Hi TC Sustainers: This is a reply to the "not so small" shout out for justice and perhaps even a little victory against Monsanto and corporate monopolies from Hope Shand of ETC. Jon and Karl have been cc'd to this response but thought others on this list might be interested in seeing Hope's response to the obviously sharp points that Jon raised. best Tony Del Plato
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Hope Shand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: May 6, 2007 5:55 PM Subject: Re: Loss of Monsanto's Soy Patents a Pyrrhic Victory? To: Tony Del Plato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], Beth Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Tony and All, Thanks for writing. You raise some good questions. Here's my response that I'll be sending to GEAN list. (I have to do it from my other email program.) Best, Hope 6 May 2007 This is a note to respond to Tony Del Plato's message, posted on the GEAN listserve. He asks: "Loss of Monsanto's Soy Patents a Pyrrhic Victory?" He's refering to 3 May decision by the European Patent Office – a final ruling - to revoke Monsanto's soybean patent (See the full text of Tony's message below.) ETC Group has made its position on this case clear: The really important lesson from this 13-year legal battle is that the patent system is broken and hopelessly incompetent. It took 9 years for the EPO to schedule its first opposition hearing on the patent, it took 4 more years for us to win on appeal. Is it merely a pyrrhic victory? I'd say it's quite significant that one of Monsanto's biggest, baddest and broadest patents has been shot down. We're talking about the world's largest seed and agbiotech corporation, after all. We undertook the patent challenge in 1994 because it was unprecedented in scope. Not just a claim to all genetically modified soybeans, not just GM soybeans engineered with a gene gun, but all GM soybeans regardless of how they were engineered, no matter what genes were employed. The patent's claims also extended beyond soybeans to other plants - but that claim was knocked down by EPO in 2003. ETC Group spent what seems to us like a small fortune fighting this patent (about $40,000). We usually don't engage in legal battles - it's not our style and not the way we like to use our limited resources. But we couldn't allow the patent to stand, the precedent was simply too dangerous. Do we think it's a good idea to engage in a long-term legal strategy to slap down bad patents, one-by-one? Absolutely not. Yes, it's outrageous that it took 13 years to defeat this patent, which was due to expire in little over a year - but that doesn't mean the ruling has no effect on Monsanto's patent portfolio or those of other Gene Giants. The EPO ruling establishes new case law that will affect any company's similarly broad claims on plants and seeds. You are quite right that the patent was overturned on technical grounds, but we have always used this case as a vehicle to raise awareness and action on biopiracy and the immorality of the patent system. (The same way we put the spotlight on dozens of other bad patents - such as the Enola bean patent or Syngenta's multi-genome rice monopoly, for example.) see www.etcgroup.orgfor details To conclude, this was by no means a fatal blow to Monsanto - that's for sure. But taken together with lots of other acts of resistance - big and small - all over the globe, it's a successful challenge to runaway corporate monopoly. It's not every day that you can say you beat Monsanto! So let's not get depressed, let's keep on resisting -- and appreciate victories (however small or big) when we can. Hope Shand For ETC Group ******************************* On May 5, 2007, at 10:59 AM, Tony Del Plato wrote: Dear GEANies: After posting the recent announcement about Monsanto having lost their patent on soy on a local list, the Tompkins County Sustainability Group, I received a number of responses that not only helped me to temper my enthusiasm, but was downright depressing. Below follows the challenge to the idea that a victory or any cause for celebration over the patent ruling is warranted: + The patent was revoked because "parts of the patent were not really new & other details were not described in a way that the invention could be really repeatedby other experts." There's nothing in that to indicate a shift on any of the basic issues relating to "patents on life." + The patent would have expired in another year *anyway.* + No crack was created in Monsanto's armor. + While most struggles are won by a series of small steps, this was not one of those steps. The effect of the ruling on the remainder of Monsanto's patent portfolio is nothing. + This was unlike the case where WR Grace lost it's patent on products from the neem tree, again in Europe, years after it attempted to appropriate the source of ingredients used by peoples of India to make medicines & cosmetics. Sure, but this was not such an occasion. Look at the scoreboard again: Monsanto: 13 out of 14 possible years of gains from the soy patent. ETC Group: 13 years of legal fees down the drain without establishing any useful precedent. + Sure, it's great that an odious patent was overturned in Europe. What did Monsanto want out of all this? Fourteen years of patent protection and nothing that would threaten their other patents. What did Monsanto get? Thirteen years of patent protection and nothing that would threaten their other patents. Side benefit: In return for spending a minuscule proportion of their profits on legal fees, Monsanto got to tie up the legal resources of its opponents and bleed them dry for thirteen years. That's not a defeat for Monsanto. That's a victory for Monsanto. + It's to be expected that ETC Group would try to put the best spin they could on this, but even they had to admit "little joy in foiling soy ploy at this late date." If something had come out of all this that would threaten the status of "patents on life," then the effort would have been worth the trouble. But that's not what actually happened. + This was a Pyrrhic victory, and Monsanto cried all the way to the bank. So, what can we say except we're again on the defensive and reacting to situations and events in the struggle with global capital on food and energy policies. Tony Del Plato Ithaca, NY -- To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer. -- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week. - Evan Esar -- To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer. -- Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week. - Evan Esar _______________________________________________ RSS, archives, subscription & listserv information for: [email protected] http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainabletompkins free hosting by http://www.mutualaid.org
