Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
It isn't that they seeded the field, it is that it is impossible not to cross contaminate, especially when you take wind into account. You basically can't find a field in the US that doesn't have at least 1 monsato plant in it, yet they are suing every one they discover.
Plus they make pesticides, and guess what is killing off bees in droves.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
The biotech leviathan has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for planting the company’s genetically-engineered seeds without permission, while settling around 700 other cases without suing.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah actually those stories are barely based on reality. Likewise there still is no consensus on what is causing bee colony collapse disorder. Many of the farmers that claimed "cross pollination" were charged with perjury and destruction of evidence.
Monsanto might be assholes for zealously protecting their patents, but no one had proven that they were fraudulently filling the lawsuits.
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
The biotech leviathan has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for planting the company’s genetically-engineered seeds without permission, while settling around 700 other cases without suing.
If I remember correctly, the issue was that trucks carrying Monsanto seeds drove past these farmers' fields. The wind blew some seeds out of the backs of the trucks and into the fields, where the inadvertently grew. The farmers were then sued for having the resulting crops in their fields without having paid for the seeds.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
The biotech leviathan has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for planting the company’s genetically-engineered seeds without permission, while settling around 700 other cases without suing.
Monsanto has not sued anyone incidentally contaminated who did not attempt to cultivate the seeds. In fact, Monsanto has a standing policy that they will pay for the cost of having their seeds/plants removed from your land if you find it and report it! The case you cited was dismissed because there were no cases in which Monsanto sued people who didn't take their own actions to cultivate the cross contaminated seeds.
Edit: By cultivate, I specifically mean identifying which were the GM seeds and trying to reproduce those plants specifically.
My main problem with genetic modification is how it crosses into our fucked up IP laws. People always point out that GMOs could be used for all these awesome things. And maybe I might care, if they actually were (and there are some cool things being done, though not so much in the industrial food production arena) .
Maybe someday there will be a significant "open source" GMO movements that I'd be able to support. I do think our incredible focus on monoculture is a little scarry, but the root issue there is not actually related to GMOs.
Sign a bill that endorses discrimination cost your state a 4 billion dollar industry. Fiscal conservatism at its finest!
This was going around my feed as well, and I had someone point out an odd downside I hadn't considered.
Indiana just lost another Gay friendly employer for gays stuck living in Indiana
All the more reason for those gays to leave. I know this isn't the best solution and for people who like Indiana it hurts, but writing is on the wall and with these supremes and their states rights/religious belief boner, if you are in a state with plenty of gay hate its best for you to leave.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Sign a bill that endorses discrimination cost your state a 4 billion dollar industry. Fiscal conservatism at its finest!
This was going around my feed as well, and I had someone point out an odd downside I hadn't considered.
Indiana just lost another Gay friendly employer for gays stuck living in Indiana
How great would it be if Salesforce just went, "You gay folks in Indiana? If you want to work for us, we'll pay for you to move to a not-shitty state."
Sign a bill that endorses discrimination cost your state a 4 billion dollar industry. Fiscal conservatism at its finest!
This was going around my feed as well, and I had someone point out an odd downside I hadn't considered.
Indiana just lost another Gay friendly employer for gays stuck living in Indiana
All the more reason for those gays to leave. I know this isn't the best solution and for people who like Indiana it hurts, but writing is on the wall and with these supremes and their states rights/religious belief boner, if you are in a state with plenty of gay hate its best for you to leave.
Oh ya, like, it definitely strikes a blow, it just sucks in that way a little, something had to be done in response though and I don't blame them, just sad for gays stuck in Indiana afterwards that can't escape.
Its in their best interest to escape at this point. I mean indiana just made it perfectly legal to discriminate against you, if you can't afford it at this point you better save up to because they legalized bigotry against you and it only gets worse from there.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
Yeah, and he he didn't steal the seeds, nor did he do anything that farmers haven't done for millenia - save the seeds from the plants that produced best for the next season.
Supposedly Monsanto only went after those cases because if they didn't, it set a precedent that their (self replicating) IP copyright was unenforceable. Which it should be anyway, probably.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
Yeah, and he he didn't steal the seeds, nor did he do anything that farmers haven't done for millenia - save the seeds from the plants that produced best for the next season.
