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 co

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.