average voter down and asked them which was worse, a big company getting bigger so they can control how you get your television, or the same scenario but with the thing that lets you live, people will choose the former.

I'm not sure that makes a whole lot of sense, but I'll refrain from taking away any of Comcast's glory today. Congrats, you terrible congress-bribing megalith you!

Filed Under: worst company
Companies: comcast, ea, monsanto

Will Monsanto Become The NSA Of Agriculture?

from the big-ag,-big-data dept

Monsanto is best-known for its controversial use of genetically-modified organisms, and less well-known for being involved in the story of the defoliant Agent Orange (the company's long and involved story is well told in the book and film "The World According to Monsanto", by Marie-Monique Robin.) Its shadow also looms large over the current TPP talks: the USTR's Chief Agricultural Negotiator is Islam A. Siddiqui, a former lobbyist for Monsanto. But it would seem that the company is starting to explore new fields, so to speak; as Salon reports in a fascinating and important post, Monsanto is going digital:

Monsanto spent close to $1 billion to buy the Climate Corporation, a data analytics firm. Last year the chemical and seed company also bought Precision Planting, another high-tech firm, and also launched a venture capital arm geared to fund tech start-ups.

Here's the key shift that is behind that move:

Many farmers have been collecting digitized yield data on their operations since the 1990s, when high-tech farm tools first emerged. But that information would sit on a tractor or monitor until the farmer manually transferred it to his computer, or handed a USB stick to an agronomist to analyze. Now, however, smart devices can wirelessly transfer data straight to a corporation’s servers, sometimes without a farmer's knowledge.

Data that in isolation is of limited use suddenly becomes highly valuable when aggregated. Here, for example, are some of the ways that companies like Monsanto might use their new stores of knowledge:

details on the economic worth of a farm operation could empower Monsanto or DuPont to calculate the exact value the farm derives from its products. Monsanto already varies its prices by region, so that Illinois farmers with a bumper crop might be charged more for seeds than Texas farmers facing a drought. Bigger heaps of data would enable these companies to price discriminate more finely, not just among different geographic regions but between neighbors.

Another possibility is the following:

Real-time data is highly valuable to investors and financial traders, who bet billions of dollars in wheat, soybean and corn futures. In a market where the slightest informational edge makes the difference between huge profits and even bigger losses, corporations that gather big data will have a ready customer base if they choose to sell their knowledge. Or they could just use it to speculate themselves.

Finally, there's this:

Another issue is how the value of this information will be determined, and the profits divided. The prescription services Monsanto and DuPont are offering will draw on the vast amounts of data they amass from thousands of individual farms. Farmers consider much of this information -- such as on soil fertility and crop yields -- confidential, and most view details about particular farming techniques as akin to personal "trade secrets." Even if the corporations agree not to disclose farm-specific information, some farmers worry that the information may end up being used against them in ways that dull their particular competitive edge.

The parallels with Facebook, Google and other online services that make money from collecting and analysing personal data, are clear. By pooling huge quantities of previously secret data, companies gain a privileged position with unique insights into what farmers are doing. As well as enabling them to track exactly what the latter are up to on a 24-by-7, field-by-field basis, it also allows these aggregators of agricultural data to see the bigger picture in terms of the relationships between different farms. In other words, the race seems to be on to become the NSA of agriculture, with Monsanto already emerging as the likely winner.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+

Filed Under: data, farming, privacy, surveillance
Companies: monsanto

Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing

from the this-is-the-world-we-live-in dept

We've written a few times now about Vernan Bowman's legal fight against Monsanto, concerning patents over so-called "Roundup Ready" seeds, which Monsanto has patented. Here's the quick version of the details from an earlier post:

The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).

Note the key things here. Bowman did not break any license agreement over seeds that he bought. He also legally purchased other seeds that had been legally provided to grain elevators to be sold. All he did was plant those legally purchased seeds, for which he was not violating any license agreement, and then harvest and replant the seeds that came from them. And this, apparently, is illegal under our patent system.

Given the fire power that came out in support of Monsanto -- including the federal government -- it shouldn't come as a huge surprise that the Supreme Court just gave a complete and total victory to Monsanto. The key issue was whether or not this was a case of "patent exhaustion." There was a key case a few years ago that mostly said that once a patent holder sells a product, the patent is "exhausted" so that the patent holder can't demand licensing fees up and down the supply chain. However, they distinguish this case by saying that this is different because it's a "copy" of the legally purchased seed. I could see how that would make sense if we were talking about someone building a copy of a machine in a garage or something, but this is a seed. Copying itself is what seeds do. That's kind of their entire purpose.