Supposedly Monsanto only went after those cases because if they didn't, it set a precedent that their (self replicating) IP copyright was unenforceable. Which it should be anyway, probably.
That doesn't make Monsanto evil, though. If you take the opinion that genetic modifications can be protected by copyright, then what they did is reasonable. If you are of the opinion that genetic modifications cannot be protected by copyright, then what they did was wrong.
But that disagreement is what that judgement hinges on. In order for Monsanto suing farmers that deliberately cultivate seeds that are descended from Monsanto's modified organisms to be evil, the notion that genetic modifications are copyrightable would have to be evil. And that's a much tougher sell than "Monsanto sues farmers, Monsanto is 20 hitlers."
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
The farmer should be suing his neighbors, then, as they're the ones that did so.
I'm not sure we have all the information, though. Was the herbicide that killed his plants just the herbicide his neighbors were using (How much were they using to kill his entire crop?), or was it herbicide he was using?
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
Yeah, and he he didn't steal the seeds, nor did he do anything that farmers haven't done for millenia - save the seeds from the plants that produced best for the next season.
Supposedly Monsanto only went after those cases because if they didn't, it set a precedent that their (self replicating) IP copyright was unenforceable. Which it should be anyway, probably.
Monsanto does not sell seeds so much as they sell licenses to use their seeds; think of it like getting a business edition of Office. You're not paying for the CDs with Office on them, you're paying for the right to legally use Office to do business.
If you believe that Monsanto should not be allowed to license their seed technology, just sell the physical seeds, then yes, what they did would be immoral under that framework, and they would have to sell seeds that tended to die after a couple generations in order to get revenue (which I believe they already do in some limited fashion). But that stance also makes GMOs massively unprofitable and unwise to invest in, and there is a precedent for technology licensing in a massive variety of industries, so singling out the farming industry is a little odd; there are much more reproducible technologies being licensed (software) and much less reproducible technologies being licensed (dishwashers at restaurants are usually a technology-licensing thing; you pay per clean and you have tech support available).
If you believe that Monsanto should be allowed to license their seed technology, then they are in the right. They have in no circumstance (that I am aware of) gone after anybody who unintentionally got their crops cross-contaminated. They have only sued in situations where farmers intentionally began the process of cross-contamination, or (as in this case) specifically reseeded Monsanto crops by using weedkiller to select their seeding crops after an accidental cross-contamination.
So if you believe that technology licensing is inherently immoral or is a net negative (either in general or for farming), then yeah, Monsanto is acting in a way that would be immoral by furthering their ability to license their technology. But if you don't, they really haven't done anything wrong, and certainly nothing on the scale of acting like some kind of Roundup-Mafia, intentionally planting their crops and then kneecapping farmers for unlicensed use of their product.
I feel like the description of Monsanto as being left-wing's Nuclear Power is pretty spot-on: They get a bunch of terrible publicity despite not actually doing anything wrong, and the stigma is very difficult to break even with the facts being pretty clear, and it's partially out of fear/outrage (by the general population) and partially out of competing business interests (since, obviously, organic farms would prefer Monsanto look like dogshit).
milski on
I ate an engineer
0
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure we have all the information, though. Was the herbicide that killed his plants just the herbicide his neighbors were using (How much were they using to kill his entire crop?), or was it herbicide he was using?
I found the original case. Happened up your way, too.
He was spraying herbicide around some power lines and some of it got onto his canola plants. I got some of the facts wrong, but the basic story's the same.
As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997. He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres to 4 acres of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed* was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres of canola.
At the time, Roundup Ready canola was in use by several farmers in the area. Schmeiser claimed that he did not plant the initial Roundup Ready canola in 1997, and that his field of custom-bred canola had been accidentally contaminated. While the origin of the plants on Schmeiser's farm in 1997 remains unclear, the trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's 1998 crop.
In 1998, Monsanto learned that Schmeiser was growing a Roundup-resistant crop and approached him to sign a license agreement to their patents and to pay a license fee. Schmeiser refused, maintaining that the 1997 contamination was accidental and that he owned the seed he harvested, and he could use the harvested seed as he wished because it was his physical property.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that he owned the physical seed but Monsanto owned the Roundup-Ready gene, and thus he had to pay up if he wanted to use seeds or plants containing it. It also said that cases of physical contamination are outside farmers' control, but deliberately isolating and saving the seed is another ballgame.
