3 ms·
Seems likely then that a lot of people dont like what Monsanto is doing, no matter how they sustain it. Also, its all a matter of degree, and it seems Monsanto
by dwiel 14y ago
Seems likely then that a lot of people dont like what Monsanto is doing, no matter how they sustain it. Also, its all a matter of degree, and it seems Monsanto goes to extremes, which gets people upset.
- dionidium 14y agoI would submit that, first of all, the cases in which Monsanto is seen as having gone to extremes were universally cases in which the farmer willfully violated his contract with the company and then lied about it (all while playing the persecuted small guy to the press). Luckily, the courts didn't buy it. [0] Second, I have yet to hear a serious argument against the tech that Monsanto is producing. I hear a lot about how they're raping the poor farmers, but, as far as I know, those farmers aren't being forced to do business with Monsanto. I'm pretty sure they've chosen to do business with Monsanto because their seeds produce higher yields at lower prices. That sure seems like a positive to me. I also hear a lot of arguments that are basically various forms of "I think this tech sounds icky." [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
- hso9791 14y agoHa! Universally, my ass. If you read your own post, you'll see that you claim that every case involves: a) a contract b) a breach of mentioned contract Yet you seem to reference a case in which there was no contract between Monsanto and the farmer, thus contradicting the aforementioned universal claim a. Can you explain this seeming paradox? Or are you just abusing the language to paint a pretty picture?