PepsiCo Takes Back All Cases Against Potato Farmers For Growing Lay's Potato After Backlash
The sorry state of Indian judiciary.
The sorry state of Indian judiciary.
Indian Economy : News,Discussions & Updates
- Thread starter Butter Chicken
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
While a lot will be said and needs to be about the judiciary, I don't see how this is to be pinned on the judiciary.
Last edited:
The Sorry state of Affairs of Corporates who using bulling & financial power against poor uneducated farmers, PepsiCo used Section 39 of IPR to file a case against poor farmers who aren't even aware of their rights
Legally -- Section 39 of same Act, which also specifically says that a farmer is allowed “to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act” so long as he does not sell “branded seed”.
The IPR laws are so explicit PepsiCo had no chance, they were only pursuing arm twisting tactics, thinking its beyond means of individual farmer to go against the rich lawyers team of Pepsico.
Incase need more clarity on this matter watch this report - which explains the rights of farmers & PepsiCo has no claim what so ever as per IPR rules. Hear it till the end
Please provide relevant Act with proper name, I assume you know it by now as you are posting about it again and again. Let us also read that section 39 you are claiming.
Also quoting RT video for American company that clearly in the beginning presented as "evil American corporate" and shows statement of lawyers of Farmers is really not defence. Even Nirbhayas rapists lawyer tried to save them, if I start quoting them as proof of how girl was at fault in a news report of some Pakistani news channel I'll be making a mockery of argument.
Eitherway Name of Act of that section 39 you are quoting, international agreements, TRIPS and other protection will come later and let's see where your Act stands in respect to these.
I think you are quoting this act Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, 2001.
Good thing is came after TRIPS and not some old isolated act, so we are on same page. Attached the act PDF with this post and Section 39 did match to what you have posted. However how much you have misinterpreted, misconstrued and misused is baffling, I suggest you read it again and again before making a long colourful post misinterpreting again.
BTW the farmers were seeking remedy under section 42. Section 42 is Protection of Innocent Infringement which should tell you the actual state of affairs beyond TV rhetoric. They accepted they violated the IPR rules but they were not aware and hence not to be prosecuted for violation.
Rest of what you hear, even in The Hindu article is usual democracy in danger type BS. Telling you from legal point of view. If it was not PR blunder PepsiCo was very strong legally and onus was on farmers to prove if they were using section 42.
You can tell us how farmers are in danger from corporates.
But since you are interested in the actual Law, It comes under Section 39 in The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
"39. Farmers’ right.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,—
(i) a farmer who has bred or developed a new variety shall be entitled for registration and other protection in like manner as a breeder of a variety under this Act;
(ii) the farmers’ variety shall be entitled for registration if the application contains declarations as specified in clause (h) of sub-section (1) of section 18;
(iii) a farmer who is engaged in the conservation of genetic resources of land races and wild relatives of economic plants and their improvement through selection and preservation shall be entitled in the prescribed manner for recognition and reward from the Gene Fund: Provided that material so selected and preserved has been used as donors of genes in varieties registrable under this Act;
(iv) a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act: Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (iv), “branded seed” means any seed put in a package or any other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act.
(2) Where any propagating material of a variety registered under this Act has been sold to a farmer or a group of farmers or any organisation of farmers, the breeder of such variety shall disclose to the farmer or the group of farmers or the organisation of farmers, as the case may be, the expected performance under given conditions, and if such propagating material fails to provide such performance under such given conditions, the farmer or the group of farmers or the organisation of farmers, as the case may be, may claim compensation in the prescribed manner before the Authority and the Authority, after giving notice to the breeder of the variety and after providing him an opportunity to file opposition in the prescribed manner and after hearing the parties, it may direct the breeder of the variety to pay such compensation as it deems fit, to the farmer or the group of farmers or the organisation of farmers, as the case may be."
You can the details from - Section 39 in The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001
Or any LAW book which is based on "
The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001"
NOTE Farmer can grow any protected plant & sell his product too, it is in there rights
Read that section again, my post and then your own post and that RT video and other articles on this matter where farmers actual defence in court was quoted not rhetoric.
Maybe this
Maybe this
Will clear why farmers are using section 42, they were not in contract with PepsiCo, they bought the seeds from other farmers in contract and now not disclosing it as it will risk others to be in breach of contract therefore section 42.
