Monsanto may indeed be evil incarnate.
Whether they are or not, there's one poster here who knows what he's talking about in the specific. In the general, Monsanto may be evil, but in the specific, there's a guy here worth listening to. He doesn't seem to have a particular axe to grind, either.
Why not listen to his expertise and then apply that new information to what you already "know"? Perhaps you are still right in the general, but why not add some of these specifics to your total knowledge? Monsanto can still be evil but not be evil in this particular situation that someone is clearly expert is trying to school you about.
This is real life....this has happened. Farmers are being sued all over the nation.
Do you enjoy having only one option for purchasing the things you need? Or would you rather have some competition? Maybe an actual free market?
This is why there isn't a free market.
Monsanto may indeed be evil incarnate.
Whether they are or not, there's one poster here who knows what he's talking about in the specific. In the general, Monsanto may be evil, but in the specific, there's a guy here worth listening to. He doesn't seem to have a particular axe to grind, either.
Why not listen to his expertise and then apply that new information to what you already "know"? Perhaps you are still right in the general, but why not add some of these specifics to your total knowledge? Monsanto can still be evil but not be evil in this particular situation that someone is clearly expert is trying to school you about.
I am not defending Monsanto for being sue happy, it is ridiculous. At the same time many of the cases are just like the one in the OP. Someone looking for a loop hole and just as guilty of abusing the court system, causing even more innocent people to be scrutinized by an already paranoid Monsanto.
Yes, give me another option, what have I been saying. Here is the catch and a majority of the farmers agree, we want GMO.
There are better examples of how Monsanto does not hold the most ethical standards.
Yes, I know that. But in this case, it's about questioning the premise, not the conclusion. Can Monsanto hold a farmer responsible for a wild animal cross-pollinating? t as one can get.
I have an uncle who farms around 2500 acres and just this last year finally gave in and bought round up ready corn. He finally reached a point where he couldn't find enough of the non GMO seed that he needed. Dad gave up and went that route about 6 or 7 years ago.
This was a case study that we were assigned in my earlier college years. I only wish I could remember the names to specifically cite as Monsanto admitted in court that the farmer had not stolen or used his seeds, rather that it was naturally carried into that farmers field. The farmer was trying to counter sue them because he was trying to maintain an organic operation. The farmer lost the case and had to pay Monsanto even though their product ruined his field.
This guy was double cropping beans where he harvested wheat in the summer, two crops in one year, very risky as you can loose the bean crop to a early frost. To minimize his risk and save money he planted bin run beans. Anybody that has experience with a Monsanto tech fee agreement knows that what he did is a no no.
He could have just a easily raised some non GMO beans and planted his own "cheap" seed and avoided this all together. I have no sympathy for him, he took advantage of havering a Roundup ready product without paying for it, which ends up costing all of us who abide buy Monsanto's agreement more money and more legal crap from Monsanto.
I use "Round Up soybeans" for my crop, and do follow the agreement.
I have NO problem with that.
But what if MY soybeans cross pollinate with my neighbor's Non-GMO soybeans?
Then he harvests them, takes them to the elevator to sell them, and they test positive as GMO soybeans.
OR he does like he has in the past and holds back some of his harvest to plant next year's crop.
It's WRONG to penalize him for something he had no control over.
THIS is the issue that isn't being addressed.
His point is that a farmer can have Monsanto patented crap growing in his fields that he did not plant and didn't even know that he had.
And he can then be sued for having it.
I'd love to get a moment alone deep in the woods with someone who works for monsanto.
No, that is not what I am saying at all. You cannot stop nature, corn produces way more pollen then it uses and it will get airborne. If you raise a specialty corn crop like seed corn, non GMO, White corn for tortilla chips, ect. You plant a border to keep contaminate pollen out. It is common sense, buyers of these products demand and expect it.
This border is not wasted, it is usually harvested separate and sold as regular field corn. These practices have been done long before GMO was ever even a thought.
