9 ms·

Don't get me started on the evil company that is Monsanto. For those of you who aren't aware of the history of this company I strongly suggest you do some readi

Don't get me started on the evil company that is Monsanto. For those of you who aren't aware of the history of this company I strongly suggest you do some reading if you have the time. We're talking about a company more aggressive and protective of its patents than Apple or any tech company anyone has ever seen before. History has proven that the courts aren't exactly all too good at delivering fair, unbiased and swift justice when it comes to a Monsanto vs (insert rural farmer here) cases. I hope Bowman wins this case, it'll hopefully set a precedent and example that Monsanto can't walk over family farmers trying to make an honest living. Most of the prior cases Monsanto has brought against farmers usually end up being settled because the defendant runs out of money to keep fighting and ends up losing everything they own. It's companies like Monsanto that are ruining family farming. If this continues farming as we know it will cease to exist in the traditional sense as we all know it and eventually the only farms that will exist will be corporately owned ones.

dhathorn 14y ago
Why is family farming worth protecting? What extra value do family farms provide to me, the person actually buying food? People lose their jobs because superior companies out-compete them all the time. Why should farmers be protected from this?
- Panoramix 14y ago
  Food is essential for society and it strikes me as a very bad idea to leave it all in the hands of a selfish mega corporation with an exceptionally poor track record.
  - refurb 14y ago
    Medicine is essential for society as well. Would you like to take it out of the hands of the mega corporations as well? Who exactly would be making the new drugs? And don't say the gov't. They gov't's track record of producing new drugs is negligible. Gov't funding contributing to new drugs? Yes, of course. But gov't funding playing a major role in putting a new drug in a patient? Minimal.
    - vidarh 14y ago
      Notice how you yourself provide the solution to the fake dilemma you set up: Let them create the drugs, for public funds, but without patent protection for the resulting product, or with reduced protections. The problem is not that there are mega corporations making GMO seeds or mega corporations creating new drugs. The problem is the extensive patent rights on the result.
- lifeisstillgood 14y ago
  Because Monsanto is not competing - it is trying to use patent law to enforce its monopoly supply of the seeds Also the area in which Monsanto operates is one where most people IMO would want the old ideals of scientific discovery and invention returned to the common to grow the whole wealth of mankind - not artificially inject a trap such that one company extracts profits at the expense of wider growth
- smackay 14y ago
  The issue here is that farmers have been planting crops and saving some of the seed generated for the next season probably from Day 1 in agriculture. Monsanto seeks to insert themselves into this highly efficient process, blocking the replanting of seed and instead extracting for themselves a significant amount of money. Farmers are free to enter into this relationship since the seeds do conver some advantages in reduced use of pesticides etc. but there is a significant problem with cross-contamination from neighboring crops and through the supply chain so Monsanto ends up suing farmers who never had any intention to use their products in order to get everyone to bow to their will and maintain the agri-business model.
  - MarkMc 14y ago
    The Monsanto seeds are only beneficial if used with Roundup Ready pesticide (or a generic equivalent). So let me ask you a hypothetical question: If Monsanto's policy was to only sue farmers whose fields had been cross-contaminated AND who used Roundup Ready pesticide, would that be a fair outcome? It would mean farmers could still use their traditional methods without worrying about cross-contamination as long as they didn't use the Monsanto pesticide.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I thought that was in fact Monsanto's strategy. It's certainly the fact pattern in this particular case.
      - johnrgrace 14y ago
        This isn't a case of a farmer having cross-contamination outside of his control of his saved seedstock, he actively worked to create his own group of seedstock that had their patented gene AND told people he was doing this.
    - smackay 14y ago
      As far as I know Roundup is a general use herbicide. If it was only licensed for use with Monsanto's GM products then I think Monsanto would have a case - assuming there were equivalent non-Monsanto herbicides freely available. I doubt Monsanto would be pretty happy about that however. UPDATE: There was supposed to be some form of "terminator" gene included in the GM products to explicitly prevent generation two seeds from being replanted. I guess since we are talking about law-suits that did not really work as expected.
- bocajuniors 14y ago
  During most of the existence of the US of America its competitors(Spain, Portugal...) failed to recognize property rights of ordinary citizens.This is destroying the foundation for your success.
- Aardwolf 14y ago
  Isn't it at least in everyone's best interest that OTHER seeds than Monsato's seeds are planted and grown as well? Otherwise it may end up like bananas (all bananas the same DNA and therefore very sensitive to diseases).
  - randomdata 14y ago