*Yes, you can -technically- plant seeds from a GM plant and skip paying the fees. But in order to use the seeds in the first place, you've got to sign an agreement promising that you won't do that.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
It's important to add that his harvest was, in 1998, 95-98% Roundup Ready, and that he didn't have to pay Monsanto anything as a result, he just had to stop using their Canola if he didn't want to pay for it.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Honestly, that's an even better example that the McDonald's Coffee case of misinformation about legal action in order to propagandize a movement. Monsanto, and the courts, acted reasonably and the farmer got off pretty easy for deliberately and knowingly cultivating crops that everyone else was paying for a license to cultivate.
I'd say the Mcdonalds one is more damaging because that public perception has been used to push a lot of tort reform which absolutely fucks people should they be hurt by a major corp.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I'd say the Mcdonalds one is more damaging because that public perception has been used to push a lot of tort reform which absolutely fucks people should they be hurt by a major corp.
I agree, but at least I can understand people's opposition to the outcome, even if I don't agree with it. The Monsanto case is entirely justifiable by the company.\
EDIT: To clarify: I agree that the harm caused by misinformation about the McDonald's case is greater, but that the misinformation about the Monsanto case is more extreme.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
The point is that this behavior isn't stealing. It's the entire history of agricultural cultivation. Of fucking course you replant the shit that works best.
It's not his fault. It's not even Monsanto's fault, really. It this stupid idea that you can own the genetic structure of a self replicating organism in the first place. And while I don't know if I'd say that's exactly evil, it can't find a single reason to think it's a good idea.
+2
Options
Captain Marcusnow arrives the hour of actionRegistered Userregular
EDIT: To clarify: I agree that the harm caused by misinformation about the McDonald's case is greater, but that the misinformation about the Monsanto case is more extreme.
Must be nice to live in Canada, then Down here people scoff if that lawsuit gets mentioned: "Oh, someone sued because their coffee was a little too hot! Big deal!" It was an 80-year old woman who suffered third degree burns, idiots.
EDIT: To clarify: I agree that the harm caused by misinformation about the McDonald's case is greater, but that the misinformation about the Monsanto case is more extreme.
Must be nice to live in Canada, then Down here people scoff if that lawsuit gets mentioned: "Oh, someone sued because their coffee was a little too hot! Big deal!" It was an 80-year old woman who suffered third degree burns, idiots.
And she suffered them because coffee served in the drive-through window was well above the legal temperature limit that coffee should be served at.
And don't worry, we in Canada also had our share of "LOL COFFEE HOT IDIOT SUED" stupidity.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
The point is that this behavior isn't stealing. It's the entire history of agricultural cultivation. Of fucking course you replant the shit that works best.
It's not his fault. It's not even Monsanto's fault, really. It this stupid idea that you can own the genetic structure of a self replicating organism in the first place. And while I don't know if I'd say that's exactly evil, it can't find a single reason to think it's a good idea.
If you can't license GMOs, people won't make them, which is bad for everybody in the end. There's no reason to do major industrial research if you are guaranteed to make no money on it. It is the same reason any other business innovation is protected by patent or copyright, and just because they can replicate doesn't mean the ideas are not deserving of protection. Do you believe that code can be patented? It's even more replicatable.
Also Monsanto is a terrible, evil corporation but that doesn't mean GMOs are terrible and evil.
Except you know, that stance ignores that all of the things that paint them as terrible and evil are either based on the ideas GMOs are terrible or outright lies about their prosecution practices to protect their intellectual property.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
The point is that this behavior isn't stealing. It's the entire history of agricultural cultivation. Of fucking course you replant the shit that works best.
It's not his fault. It's not even Monsanto's fault, really. It this stupid idea that you can own the genetic structure of a self replicating organism in the first place. And while I don't know if I'd say that's exactly evil, it can't find a single reason to think it's a good idea.
Yes, it really, really is. The digital equivalent would be if someone found a burned CD on the ground, proceeded to burn a ton of copies, sold them, and then claimed he had the right to sell them because the original was their property.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
The point is that this behavior isn't stealing. It's the entire history of agricultural cultivation. Of fucking course you replant the shit that works best.
