3 ms·
That's why I said probably. I just know Monsanto is famous for their "copyright" seeds that are genetically modified and you're not allowed to keep the next gen
by audiodude 4y ago
That's why I said probably. I just know Monsanto is famous for their "copyright" seeds that are genetically modified and you're not allowed to keep the next generation of seeds.
- pfdietz 4y agoThey're famous for lots of bullshit they didn't actually do. It's part of the demonization process. In this case, Monsanto never sold "terminator" seeds. They (and many others) sold hybrid seeds, which don't breed true, and so are functionally equivalent to that. Hybrid seeds have been around since the 1930s, if not earlier. In any case, they can get the same effect by contract. You were not allowed to replant Roundup Ready soybeans, and they sued (and won against) farmers who broke the contract to do that.
- ncmncm 4y agoThey even won against farmers who signed no contract.
- pfdietz 4y agoThey won against a farmer who deliberately sprayed a field with herbicide to concentrate traces of the herbicide resistance gene that had drifted in. This was properly ruled to be deliberate violation of the patent. Nothing wrong with this.
- ncmncm 4y agoExcept the notion of patenting genes that infect natural seeds farmers must plant for next year's crop. If the courts cannot see the distinction between farmers and plants violating patents, then the Congress may amend the law to oblige them to see it.
- AlbertCory 4y agoThanks, that did have the odor of the urban rumor that someone "read this somewhere on the internet" and is now repeating one more time. Although he did admit his lack of sourcing.