    While Monsanto does sell seed under the Dekalb brand, they also license to the technology to other seed companies, so it is not simply a matter of buying Monsanto seeds. Additionally, I don't have my contract with me at the moment, but I seem to recall the requirement of planting a percentage of non-GM crops as part of the agreement of using said seed. Planting RR crops year after year on the same ground doesn't work very well.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Because your home garden is next on the hit list after all the family farms are gone. Most of the family farms do fine and produce well. Monsanto isn't competing, it is basically bullying everyone with "seed contamination" even if you don't want to buy their products.
- squidsoup 14y ago
  One very good reason family farming should be protected, is that large scale monoculture is detrimental to our environment. http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.html http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.ht...
veemjeem 14y ago
The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patents. I doubt anyone without a decent lab could produce any of Monsanto's patents. I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds, the only reason people buy that stuff is to improve yield.
- Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
  Do some more study before living stupid comments - all Monstanto DNA patents are code fragments from living organisms. This corporation is insanely evil, get a clue and stop defending it.
- kaybe 14y ago
  True, but also, Apple is not active in a critical industry. If they control or even mess up the computer industry, it's not the same as agriculture.
  - veemjeem 14y ago
    So companies producing IP in a critical industry like agriculture have no access to IP protection? If anyone is allowed to sell 2G seeds, then Monsanto will make no money, and no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research if they know they cannot make money from it. GMO seeds enable greater crop yields which would actually be better for humankind, so making money on GMO seeds is important. The great potato famine in Ireland wiped out a million people. We use more advanced fungicides now, but the chemicals used have a greater chance of causing liver damage than GMO plants. Obviously it would have to be a fair and balanced decision, but we can't throw out common sense because it affects a "critical industry". Monsanto is an easy company to hate, but we can't make the wrong decision here or else it will affect future generations of companies who want to improve crop yields via GMO products.
    - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
david_b 14y ago
We're talking about a company more aggressive and protective of its patents than Apple or any tech company anyone has ever seen before. Not that I condone Monsantos actions, but they kinda have to be: their inventions replicate quite freely, lowering the bar on infringement to entirely new levels (basically to infringe you have to do what your standard-issue caveman was already capable of...) - it raises the question of how to finance crop research when you can only take money for the first generation of seeds you sell.
- wr1472 14y ago
  IANAL. What worries me about this is that by changing a line of DNA in a 1G seed, 2G seeds (and beyond) fall under their patent. ie, they own the entire seed, and more importantly they own all the offspring of the 1G seed. Isn't this the same concept as saying you replace a part in your vehicle/phone/pc/whatever with something that is patented, and now the patent covers the entire vehicle/phone/pc/whatever? Alternatively you patent a commodity (seed/raw material/synthetic material/etc), now everything that is made from that commodity is covered by the original patent? what happens when you use the commodity to make a tool, with which you build other end products? where does this end? Maybe I am misunderstanding, or have the wrong end of the stick?
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    There is at least some merit to the idea that the pollinated field is manufacturing the patented invention without a license. (Which just points back to discussing the merits of granting such patents)
    - sophacles 14y ago
      There is some merit there. However, it is no different than getting a patent on some protocol that sends bytes in an IP packet, and suing people who own routers for patent infringement, because those routers are copying the packet on reading it from the wire, and sending out a copy of the originally transmitted signal. This is arguably manufacturing a patented product too. So is any IDS that copies the packet to a buffer to do analysis on the stream. "That's ridiculous!" a bunch of you are saying right now. You're right, because that's how the IP protocol works. Things get copied around, it's built into the basic underlying technology process you are utilizing. Yet, how is a plant producing pollen and sharing it's genes around with nearby neighbors not part of the underlying biological process the engineered genes are using?
temphn 14y ago
It would seem to me that Monsanto's best play might be to forget about the patent lawsuits and just increase the price of their Roundup herbicide to compensate. Get complete market dominance with the seeds, letting them be freely copied, knowing that the herbicide will be difficult to manufacture. Razor and blade model.
- kvb 14y ago
  The patent on Roundup (glyphosphate) expired in 2000 [1], so that's probably not a viable strategy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
  - cdcarter 14y ago
    It's my understanding that in large agriculture, Monsanto produces a new Roundup "recipe" every year and matching "Roundup Ready" seeds. Of course, I can't find a source on this right now, so I may be way off.
api 14y ago
Monsanto reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s, but worse.

dhathorn 14y ago

Why is family farming worth protecting? What extra value do family farms provide to me, the person actually buying food? People lose their jobs because superior companies out-compete them all the time. Why should farmers be protected from this?

