4 ms·

> I'm all for calling out unethical companies and IP trolls In terms of unethical Monsanto is in the absolute top league. This is a company, which positively c

> I'm all for calling out unethical companies and IP trolls In terms of unethical Monsanto is in the absolute top league. This is a company, which positively can be described as evil. I suggest you do some reading up about this company.

aantix 14y ago
> but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything How about addressing his point?
- lazyjones 14y ago
  > How about addressing his point? OK. Monsanto seems to have a unique interpretation of IP for themselves. They invented a genetic modification of existing crops. Now they claim the modified crops themselves as their IP, which is like HP claiming copyright on material printed with their printers. Not only that, they also claim rights on the following generations of these crops, which is just absurd. If you want to patent your genetic modifications, so noone else can apply it, go ahead - sue people who apply the same modifications. But claiming IP rights on modified (with it) seeds is not reasonable.
  - penny500 14y ago
    Soybean seeds aren't finite like fossil fuels. They're specially grown. If you don't want to use patented seed, don't use it. Use organic seeds if you want (and many farmers do). Otherwise, pay the IP holder. Monsanto isn't a monopoly, and you have several other GM competitors to choose from.
  - randomdata 14y ago
    Patent problems are no secret around here, but I'll reiterate one of the key points: Patents deal with possession of technology, not the implementation. In other words, if I violate someone else's patent in a product, and you buy it, you have become liable for the violation. Now, with that said, you cannot possess GM seed without the necessary license agreements with Monsanto due to the above. Theoretically farmers, who have acquired the necessary licenses, could grow second generation seed, except those license terms provide additional clauses around the use of the second generation seed. You can disagree to those clauses, but then you will not be granted access to the patent rights. So, the issue is that you cannot buy GM seeds in the first place without entering into a legal agreement, and that legal agreement dictates how you use future generations. There is no scenario where the second generation can be logically free of IP rights, because if you disagree, you cannot reach the point of growing a second generation. Of course the real issue here is that the patent system needs to be fixed, and not just for seed and software.
penny500 14y ago
I love the claims for calling this company "evil" with absolutely no scientific proof given. I thought we were supposed to be believers in science and due process.
- dfxm12 14y ago
  This is one example, taken from the Food, Inc. documentary. The parent topic asks, Monsanto made the roundup-ready soybeans, which took millions to develop. If the farmer doesn't want to be sued, he could use non-roundup-ready soybeans. In the documentary, they profile a farmer who got sued by Monsanto for not paying their license. The farmer claimed he was not using Monsanto seeds. However, Monsanto's argument amounted to "We are the largest seller of these seeds in the world, therefor, it must be our seed. Even though you can prove it isn't, you must have "washed" the seed to make it seem like it isn't ours, or maybe some of your neighbor's Monsanto seed blew into your land and you owe us for that too." The judge sided with Monsanto. Yes, this shows our legal system is evil for letting them get away with this, but the fact that Monsanto is driving around & actively looking for farmers who aren't using their seed, extorting them for not & dragging them into a court battle they know will bankrupt them is evil too. For further viewing, check the Monsanto Food Inc. clips. They are on YouTube. Mansanto has also responded on their website.

aantix 14y ago

> but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything How about addressing his point?

lazyjones 14y ago
> How about addressing his point? OK. Monsanto seems to have a unique interpretation of IP for themselves. They invented a genetic modification of existing crops. Now they claim the modified crops themselves as their IP, which is like HP claiming copyright on material printed with their printers. Not only that, they also claim rights on the following generations of these crops, which is just absurd. If you want to patent your genetic modifications, so noone else can apply it, go ahead - sue people who apply the same modifications. But claiming IP rights on modified (with it) seeds is not reasonable.
- penny500 14y ago
  Soybean seeds aren't finite like fossil fuels. They're specially grown. If you don't want to use patented seed, don't use it. Use organic seeds if you want (and many farmers do). Otherwise, pay the IP holder. Monsanto isn't a monopoly, and you have several other GM competitors to choose from.
- randomdata 14y ago
  Patent problems are no secret around here, but I'll reiterate one of the key points: Patents deal with possession of technology, not the implementation. In other words, if I violate someone else's patent in a product, and you buy it, you have become liable for the violation. Now, with that said, you cannot possess GM seed without the necessary license agreements with Monsanto due to the above. Theoretically farmers, who have acquired the necessary licenses, could grow second generation seed, except those license terms provide additional clauses around the use of the second generation seed. You can disagree to those clauses, but then you will not be granted access to the patent rights. So, the issue is that you cannot buy GM seeds in the first place without entering into a legal agreement, and that legal agreement dictates how you use future generations. There is no scenario where the second generation can be logically free of IP rights, because if you disagree, you cannot reach the point of growing a second generation. Of course the real issue here is that the patent system needs to be fixed, and not just for seed and software.

penny500 14y ago

I love the claims for calling this company "evil" with absolutely no scientific proof given. I thought we were supposed to be believers in science and due process.

dfxm12 14y ago
This is one example, taken from the Food, Inc. documentary. The parent topic asks, Monsanto made the roundup-ready soybeans, which took millions to develop. If the farmer doesn't want to be sued, he could use non-roundup-ready soybeans. In the documentary, they profile a farmer who got sued by Monsanto for not paying their license. The farmer claimed he was not using Monsanto seeds. However, Monsanto's argument amounted to "We are the largest seller of these seeds in the world, therefor, it must be our seed. Even though you can prove it isn't, you must have "washed" the seed to make it seem like it isn't ours, or maybe some of your neighbor's Monsanto seed blew into your land and you owe us for that too." The judge sided with Monsanto. Yes, this shows our legal system is evil for letting them get away with this, but the fact that Monsanto is driving around & actively looking for farmers who aren't using their seed, extorting them for not & dragging them into a court battle they know will bankrupt them is evil too. For further viewing, check the Monsanto Food Inc. clips. They are on YouTube. Mansanto has also responded on their website.