Incorrect farmers can buy & sell even Branded seed, the law makes a distinction, did they buy packed branded seed or bought/exchanged seed from other farmer, which is allowed.
save, resow, exchange, including seed of a variety protected under this Act
Since they had bought seeds from other farmers, in unbranded format, they are legally able.
They can, provided they have not surrendered this right in contract with PepsiCo (not talking about these 4 as they were not in contract) in exchange for fair price and assured purchase.
First get this contract annulled. Right to life and personal liberty is granted in Article 21 of constitution, fundamental right that can be remedied by both High Court of judicature and highest court in land (Supreme Court), this may tempt alot of people to skip the work and still claim salary but can they? NO, as they entered in contract with their employer and are now obligated to perform as per terms of contract and not personal whims. Anyway this will go in other direction, you get the point.
Even though India is origin of Basmati rice & 100 of varieties are grown here for 1000's of years. A American company holds the patent for Basmati. Similarly whenever I had a accident as a kid my parents used to gave Turmeric powder mixed with milk or honey to take care of Internal wounds. India for centuries knew the healing power of Turmeric, yet a American company holds the patent for healing properties of Turmeric powder. Tomorrow someone can patent the process, by which plants produce oxygen.
These laws were meant to give farmers & society a fair chance against corporates patenting everything
These laws were meant to give farmers & society a fair chance against corporates patenting everything
Hahaha this is epic, as per you brand or patent is decided by the packing and cover and not by content? Seriously? Go back to original purpose of this act, you will understand why it was made. Content is what patented, packaging is merely informing people about the content, just because you remove the wrapper doesn't make it unbranded if the content is branded.
This is different topic. I can write long essays about plight of farmers and how world is unfair but it still won't change the legal status of that case.
Please do read the law - the definition of Branded - you have used many strong words like "However how much you have misinterpreted, misconstrued and misused is baffling" but I wont
a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act: Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act. Explanation.—
For the purposes of clause (iv), “branded seed” means any seed put in a package or any other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act.
That's the whole purpose of packaging, to indicate the content inside, the seed inside is
Protected under this act. This is also explains why they used section 42 where they can claim they didn't knew what kind of seed was it therefore "innocent violation".
I don't undertand whats the confusion, you have in this matter
What the law states is farmer can sell/buy even seed of branded variety, as long as its not labelled packed etc
Notice the distinction, where in same paragraph of Sec 39 iv, it states farmer can sell/buy protected seed & they cannot sell seed in branded format
We should also do the same. Go offensive. Defend the farmers, and patent basic things Americans use. Also we should push IPR for traditional knowledges like Avyurveda, Yoga, metallurgy, food sciences, Vedas, Vedic Mathematics, etc.
Confusion is in interpretation of what you call branded and if packaging is essential along with registered variety to be called as branded. I wish it was pursued by PepsiCo, farmers may have gone free claiming innocence under section 42 and would have stopped them from using it in future but some clear directions would have been issued, clarifying it all. Anyway here is another article explaining history and about this act which is leaning to what I said. Doesn't matter since it was not pursued
Plant varieties and farmers’ rights: a balancing act - Lexology
Multiple news articles you can get that the farmers were not aware of the rights - hence they reverted by Sec 42 "Innocent violations."
There is no confusing against interpretations - law is not ambiguous, it is very well defined.
"a farmer shall be deemed to be entitled to save, use, sow, resow, exchange, share or sell his farm produce including seed of a variety protected under this Act in the same manner as he was entitled before the coming into force of this Act: Provided that the farmer shall not be entitled to sell branded seed of a variety protected under this Act. Explanation.—For the purposes of clause (iv), “branded seed” means any seed put in a package or any other container and labelled in a manner indicating that such seed is of a variety protected under this Act"
Was the farmers selling seed in Branded format - Answer NO.
In all other activity, are allowed by law, farmer was within his legal rights & can even sell the production, resow, exchange etc
Here the farmers had only Sowed & sell farm produce.
Last edited:
Were you party to the transaction? How can you be so sure about it? Farmers haven't claimed anything like the, have they?
The sellers definitely got packaged seeds and no it's not "clear" that you can remove a packaging and claim it to be unbranded even when it is registered and protected under the act. For all I know you will still be in violation.
This was their only way out, you(not you in particular) can claim whatever you want later, they have group of lawyers and NGO's, TV and news and still they plead relief under section 42 because their lawyer wasn't aware of rights? Yeah, very believable.