Panoramix 14y ago
Food is essential for society and it strikes me as a very bad idea to leave it all in the hands of a selfish mega corporation with an exceptionally poor track record.
- refurb 14y ago
  Medicine is essential for society as well. Would you like to take it out of the hands of the mega corporations as well? Who exactly would be making the new drugs? And don't say the gov't. They gov't's track record of producing new drugs is negligible. Gov't funding contributing to new drugs? Yes, of course. But gov't funding playing a major role in putting a new drug in a patient? Minimal.
  - vidarh 14y ago
    Notice how you yourself provide the solution to the fake dilemma you set up: Let them create the drugs, for public funds, but without patent protection for the resulting product, or with reduced protections. The problem is not that there are mega corporations making GMO seeds or mega corporations creating new drugs. The problem is the extensive patent rights on the result.
lifeisstillgood 14y ago
Because Monsanto is not competing - it is trying to use patent law to enforce its monopoly supply of the seeds Also the area in which Monsanto operates is one where most people IMO would want the old ideals of scientific discovery and invention returned to the common to grow the whole wealth of mankind - not artificially inject a trap such that one company extracts profits at the expense of wider growth
smackay 14y ago
The issue here is that farmers have been planting crops and saving some of the seed generated for the next season probably from Day 1 in agriculture. Monsanto seeks to insert themselves into this highly efficient process, blocking the replanting of seed and instead extracting for themselves a significant amount of money. Farmers are free to enter into this relationship since the seeds do conver some advantages in reduced use of pesticides etc. but there is a significant problem with cross-contamination from neighboring crops and through the supply chain so Monsanto ends up suing farmers who never had any intention to use their products in order to get everyone to bow to their will and maintain the agri-business model.
- MarkMc 14y ago
  The Monsanto seeds are only beneficial if used with Roundup Ready pesticide (or a generic equivalent). So let me ask you a hypothetical question: If Monsanto's policy was to only sue farmers whose fields had been cross-contaminated AND who used Roundup Ready pesticide, would that be a fair outcome? It would mean farmers could still use their traditional methods without worrying about cross-contamination as long as they didn't use the Monsanto pesticide.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I thought that was in fact Monsanto's strategy. It's certainly the fact pattern in this particular case.
    - johnrgrace 14y ago
      This isn't a case of a farmer having cross-contamination outside of his control of his saved seedstock, he actively worked to create his own group of seedstock that had their patented gene AND told people he was doing this.
  - smackay 14y ago
    As far as I know Roundup is a general use herbicide. If it was only licensed for use with Monsanto's GM products then I think Monsanto would have a case - assuming there were equivalent non-Monsanto herbicides freely available. I doubt Monsanto would be pretty happy about that however. UPDATE: There was supposed to be some form of "terminator" gene included in the GM products to explicitly prevent generation two seeds from being replanted. I guess since we are talking about law-suits that did not really work as expected.
bocajuniors 14y ago
During most of the existence of the US of America its competitors(Spain, Portugal...) failed to recognize property rights of ordinary citizens.This is destroying the foundation for your success.
Aardwolf 14y ago
Isn't it at least in everyone's best interest that OTHER seeds than Monsato's seeds are planted and grown as well? Otherwise it may end up like bananas (all bananas the same DNA and therefore very sensitive to diseases).
- randomdata 14y ago
  While Monsanto does sell seed under the Dekalb brand, they also license to the technology to other seed companies, so it is not simply a matter of buying Monsanto seeds. Additionally, I don't have my contract with me at the moment, but I seem to recall the requirement of planting a percentage of non-GM crops as part of the agreement of using said seed. Planting RR crops year after year on the same ground doesn't work very well.
protomyth 14y ago
Because your home garden is next on the hit list after all the family farms are gone. Most of the family farms do fine and produce well. Monsanto isn't competing, it is basically bullying everyone with "seed contamination" even if you don't want to buy their products.
squidsoup 14y ago
One very good reason family farming should be protected, is that large scale monoculture is detrimental to our environment. http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.html http://nature.berkeley.edu/~miguel-alt/modern_agriculture.ht...

veemjeem 14y ago

The difference between Monsanto and Apple is that Monsanto's inventions are non-trivial compared to rounded corners and "slide to unlock" type of utility patents. I doubt anyone without a decent lab could produce any of Monsanto's patents. I don't see how Monsanto would ruin family farming -- family farming existed centuries before Monsanto was founded. You can still buy non-GMO seeds, the only reason people buy that stuff is to improve yield.