This is real life....this has happened. Farmers are being sued all over the nation.
Do you enjoy having only one option for purchasing the things you need? Or would you rather have some competition? Maybe an actual free market?
This is why there isn't a free market.
I work for a competitor, but I have to say, this is clearly Monsanto's case to win. He looked for a loophole, which is a way to circumvent the law. There are better examples of how Monsanto does not hold the most ethical standards.
Monsanto's frivolous lawsuits and bribery going on throughout the government is the reason you have to deal with this monopoly when you purchase seeds. Oh, and the absolutely absurd patent law that gives them complete ownership of a replicating life form, even once they sell it to someone else.
Once we get rid of all that, a free market can return.
He purchased the seeds, fair and square. He had no contract with Monsanto that covered these particular seeds. They became his property, and he can plant them where he darn well pleases. That isn't a loophole. That is basic property rights.
Oh, and the absolutely absurd patent law that gives them complete ownership of a replicating life form, even once they sell it to someone else.
You are missing the point He replicated and used their patent, it doesn't matter how he obtained it. It is right here read page 12-15
http://www.patents4life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Monsanto-opinion1.pdf
There's that "Free Market" I keep hearing about.Are you sure? Because Bowman's attorney stated that he purchased "outbound grain" it is against state and federal law for a grain elevator to sell seed.He purchased the seeds, fair and square. He had no contract with Monsanto that covered these particular seeds. They became his property, and he can plant them where he darn well pleases. That isn't a loophole. That is basic property rights.
Golly, wondered Roberts, if that theory holds why would any firm risk any investment to develop any new technology?
Walters didn’t hesitate to reply; he should have: “I agree,” he said, “no one would do that….”
And just like that—less than one minute into what would be a 70-minute hearing—the biggest test of Monsanto’s cast iron grip on the global ag seed market crumbled.
The key question was, Did 120-year-old patent law and the intellectual property rights it bestowed on inventors cover subsequent generations of the technology if it replicated like, say, vaccines, software and seeds?
Bowman, through attorney Walters, believed the old laws—under current application—did not offer protection. One-and-done, was their argument.
Monsanto, whose seed patents give the St. Louis-based firm a virtual grip on key food and fiber crops from Indiana to India, thought otherwise.
Subsequent generations of the patented seed, its attorney argued, carry the very item first patented, the germplasm that makes the crop “Roundup Ready.” As such and by extension any—every—generation thereafter would be covered by the initial patent.
The Monsanto view, however, carries a big problem: For that construction to be correct, courts need to “expand” yesterday’s old laws to fit today’s new times. Two federal courts, in Indiana and the Federal District in Washington, D.C., have done just that.
But it’s just not patent expansion, explained Peter Carstensen, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin and co-author of a “friend of the court” brief that favored Bowman’s view; it’s also antitrust issues.
There's that "Free Market" I keep hearing about.
Michael Taylor: VP of Monsanto - Deputy Commissioner of the FDA
Roger Beachy: Director of the Danforth Plant Science Center (paid for by Monsanto) - director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Elena Kagan: Obama Solicitor General (when she famously took Monsanto's side against organic farmers in the Roundup Ready Alfalfa case) - US Supreme Court justice.
Clarence Thomas: General Counsel for Monsanto - US Supreme Court justice.
Margaret Miller: Monsanto supervisor - Deputy Director of Human Food Safety
Donald Rumsfeld: Board of Directors for Monsanto’s Searle Pharmaceuticals - US Secretary of Defense
Ann Veneman: Monsanto Board of Directors - US Secretary of Agriculture
Linda Fisher: Assistant Administrator at the EPA - VP of Monsanto - Deputy Administrator of the EPA
Dr. Michael A.Friedman: Deputy Commisioner of the FDA - Senior VP of Monsanto
You are missing the point He replicated and used their patent, it doesn't matter how he obtained it. It is right here read page 12-15
http://www.patents4life.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Monsanto-opinion1.pdf