Now you're back to your original argument, which is that farmers are morally superior to lawyers because they plow the earth. How can that possibly make sense? There are legal protections that should be enjoyed by farmers but not lawyers?

That was Rayiner's response to you and it seems self-evidently true. We strive towards a rule of law, not a rule of farmers, or a rule of philosopher kings who pick the meritorious occupations and penalize the rest.

Vernon Bowman didn't simply plant Roundup-Ready seeds by accident. He purchased clearly-marked Roundup-Ready seeds at commodity seed prices and then sprayed his fields with glyphosphate-based herbicides to take advantage of it. That isn't Monsanto's contention; Bowman admits to having done it. Maybe he's right and there's a patent exhaustion claim that makes doing that lawful, but it's hard to argue that Monsanto shouldn't have their day in court to verify it.

> but it's hard to argue that Monsanto shouldn't have their day in court to verify it.

No, it's in fact very easy to argue that. And in case you failed to notice that was exactly my point. Farmers work their ground, they've been doing so for many thousands of years.

Intellectual property and farming should be mutually exclusive fields, anybody should be able to grow anything to the best of their ability without the fear of being sued. I know that you disagree with this, that you believe that it is A-ok for big company 'x' to sue farmer 'y' for violation of their intellectual property (assuming for the moment that such a thing exists) but I'd much prefer for things not to be like that. It's an opinion, you can disagree with it but you can't disallow me to have that opinion or 'force me to concede a point' in which I do not believe.

The rule of law should not extend to your ability to grow food from seeds, to royalties paid on such seeds or to any derivative thereof.

Here you restate the moral superiority of farming over IP enforcement, but miss the fact that were your principle made the law of the land, there would be no Roundup-Ready seeds for Bowman to have planted. Again, the facts of this case are that Bowman directly benefited from Monsanto's product.

Incidentally, the rule of law's grip on the seed trade is centuries (millenia?) old. Agriculture is a very big part of the reason we have law to begin with.

> but miss the fact that were your principle made the law of the land, there would be no Roundup-Ready seeds for Bowman to have planted.

Yes, so he would have planted some other seeds instead. Problem solved. See, farmers will pick that which gives them the best yield, not that which holds the nicest bit of IP, their decision processes don't work in terms of royalties or intellectual property. Farmers buy seeds, farmers plant seeds, farmers tend their crops, harvest and then - hopefully, but definitely not always - make a profit.

What seeds they buy is up to the farmer, and if there had been no sign saying 'roundup ready', price 'x' and if the farmer would have not used roundup he'd be just as guilty according to the law since the law revolves around the fact that the seeds were not legally obtained.

This is so patently ridiculous that I find it somewhat disconcerting to see you arguing that that is a desirable situation. If you BUY something, especially something as basic as a seed you should not have to go and research the chain of events that led to those seeds being offered for sale and whether they are unencumbered from a legal point of view.

It's ridiculous.

He didn't just plant the seeds! He used the entire Roundup-Ready system. Monsanto didn't go after him for accidentally ending up with seeds from their lineage.

If he had planted "some other seeds" and then sprayed them with glyphosphates, he'd have ruined his crop. If he had planted Roundup-Ready seeds and not used Roundup, Monsanto probably wouldn't have cared. I've read a bunch of filings for different Roundup cases, and in every one of the ones I've found, it's alleged that the farmers in question not only planted Roundup-Ready seeds, but also used Roundup instead of conventional herbicides.

> He didn't just plant the seeds! He used the entire Roundup-Ready system.

Yes, I know that. I was just trying to make you see that in the eye of the law that would not matter. The seeds are the problem, not the whole process, it all revolves around the seeds.

> If he had planted "some other seeds" and then sprayed them with glyphosphates, he'd have ruined his crop.

Indeed.

> If he had planted Roundup-Ready seeds and not used Roundup, Monsanto probably wouldn't have cared.

Who knows, but it isn't material whether Monsanto 'cares' or doesn't. After all they're claiming IP rights in the seeds, that's the only thing that matters and they could do so in either case. Of course they would be much less likely to bring suit in that case because it would somewhat reduce their chance of winning wouldn't you say?

> I've read a bunch of filings for different Roundup cases, and in every one of the ones I've found, it's alleged that the farmers in question not only planted Roundup-Ready seeds, but also used Roundup instead of conventional herbicides.

Indeed. And so we are left with a very simple case abstract:

Should a farmer be able to grow any seed that he/she buys on the open market?

I believe the answer to that question is 'yes'.

As far as you know, he is permitted to grow any seed he buys. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to see. There are two elements to each of these Monsanto cases:

(i) Unsanctioned planting of Monsanto-lineage seeds

(ii) Use of glyphosphate herbicide on the resulting crop

BOTH elements are present in these cases. Not just one.

> Unsanctioned planting of Monsanto-lineage seeds

You don't see anything weird in that sentence?

What else are people going to do with seeds, other than plant them?

And use whatever herbicide works best with these seeds, it's only best practice after all.

Since when does anybody need permission from some company before they can put a seed in the ground?

What if there is a famine, would you allow that farmer to plant the seeds, or would you happily stand by while justice has its day and these evil seeds are destroyed so that Monsanto's legally granted rights are not infringed on?

Really, the world is turning into a stranger place every day that I live in it.

I don't care how weird that sentence is, because by itself, planting unsanctioned seeds doesn't get you sued.

By all means, use whatever conventional herbicide works best on the resulting crops. Just don't spray them with the patented chemical that would kill any soybean that wasn't covered by Monsanto's patent.

The world hasn't been turned upside-down by novel applications of the law. It's been turned upside-down by massive investments in biotech that have enabled us to create magical crops that thrive despite being sprayed with extremely potent herbicides. Your argument here is an appeal to tradition and it's entirely misplaced.

I see lots of computer people do this when discussing a legal case: break it down into little pieces and then insist that each individual piece isn't a crime. (I mentally call it decomposition but law students might have a better term.) Like there must be exactly one sudden event that snaps the behavior from legal to illegal.

They are right that usually each individual piece isn't a crime. But someone can perform 15 acts, each of which, in total isolation, would be legal, but end up in a significant illegal act. As that someone performs more and more of those acts, they move from legal behavior, to probably legal behavior, probably illegal behavior, to probably illegal behavior but with minuscule damages, to illegal behavior with serious damages.

That chemical is no longer patented.

That changes your argument not one iota.

> Now you're back to your original argument, which is that farmers are morally superior to lawyers because they plow the earth.

I don't see that claim anywhere in the message you replied to. I see a claim that he believes that someone should be able to buy seeds and use whatever herbicides one wants with them without a risk of being sued for IP infringements.

That is not an argument about the moral standing of either farmers or lawyers, but an argument about where he believes one of the restrictions on patents should be drawn.