Strshps1MoreTim 14y ago
Do some more study before living stupid comments - all Monstanto DNA patents are code fragments from living organisms. This corporation is insanely evil, get a clue and stop defending it.
kaybe 14y ago
True, but also, Apple is not active in a critical industry. If they control or even mess up the computer industry, it's not the same as agriculture.
- veemjeem 14y ago
  So companies producing IP in a critical industry like agriculture have no access to IP protection? If anyone is allowed to sell 2G seeds, then Monsanto will make no money, and no future agriculture company will ever spend money on GMO research if they know they cannot make money from it. GMO seeds enable greater crop yields which would actually be better for humankind, so making money on GMO seeds is important. The great potato famine in Ireland wiped out a million people. We use more advanced fungicides now, but the chemicals used have a greater chance of causing liver damage than GMO plants. Obviously it would have to be a fair and balanced decision, but we can't throw out common sense because it affects a "critical industry". Monsanto is an easy company to hate, but we can't make the wrong decision here or else it will affect future generations of companies who want to improve crop yields via GMO products.
  - disgruntledphd2 14y ago

david_b 14y ago

We're talking about a company more aggressive and protective of its patents than Apple or any tech company anyone has ever seen before. Not that I condone Monsantos actions, but they kinda have to be: their inventions replicate quite freely, lowering the bar on infringement to entirely new levels (basically to infringe you have to do what your standard-issue caveman was already capable of...) - it raises the question of how to finance crop research when you can only take money for the first generation of seeds you sell.

wr1472 14y ago
IANAL. What worries me about this is that by changing a line of DNA in a 1G seed, 2G seeds (and beyond) fall under their patent. ie, they own the entire seed, and more importantly they own all the offspring of the 1G seed. Isn't this the same concept as saying you replace a part in your vehicle/phone/pc/whatever with something that is patented, and now the patent covers the entire vehicle/phone/pc/whatever? Alternatively you patent a commodity (seed/raw material/synthetic material/etc), now everything that is made from that commodity is covered by the original patent? what happens when you use the commodity to make a tool, with which you build other end products? where does this end? Maybe I am misunderstanding, or have the wrong end of the stick?
- maxerickson 14y ago
  There is at least some merit to the idea that the pollinated field is manufacturing the patented invention without a license. (Which just points back to discussing the merits of granting such patents)
  - sophacles 14y ago
    There is some merit there. However, it is no different than getting a patent on some protocol that sends bytes in an IP packet, and suing people who own routers for patent infringement, because those routers are copying the packet on reading it from the wire, and sending out a copy of the originally transmitted signal. This is arguably manufacturing a patented product too. So is any IDS that copies the packet to a buffer to do analysis on the stream. "That's ridiculous!" a bunch of you are saying right now. You're right, because that's how the IP protocol works. Things get copied around, it's built into the basic underlying technology process you are utilizing. Yet, how is a plant producing pollen and sharing it's genes around with nearby neighbors not part of the underlying biological process the engineered genes are using?

temphn 14y ago

It would seem to me that Monsanto's best play might be to forget about the patent lawsuits and just increase the price of their Roundup herbicide to compensate. Get complete market dominance with the seeds, letting them be freely copied, knowing that the herbicide will be difficult to manufacture. Razor and blade model.

kvb 14y ago
The patent on Roundup (glyphosphate) expired in 2000 [1], so that's probably not a viable strategy. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
- cdcarter 14y ago
  It's my understanding that in large agriculture, Monsanto produces a new Roundup "recipe" every year and matching "Roundup Ready" seeds. Of course, I can't find a source on this right now, so I may be way off.

api 14y ago

Monsanto reminds me of Microsoft in the 90s, but worse.