21 ms·

On a somewhat related note, if Monsanto created an artificial uterus indistinguishable from a natural one, would they own the reproductive rights of the person

by Zikes 14y ago

On a somewhat related note, if Monsanto created an artificial uterus indistinguishable from a natural one, would they own the reproductive rights of the person it was implanted in?

talmand 14y ago
If we go with the current train of thought around their seed? No. But if they did create a new characteristic for that uterus, let's say it's resistive to disease, and that characteristic was passed down to the child. Then they would claim that child owed them money because that child's uterus benefits from the characteristic of the original uterus they provided. The problem doesn't lay around the idea that Monsanto owns the seed they created. I don't dispute that. The problem is that they claim that they own the rights to anything resulting from that seed forever in the future, including cross pollination. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. The best defense I've heard against Monsanto is that Monsanto's seeds are contaminating "pure" or "natural" crops of soybeans. Which is probably where the argument that the seeds are indistinguishable from natural ones and resulting foods do not need a label telling the consumer the soybeans involved are genetically modified comes from. In that case Monsanto wants both sides covered to their advantage; ie, the seed is unique enough to allow for patent protection but no different than a natural one so you don't need to be told that it is genetically modified.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Then they would claim that child owed them money No, they would not. Children cannot enter into contracts. Even if you think Monsanto is pure evil, they would not try that. The best a company could do is contract with the parents to indemnify the company against the actions of the putative child. But patents will expire before the child is capable of entering into contracts anyway. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. That's not what the linked article is about.
  - talmand 14y ago
    Sure, then let's say the parents owe them money then. The outcome is the same. What if the mother is not aware of the contract that the father holds with the company? If we follow the pattern the company will go after the mother/child anyway. Copyright protection has been extended several times, it's only a matter of time before that happens with patents. I understand the linked article is not about cross pollination. But, again, the outcome is the same. The farmer in question did not go out of his way to end up with Monsanto seed, as I understand it, but Monsanto is insisting the farmer owes them money anyway. It doesn't matter how a farmer ends up with Monsanto seed. If the farmer ends up with the seed, even if they didn't intend to, Monsanto is laying claim to that seed. That's just wrong.

by Zikes 14y ago

On a somewhat related note, if Monsanto created an artificial uterus indistinguishable from a natural one, would they own the reproductive rights of the person it was implanted in?

talmand 14y ago

If we go with the current train of thought around their seed? No. But if they did create a new characteristic for that uterus, let's say it's resistive to disease, and that characteristic was passed down to the child. Then they would claim that child owed them money because that child's uterus benefits from the characteristic of the original uterus they provided. The problem doesn't lay around the idea that Monsanto owns the seed they created. I don't dispute that. The problem is that they claim that they own the rights to anything resulting from that seed forever in the future, including cross pollination. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. The best defense I've heard against Monsanto is that Monsanto's seeds are contaminating "pure" or "natural" crops of soybeans. Which is probably where the argument that the seeds are indistinguishable from natural ones and resulting foods do not need a label telling the consumer the soybeans involved are genetically modified comes from. In that case Monsanto wants both sides covered to their advantage; ie, the seed is unique enough to allow for patent protection but no different than a natural one so you don't need to be told that it is genetically modified.

danielweber 14y ago
Then they would claim that child owed them money No, they would not. Children cannot enter into contracts. Even if you think Monsanto is pure evil, they would not try that. The best a company could do is contract with the parents to indemnify the company against the actions of the putative child. But patents will expire before the child is capable of entering into contracts anyway. Therefore, they feel fully justified in suing a farmer simply because his neighbor grows his crop from Monsanto seed and bees cross pollinated the crops. That's not what the linked article is about.
- talmand 14y ago
  Sure, then let's say the parents owe them money then. The outcome is the same. What if the mother is not aware of the contract that the father holds with the company? If we follow the pattern the company will go after the mother/child anyway. Copyright protection has been extended several times, it's only a matter of time before that happens with patents. I understand the linked article is not about cross pollination. But, again, the outcome is the same. The farmer in question did not go out of his way to end up with Monsanto seed, as I understand it, but Monsanto is insisting the farmer owes them money anyway. It doesn't matter how a farmer ends up with Monsanto seed. If the farmer ends up with the seed, even if they didn't intend to, Monsanto is laying claim to that seed. That's just wrong.