6 ms·

I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the case (

by skosuri 14y ago

I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the case (which I believe does not exist). You showed me a news article. Otherwise this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies and is suing Monsanto, and is not really an unbiased source (just like I don't link directly to Monsanto's website on the Runyons.)

jaysonelliot 14y ago
I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) does not exist" and "this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies" show bias, and tell me that you're unlikely to accept anything short of a full and frank confession from Monsanto that they have aggressively sued innocent farmers. What do you call a company that pursues cases like the one cited in the CBS News article about Mo Parr? 74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent. "There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready." The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him. "It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning," I won't make any further arguments about this, because I'm not trying to change your mind if its already made up.
- vecinu 14y ago
  I don't necessarily agree with your stance because you still haven't materialized official court cases dealing with this issue. I would like to see a case where Monsanto was sued for seed contamination and the farmer won the case.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Why is them winning important? EDIT: Sorry, read that as "where Monsanto sued and won the case" I expect you won't find many cases where Monsanto was sued and lost, since they would be extremely inclined to settle and it would be hard for a farmer to turn down the sort of money that Monsanto has available to it.
    - chc 14y ago
      Well, it makes sense. A suit just means you claimed something; winning means you were right in somebody's eyes.
    - planetguy 14y ago
      Because if Monsanto wins then the farmer is guilty, and I'm not interested in condemning Monsanto for suing in cases where they've actually been legally wronged. (If you wanna debate whether the law should be different then that's another argument.)
    - DrJ 14y ago
      it sets a legal precedent. This is why companies love to settle out of court and to not admit any wrong doings. This is how finance companies are investigated by the SEC, pays a settlement, declares nothing wrong was done and continues on with the practice that got them investigated in the first place.
    - JamisonM 14y ago
      I think winning is considered important because of the mistaken presumption that this has some bearing on how Monsanto is conducting itself or the guilt or innocence of the farmers involved. The unfortunate truth is that Monsanto will probably never lose such a case, they will settle or drop a case that they think they have any chance of losing. The legal system in most of the world is such that just threats and intimidation is enough to "win" because of the costs and damage just having a suit drag on will bring a favourable result for Monsanto. These are not two equally equipped sides engaging in a fair judicial process to settle a contract dispute, pretending that it is such a circumstance is overwhelmingly unfair to the farmers involved.
- JPKab 14y ago
  It blows my mind that there are people on HN confusing opposition to the horrific practices that Monsanto uses with opposition to GM crops in general. I am a supporter of GM strains of crops, because I think they have proven environmental benefits. However, what Monsanto did to the seed cleaner is no different than blaming BitTorrent for piracy. The only difference is that BitTorrent sites actually have a somewhat possible way to determine copyrighted works from open works. The seed cleaner is being sued simply because his services are utilized by people trying to cheat Monsanto as well as those who are simply seeking to continue growing their heirloom strains. This isn't justice. This is simply a huge corporation with vast legal resources doing whatever is necessary to prevent theft of their IP rights, even if that involves trampling people that committed no crimes. It is cheaper for Monsanto to put every seed cleaner out of business than to go after the actual IP infringers. But it is not really legal, and only holds up in court because the seed cleaners can't afford to fight Monstanto's legal shield, and too few judges bother to inform themselves on the topic.
  - andylei 14y ago
    this is not at all like blaming bittorrent sites for pirating look, you don't understand what this seed cleaner was doing. monsanto does not go around suing every seed cleaner in the midwest just because they could be cleaning roundup ready seeds. they sued moe parr, and they did so because he told other farmers that it was legal for them to clean their roundup ready seeds (which it is not). evidence: http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Corp-v-JMS-Co-Ltd/Monsanto_v_Parr_NDIN_4-07-cv-00008_Apr_22_2008.pdf http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Cor...
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      I'm curious why it would be illegal to remove debris from seeds (or does "clean" mean something else in this context?). What is Monsanto mixing with their Roundup-ready seeds that they so desperately want to get planted along with the crop?
      - andylei 14y ago
- andylei 14y ago
  look, if you think a news article quoting Moe Parr about someone suing him is convincing evidence, i'm not really sure if you'll believe this, but here's some evidence indicating that Moe Parr is in the wrong: this is the court injunction against Moe Parr's seed cleaning activities: http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Corp-v-JMS-Co-Ltd/Monsanto_v_Parr_NDIN_4-07-cv-00008_Apr_22_2008.pdf http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Cor... i hope your mind isn't already made up
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
throwaway8675 14y ago
Perhaps it would be a good idea to disclose that you work for George Church's lab, and that George Church is a Monsanto Life Sciences Research Fellow.
- skosuri 14y ago
  Oh yes, obvious conflict and I should have disclosed this major point. I didn't even know it, but that does not excuse me. George Church was an LSRF fellow (independent non-profit fellowship), which are named after the donation company. Thus George was sponsored indirectly by Monsanto in 1984 for working as a post-doc in Gail Martin's lab working on embryogenesis and development. http://www.lsrf.org/alumni/alumni84.htm http://www.lsrf.org/alumni/alumni84.htm I was 5 years old. Obvious conflict. Sorry for not disclosing.