It's not his fault. It's not even Monsanto's fault, really. It this stupid idea that you can own the genetic structure of a self replicating organism in the first place. And while I don't know if I'd say that's exactly evil, it can't find a single reason to think it's a good idea.
If you can't license GMOs, people won't make them, which is bad for everybody in the end. There's no reason to do major industrial research if you are guaranteed to make no money on it. It is the same reason any other business innovation is protected by patent or copyright, and just because they can replicate doesn't mean the ideas are not deserving of protection. Do you believe that code can be patented? It's even more replicatable.
GMOs will still be made, they will instead be directed by charity / educational institutions instead of corporate profit driven institutions.
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
The point is that this behavior isn't stealing. It's the entire history of agricultural cultivation. Of fucking course you replant the shit that works best.
It's not his fault. It's not even Monsanto's fault, really. It this stupid idea that you can own the genetic structure of a self replicating organism in the first place. And while I don't know if I'd say that's exactly evil, it can't find a single reason to think it's a good idea.
Yes, it really, really is. The digital equivalent would be if someone found a burned CD on the ground, proceeded to burn a ton of copies, sold them, and then claimed he had the right to sell them because the original was their property.
Um, I don't think there's a digital equivalent to stuff like pollination and such. Or if there is... that sure as hell ain't it.
How is it the farmer's fault that his crop on his property caught this strain, all without any action on his part? How would he even known they caught that strain in the first place?
I'm not even a farmer, and I think I can figure out one of the main tenants of replanting. If you have two plants, and one died while the other lived, you use the seeds from the one that lived to plant more. I can figure this out because it has another more popular name. Survival of the fittest.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
Eh didn't mosanto seed crops of competitors fields with their specific GMO brand crop and then sue those people for "stealing" them? They've done some bad shit.
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
The point is that this behavior isn't stealing. It's the entire history of agricultural cultivation. Of fucking course you replant the shit that works best.
It's not his fault. It's not even Monsanto's fault, really. It this stupid idea that you can own the genetic structure of a self replicating organism in the first place. And while I don't know if I'd say that's exactly evil, it can't find a single reason to think it's a good idea.
Yes, it really, really is. The digital equivalent would be if someone found a burned CD on the ground, proceeded to burn a ton of copies, sold them, and then claimed he had the right to sell them because the original was their property.
Um, I don't think there's a digital equivalent to stuff like pollination and such. Or if there is... that sure as hell ain't it.
How is it the farmer's fault that his crop on his property caught this strain, all without any action on his part? How would he even known they caught that strain in the first place?
I'm not even a farmer, and I think I can figure out one of the main tenants of replanting. If you have two plants, and one died while the other lived, you use the seeds from the one that lived to plant more. I can figure this out because it has another more popular name. Survival of the fittest.
Again, he didn't get in trouble for it spreading. He got in trouble for taking actions to isolate the GMO, reproduce only it, and then sell it. What part about that isn't clear?
Sign a bill that endorses discrimination cost your state a 4 billion dollar industry. Fiscal conservatism at its finest!
From an Ars Technica commenter:
I'm a life-long resident of Indianapolis, a long-time Gen Con attendee and an employee of Salesforce's Indianapolis operations. I've also been a proponent of equality in this state for as long as I've been aware of the issue. So obviously this story hits close to home.
I can't get super into detail, but we've been assured that our jobs aren't in jeopardy. But Indianapolis isn't just a city with which Salesforce might or might not do business. With their acquisition of ExactTarget, Indianapolis became a HEADQUARTERS city for them. Outside of their main HQ in San Fransisco, their Indy offices are the largest in the country. They had big plans for this city, and those are all now on hold because of SB101.
It won't mean the loss of my job, but it may mean a severe reduction in my career opportunities within the company (at least if I want to stay in Indianapolis, which I do). But I still support Benioff, and the folks at Gen Con.
Edit: and at least the mayor of Indianapolis, a Republican, was very much against SB101.
Posts
Plus they make pesticides, and guess what is killing off bees in droves.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
pleasepaypreacher.net
No. They actually haven't. Case in point.
http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-patents-sue-farmers-547/
Oh really? Care to counter?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Monsanto might be assholes for zealously protecting their patents, but no one had proven that they were fraudulently filling the lawsuits.
