4 ms·
>Sues companies for replanting seeds then using taking advantage of the fact and treat their jobs with the corresponding pesticide. From that very article: the
by lordCarbonFiber 11y ago
>Sues companies for replanting seeds then using taking advantage of the fact and treat their jobs with the corresponding pesticide.
From that very article: the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop.
Say what you want about the business practices, your example of a company legally enforcing their licensing agreements is probably not the best if you're trying to demonstrate "evil".
- sgift 11y agoThis assumes he bases his judgement of Monsanto on the judges decision, which he can, but doesn't have to do.
- pdabbadabba 11y agoOf course he doesn't have to. But the judge's decision does seem to be the most reliable source of information available about what actually happened, factually, in the case. One would think a reasonable person would find it at least relevant. One does not normally start spraying ones crops with RoundUp. This, as they say, kills the crop. That the farmer did so and just happened to wind up with a large population of RoundUp Ready plants clearly suggests that the farmer was breeding them selectively to get the Monsanto patented plants for free, not just that they "happened" to be there and reproduce.