by skosuri 14y ago

jaysonelliot 14y ago

I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) does not exist" and "this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies" show bias, and tell me that you're unlikely to accept anything short of a full and frank confession from Monsanto that they have aggressively sued innocent farmers. What do you call a company that pursues cases like the one cited in the CBS News article about Mo Parr? 74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent. "There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready." The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him. "It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning," I won't make any further arguments about this, because I'm not trying to change your mind if its already made up.

vecinu 14y ago
I don't necessarily agree with your stance because you still haven't materialized official court cases dealing with this issue. I would like to see a case where Monsanto was sued for seed contamination and the farmer won the case.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Why is them winning important? EDIT: Sorry, read that as "where Monsanto sued and won the case" I expect you won't find many cases where Monsanto was sued and lost, since they would be extremely inclined to settle and it would be hard for a farmer to turn down the sort of money that Monsanto has available to it.
  - chc 14y ago
    Well, it makes sense. A suit just means you claimed something; winning means you were right in somebody's eyes.
  - planetguy 14y ago
    Because if Monsanto wins then the farmer is guilty, and I'm not interested in condemning Monsanto for suing in cases where they've actually been legally wronged. (If you wanna debate whether the law should be different then that's another argument.)
  - DrJ 14y ago
    it sets a legal precedent. This is why companies love to settle out of court and to not admit any wrong doings. This is how finance companies are investigated by the SEC, pays a settlement, declares nothing wrong was done and continues on with the practice that got them investigated in the first place.
  - JamisonM 14y ago
    I think winning is considered important because of the mistaken presumption that this has some bearing on how Monsanto is conducting itself or the guilt or innocence of the farmers involved. The unfortunate truth is that Monsanto will probably never lose such a case, they will settle or drop a case that they think they have any chance of losing. The legal system in most of the world is such that just threats and intimidation is enough to "win" because of the costs and damage just having a suit drag on will bring a favourable result for Monsanto. These are not two equally equipped sides engaging in a fair judicial process to settle a contract dispute, pretending that it is such a circumstance is overwhelmingly unfair to the farmers involved.
JPKab 14y ago
It blows my mind that there are people on HN confusing opposition to the horrific practices that Monsanto uses with opposition to GM crops in general. I am a supporter of GM strains of crops, because I think they have proven environmental benefits. However, what Monsanto did to the seed cleaner is no different than blaming BitTorrent for piracy. The only difference is that BitTorrent sites actually have a somewhat possible way to determine copyrighted works from open works. The seed cleaner is being sued simply because his services are utilized by people trying to cheat Monsanto as well as those who are simply seeking to continue growing their heirloom strains. This isn't justice. This is simply a huge corporation with vast legal resources doing whatever is necessary to prevent theft of their IP rights, even if that involves trampling people that committed no crimes. It is cheaper for Monsanto to put every seed cleaner out of business than to go after the actual IP infringers. But it is not really legal, and only holds up in court because the seed cleaners can't afford to fight Monstanto's legal shield, and too few judges bother to inform themselves on the topic.
- andylei 14y ago
  this is not at all like blaming bittorrent sites for pirating look, you don't understand what this seed cleaner was doing. monsanto does not go around suing every seed cleaner in the midwest just because they could be cleaning roundup ready seeds. they sued moe parr, and they did so because he told other farmers that it was legal for them to clean their roundup ready seeds (which it is not). evidence: http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Corp-v-JMS-Co-Ltd/Monsanto_v_Parr_NDIN_4-07-cv-00008_Apr_22_2008.pdf http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Cor...
  - nitrogen 14y ago
    I'm curious why it would be illegal to remove debris from seeds (or does "clean" mean something else in this context?). What is Monsanto mixing with their Roundup-ready seeds that they so desperately want to get planted along with the crop?
    - andylei 14y ago
andylei 14y ago
look, if you think a news article quoting Moe Parr about someone suing him is convincing evidence, i'm not really sure if you'll believe this, but here's some evidence indicating that Moe Parr is in the wrong: this is the court injunction against Moe Parr's seed cleaning activities: http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Corp-v-JMS-Co-Ltd/Monsanto_v_Parr_NDIN_4-07-cv-00008_Apr_22_2008.pdf http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Cor... i hope your mind isn't already made up

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

throwaway8675 14y ago

Perhaps it would be a good idea to disclose that you work for George Church's lab, and that George Church is a Monsanto Life Sciences Research Fellow.

skosuri 14y ago
Oh yes, obvious conflict and I should have disclosed this major point. I didn't even know it, but that does not excuse me. George Church was an LSRF fellow (independent non-profit fellowship), which are named after the donation company. Thus George was sponsored indirectly by Monsanto in 1984 for working as a post-doc in Gail Martin's lab working on embryogenesis and development. http://www.lsrf.org/alumni/alumni84.htm http://www.lsrf.org/alumni/alumni84.htm I was 5 years old. Obvious conflict. Sorry for not disclosing.