If I remember correctly, the issue was that trucks carrying Monsanto seeds drove past these farmers' fields. The wind blew some seeds out of the backs of the trucks and into the fields, where the inadvertently grew. The farmers were then sued for having the resulting crops in their fields without having paid for the seeds.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Monsanto has not sued anyone incidentally contaminated who did not attempt to cultivate the seeds. In fact, Monsanto has a standing policy that they will pay for the cost of having their seeds/plants removed from your land if you find it and report it! The case you cited was dismissed because there were no cases in which Monsanto sued people who didn't take their own actions to cultivate the cross contaminated seeds.
Edit: By cultivate, I specifically mean identifying which were the GM seeds and trying to reproduce those plants specifically.
Sign a bill that endorses discrimination cost your state a 4 billion dollar industry. Fiscal conservatism at its finest!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Maybe someday there will be a significant "open source" GMO movements that I'd be able to support. I do think our incredible focus on monoculture is a little scarry, but the root issue there is not actually related to GMOs.
This was going around my feed as well, and I had someone point out an odd downside I hadn't considered.
Indiana just lost another Gay friendly employer for gays stuck living in Indiana
All the more reason for those gays to leave. I know this isn't the best solution and for people who like Indiana it hurts, but writing is on the wall and with these supremes and their states rights/religious belief boner, if you are in a state with plenty of gay hate its best for you to leave.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How great would it be if Salesforce just went, "You gay folks in Indiana? If you want to work for us, we'll pay for you to move to a not-shitty state."
Oh ya, like, it definitely strikes a blow, it just sucks in that way a little, something had to be done in response though and I don't blame them, just sad for gays stuck in Indiana afterwards that can't escape.
pleasepaypreacher.net
IIRC the farmer in that case didn't buy the GMO (specifically the herbicide-resistant strain) seeds and his neighbors did. When it came time to end the harvest, the first farmer noticed that all but a few of his plants died to the herbicide (the ones near the fence), put two and two together, and started planting only the seeds from those plants. I believe this went on for about two years or so.
The neighbors, pissed, (the seed licenses cost $TEXAS) ratted him out and Monsanto came in and said "hey, you seem to be planting our plants, we'll call it even if you buy the license or stop planting that seed". Farmer refused and got sued.
But they really do charge a ton of money for those seed agreements, and they're partly responsible for the rise of herbicide resistant weeds in the First World.
Supposedly Monsanto only went after those cases because if they didn't, it set a precedent that their (self replicating) IP copyright was unenforceable. Which it should be anyway, probably.
That doesn't make Monsanto evil, though. If you take the opinion that genetic modifications can be protected by copyright, then what they did is reasonable. If you are of the opinion that genetic modifications cannot be protected by copyright, then what they did was wrong.
But that disagreement is what that judgement hinges on. In order for Monsanto suing farmers that deliberately cultivate seeds that are descended from Monsanto's modified organisms to be evil, the notion that genetic modifications are copyrightable would have to be evil. And that's a much tougher sell than "Monsanto sues farmers, Monsanto is 20 hitlers."
So... pay Monsanto, or your neighbors poison your crops? At that point it's practically protection money. "That's some nice corn you have. Shame if something were to happen to it..."
I'm not sure if you're being intentionally obtuse. He specifically only replanted seeds from the plants he knew/heavily suspected were GM. He did this for a couple years, specifically to weed out any non GM plants in his harvest, so he could get the GM plants without paying for them in any way. When he was discovered, he was asked to pay/buy seeds like normal going forward, or stop doing it. He did neither.
The farmer should be suing his neighbors, then, as they're the ones that did so.
I'm not sure we have all the information, though. Was the herbicide that killed his plants just the herbicide his neighbors were using (How much were they using to kill his entire crop?), or was it herbicide he was using?
Monsanto does not sell seeds so much as they sell licenses to use their seeds; think of it like getting a business edition of Office. You're not paying for the CDs with Office on them, you're paying for the right to legally use Office to do business.
