4 ms·

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

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.