Yet, throughout the decision, the court (with a decision written by Justice Kagan) acts as if Bowman just built a replica. But that ignores the fact that this is nature we're talking about seeds that replicate themselves naturally, because that's what seeds do. The court has no problem with this, but it seems somewhat ridiculous that someone can legally buy something, have it do what it naturally does (and has done for nearly all of history) and then be told that violates a patent. When addressing Bowman's point concerning the fact that seeds by nature, replicate themselves, they basically brush that aside by noting that Bowman then harvested them. As if he's supposed to ignore what's happening?

But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained... Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium.

The decision keeps restating the myth that patent holders wouldn't innovate if they weren't blocked from any and all competition.

That is because, once again, if simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention. The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years (as the Patent Act promises), but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted. Hence our repeated insistence that exhaustion applies only to the particular item sold, and not to reproductions.

That's a pretty bold statement, and one not supported by any evidence. There are plenty of reasons to innovate that have little to do with patents, and competition in the marketplace is a big one. The process Bowman used above may have created some competition for Monsanto, but hardly in a way that destroyed the value of the patent. Monsanto was still first to market and still could control various uses via licensing agreements. Furthermore, the process that Bowman went through was inexact and required a few years of harvests.

The one thing that the ruling does say, however, is that no one should take this ruling to apply to other self-replicating products, such as technology:

Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose. ... (“[I]t is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make . . . another copy or adaptation of that computer program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program”). We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances.

While it's good that they acknowledge this, you can bet that this case will be cited heavily when the same issue comes up in court concerning self-replicating software and hardware...

Filed Under: patent exhaustion, patents, seed patents, seeds, self-replicating, supreme court, vernan bowman
Companies: monsanto

Africa's Ancient Plant Diversity And Seed Independence Under Threat, Supposedly In The Name Of Progress

from the it's-a-trick dept

As Africa continues to develop rapidly, Western countries and companies are increasingly interested in bringing it into existing international legal and commercial frameworks, but always on terms that maintain their dominance. One way of doing that is through intellectual monopolies: last year we wrote about proposals for a Pan-Africa Intellectual Property Organization (PAIPO), whose benefits for Africa seem dubious. Meanwhile, here's another plan that is being presented as a vital part of Africa's modernization process, and yet oddly enough seems to benefit giant Western companies most, as AllAfrica reports:

the proposal is to create a harmonised system of control around the presently fragmented African seed trade regime and create a system based on what is projected as modern best practice.

This includes uniform adherence to the strict 1991 Act of the International Union for the Protection of Plant Varieties (UPOV), across the board, for Africa. Because of the stringency of UPOV, the real impact of this will be the loss of control of the seed supply by indigenous small farmers. The consequences for food production and social cohesion across the continent will be dire.

The fear is that changes to how seeds are regulated will have major knock-on effects on African societies:

Once locally adapted seed varieties are lost, dependence on outside seed suppliers will rapidly become unaffordable. The implications will reverberate far beyond food production.

Indebted farmers are at direct risk of losing land tenure. On the one hand this causes accelerating urbanisation and social dislocation. On the other, good agricultural land is appropriated by large conglomerates. There is already a massive thrust by nations and corporations to gain land tenure in fertile tropical African agricultural zones.

It's well worth reading the rest of the article, which explores the continuing consolidation in the African seed industry, and how global giants like Monsanto hope to avoid some of the resistance they have experienced elsewhere in the developing world -- for example, in Brazil, discussed in Techdirt last year. As the AllAfrica article concludes:

If there was ever a time for the vocal proponents for African unity and values to step forward, it is now. Should they fail, African leadership will be harshly judged for enabling the next phase of neo-colonialism to unfold unopposed.

Unfortunately, given that PAIPO seems to be going ahead, despite major concerns about its lack of balance and transparency, the chances of the requisite African unity being achieved in order to stave off this latest attempt by the West to disadvantage the continent by locking it into inappropriate international structures look poor at the moment.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: africa, paipo
Companies: monsanto