Monday, May 13, 2013

"Exclusive Right" to a natural product e.g Seeds - Is US SC right or wrong ? If say right, how and why so, if regard be had only / apply the litmus test to be applied / or tested using the touch stone of - socallec "Public Interest" (Cmmon(ers) good) ??

Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'

Indiana farmer must pay agribusiness giant $84,000 for patent infringement

- Jacob Chamberlain, staff writer

Xcerpts (summing up the crux of the entire dispute):

<Ahead of the expected ruling, Debbie Barker, Program Director for Save Our Seeds (SOS), and George Kimbrell, staff attorney for Center for Food Safety (CFS), asked in an op-ed earlier this year, "Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?":
Bowman vs. Monsanto Co. will be decided based on the court's interpretation of a complex web of seed and plant patent law, but the case also reflects something much more basic: Should anyone, or any corporation, control a product of life?
[Monsanto's] logic is troubling to many who point out that it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate. Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.
Bowman had argued that he was respecting his contract with Monsanto, purchasing directly from them each year, but couldn't afford Monsanto's high prices for his riskier late season crops. Bowman's defense argued that Monsanto's patent was "exhausted" through the process of natural seed reproduction and no longer applied to Bowman's second generation seeds.>

Sporadic (thoughts to share):

The issue in dispute, in a nut shell, was, - whether anyone, in particular a coroporate, can claim an "exclusive right", that is- to the exclusion of the rest of the world, to a natural product such as, Seeds . And the ongoing debate is, was the US SC right is answering the issue in the affirmative? If right, how and why so, it could be considered the ‘objective view’ or the ‘better’ view? For an independent insight, one must necessarily have regard only to, - and apply the litmus test or test using the logical touch stone of - so-called larger "public interest" / in simple words, -Common(ers) good) ??

The debate, one thinks, by its very nature, entails mutually confilicting ideologies of  two warring sides; and as such, could only be expected  to remain inconclusive, for so long as a better sense from a profoundly  impartial but assertive mindset comes to the center stage and takes on.

Cross refer (sampling):

< A. Vandana Shiva, an expert on seed patents and their effects on farmers around the world, wrote recently:
Monsanto’s concentrated control over the seed sector in India as well as across the world is very worrying. "This is what connects farmers’ suicides in India to Monsanto vs Percy Schmeiser in Canada, to Monsanto vs Bowman in the US, and to farmers in Brazil suing Monsanto for $2.2 billion for unfair collection of royalty.
Through patents on seed, Monsanto has become the “Life Lord” of our planet, collecting rents for life’s renewal from farmers, the original breeders.>
The point of doubt that instantly arises in common man's mnd is this: - Is it not a matter covered hence to be tackled by the adminiastering authorities under the MRTP Act / the CCI. More info. seems to be available in public domain on this aspect of the matter -here >

Resale Price Maintenance as a Vertical Restraint under the ...
by D SHARMA - 2012 - Related articles
Jun 20, 2012 – part thereof may not be used in any manner, whatsoever, without express permission of the. Competition ... 2.3 Resale Price Maintenance under MRTP Act. 2.4 Shift ... Monsanto Co. v. ... CCI- Competition Commission of India ... The Court recognized that, "taken literally," the ..... actions to enforce the same.

Price Parallelism and Tacit Collusion with respect to practices under ...
by MRA TRIPATHI - 2012 - Related articles
Jan 24, 2012 – personal and do not reflect the view of the Commission in any manner. This report is .... 3.1 MRTP ACT 1969 - OVERVIEW. .... behavior or tacit collusion and concerted action. .... MRTP Act dealt with it under the ... taken into account in deciding the level of any financial penalty. ..... It was in Monsanto Co. v.

Per R. Prasad, Member (Minority) (dated 30.10.2012) - Competition ...

Oct 30, 2012 – Tyre Corporation of India), Premier Tyres Ltd. (taken over by Apollo Tyres ... be completed when the MRTP Act was repealed, under the provisions ... theCCI. In addition to above named five tyre companies, some other ...... (vii) Monsanto co. vs. ..... action, as opposed to private action, no violation of the Act ...

Compulsory Licensing of IPRs and its effect on competition

10 Years of Bt Cotton: False Hype and Failed Promises Cotton ...

an update - Border Measures - Anti-counterfeiting

B. frigate 8 hours ago

Presidential, Congressional and Supreme Court rulings should be subject to recall by popular referendum. Otherwise it is not democracy, but dictatorship or "republic" as Republicans like to call it.

No comments:

Post a Comment