If you believe that Monsanto should not be allowed to license their seed technology, just sell the physical seeds, then yes, what they did would be immoral under that framework, and they would have to sell seeds that tended to die after a couple generations in order to get revenue (which I believe they already do in some limited fashion). But that stance also makes GMOs massively unprofitable and unwise to invest in, and there is a precedent for technology licensing in a massive variety of industries, so singling out the farming industry is a little odd; there are much more reproducible technologies being licensed (software) and much less reproducible technologies being licensed (dishwashers at restaurants are usually a technology-licensing thing; you pay per clean and you have tech support available).
If you believe that Monsanto should be allowed to license their seed technology, then they are in the right. They have in no circumstance (that I am aware of) gone after anybody who unintentionally got their crops cross-contaminated. They have only sued in situations where farmers intentionally began the process of cross-contamination, or (as in this case) specifically reseeded Monsanto crops by using weedkiller to select their seeding crops after an accidental cross-contamination.
So if you believe that technology licensing is inherently immoral or is a net negative (either in general or for farming), then yeah, Monsanto is acting in a way that would be immoral by furthering their ability to license their technology. But if you don't, they really haven't done anything wrong, and certainly nothing on the scale of acting like some kind of Roundup-Mafia, intentionally planting their crops and then kneecapping farmers for unlicensed use of their product.
I feel like the description of Monsanto as being left-wing's Nuclear Power is pretty spot-on: They get a bunch of terrible publicity despite not actually doing anything wrong, and the stigma is very difficult to break even with the facts being pretty clear, and it's partially out of fear/outrage (by the general population) and partially out of competing business interests (since, obviously, organic farms would prefer Monsanto look like dogshit).
He was spraying herbicide around some power lines and some of it got onto his canola plants. I got some of the facts wrong, but the basic story's the same.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that he owned the physical seed but Monsanto owned the Roundup-Ready gene, and thus he had to pay up if he wanted to use seeds or plants containing it. It also said that cases of physical contamination are outside farmers' control, but deliberately isolating and saving the seed is another ballgame.
*Yes, you can -technically- plant seeds from a GM plant and skip paying the fees. But in order to use the seeds in the first place, you've got to sign an agreement promising that you won't do that.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I agree, but at least I can understand people's opposition to the outcome, even if I don't agree with it. The Monsanto case is entirely justifiable by the company.\
EDIT: To clarify: I agree that the harm caused by misinformation about the McDonald's case is greater, but that the misinformation about the Monsanto case is more extreme.
It's not his fault. It's not even Monsanto's fault, really. It this stupid idea that you can own the genetic structure of a self replicating organism in the first place. And while I don't know if I'd say that's exactly evil, it can't find a single reason to think it's a good idea.
And don't worry, we in Canada also had our share of "LOL COFFEE HOT IDIOT SUED" stupidity.
6 Famous 'Frivolous Lawsuit' Stories That Are Total B.S.
If you can't license GMOs, people won't make them, which is bad for everybody in the end. There's no reason to do major industrial research if you are guaranteed to make no money on it. It is the same reason any other business innovation is protected by patent or copyright, and just because they can replicate doesn't mean the ideas are not deserving of protection. Do you believe that code can be patented? It's even more replicatable.
McDonald's coffee case is the first on the list, which is what I was hoping.
Because that case is literally a textbook example of tort law in action.
Except you know, that stance ignores that all of the things that paint them as terrible and evil are either based on the ideas GMOs are terrible or outright lies about their prosecution practices to protect their intellectual property.
Yes, it really, really is. The digital equivalent would be if someone found a burned CD on the ground, proceeded to burn a ton of copies, sold them, and then claimed he had the right to sell them because the original was their property.
GMOs will still be made, they will instead be directed by charity / educational institutions instead of corporate profit driven institutions.
MWO: Adamski
Um, I don't think there's a digital equivalent to stuff like pollination and such. Or if there is... that sure as hell ain't it.
How is it the farmer's fault that his crop on his property caught this strain, all without any action on his part? How would he even known they caught that strain in the first place?
I'm not even a farmer, and I think I can figure out one of the main tenants of replanting. If you have two plants, and one died while the other lived, you use the seeds from the one that lived to plant more. I can figure this out because it has another more popular name. Survival of the fittest.
Again, he didn't get in trouble for it spreading. He got in trouble for taking actions to isolate the GMO, reproduce only it, and then sell it. What part about that isn't clear?
From an Ars Technica commenter:
Edit: and at least the mayor of Indianapolis, a Republican, was very much against SB101.