hell yea. another F YOU to monsanto

[MaggieMae]

Well, the USPTO has ruled that aLthough naturally occurring things can't be patented, genetically modified organisms can. I'ts an inventive process to make genetically modified organisms, and that innovation should be rewarded, as should all innovation. YOu want to take patents away, nobody is going to spend the time, money and resource to develop new products if they can't get market exclusivity and get a return on their investment. Some copy cat can come along putting no work in of their own and just steal their hard work

That's one thing many of the anti corporation people don't get, especially when it comes to biotechnology.

Why can't Monsanto just plant soy seeds, period? They certainly still have more acreage than all the other farmers combined and would still be the #1 profiteer. They answer is they're not "farmers," but chemists hawking their pestisides which they found a way to inject into food products. It's almost like a Dean Koontz plot.

Because they are a seed provider, amongst other things. ANd they spent 6 billion to make better seeds to provide yield crops, which most farmers apparently like since so many buy their seeds. Again, were they forced to buy their seeds?

stop linking to biased articles not supported in fact, the courts which heard the facts on the "seed blowing" argument ruled otherwise.

Not all of them. Plus, if the farmers also had an army of corporate lawyers, who knows who would have "won."

 

[Nate]

I'm sorry MaggieMae you can't win this fight. I've spent most of my day scouring the web looking for legitimate sites that these two would take into consideration but to no avail I can't find any. So it comes to this either the company has successfully covered their asses or there isn't any. As Doc has said if the farmers signed an agreement and they broke it then they deserve to have the "book" thrown at them, matter of fact most of the cases I read the farmers did breach their contract(there is a case or two out there where I believe the farmer though).
That said I still see Monsanto as an unethical corporation, I still can't get pass this;

In December 2000, Dutch journalist Marjon Van Royen investigated local health reports in Colombia and found that there had been "consistent health complaints," including "burning eyes, dizziness and respiratory problems."
According to Elsa Nivia, a Colombian agronomist who works with the Pesticide Action Network, local authorities reported 4,289 humans suffering skin or gastric disorders in the first two months of 2001. Some 178,377 animals (cattle, horses, pigs, dogs, ducks, hens and fish) were reported killed by the spraying.
Digging further, Van Royen found something alarming: another additive called Cosmo-Flux 411 F was being added to increase the toxicity of Roundup Ultra The Roundup/Cosmo-Flux mixture has never been scientifically evaluated nor has the public - either in the US or in Colombia - been informed of this practice.
In a talk at the University of California at Davis in May 2001, Nivia said: "The mixture with the Cosmo Flux 411 F surfactant can increase the herbicide's biological action four-fold, producing relative exposure levels which are 104 times higher than the recommended doses for normal agricultural applications in the United States; doses which, according to the study mentioned, can intoxicate and even kill ruminants." The use of this enhanced Roundup would not be acceptable in the US without prior testing and scientific evaluation.
The Roundup label warns: "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application."
"Drift" is a major issue, as Senator Wellstone discovered first hand. The small crop duster airplanes and helicopters that spray chemical herbicides in Colombia often fly too high to accurately target the drug crops. Labels warn that spraying must be done on windless days. But nature does not often provide windless days in the tropical Andean valleys. A small plane flying as low as 65 feet is subject to high crosswinds that characterize rainforest ecology. These winds easily blow the herbicide toward non-target areas, contaminating crops, rainforests or bodies of water.
Last spring, the German government lodged complaints against the fumigation program when chemical "drift" destroyed Colombian aquaculture projects they had underwritten- fishponds meant to provide protein for campesino subsistence.

Monsanto and the 'Drug War'

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Leaving Haiti out of the discussion, it must be really tough for a "conservative" to decide which to support: The big business or the small farmer owning a private agricultural business, since there's no gubmit to blame here.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Conservatives = always fully in support of Big Business (trickle-down; major employers)
and therefore protect corporate welfare (yes, even Monsanto gets subsidized).

Conservatives = always fully in support of small business owners (the "backbone of Americanism").

Better? You can't take sides on this particular issue, it would seem.

Here yuh go idiot. Read away you hypocrite. You people are so easy. ~BH

- Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

 

[Si modo]

Not a monopoly? It sells 90% of US genetically altered seeds.

Yup. Not a monopoly.

Sigh, Si...

Definitions of monopoly (n)
Control of market supply: a situation in which one company controls an industry or is the only provider of a product or service

When 90 = 100, you'll let us know, right?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Why can't Monsanto just plant soy seeds, period? They certainly still have more acreage than all the other farmers combined and would still be the #1 profiteer. They answer is they're not "farmers," but chemists hawking their pestisides which they found a way to inject into food products. It's almost like a Dean Koontz plot.

Why would Monsanto 'just plant soy seeds'? They are a supplier TO the farmers.

I still don't know what you are trying to say. Really.

Sorry.

I'm saying I don't know of many people who died or got sick from non genetically altered soybeans. There was nothing wrong with the ones farmers used for decades before Monsanto discovered a huge profit base.

Because they provide better yields, are more easily controlled with pesticides and are less damaged. other crops can have natural herbicides in the genes so pesticides don't be needed. Obviously if they were not better, farmers would not buy them and Monsanto would not have a huge market and make so much money. What don't you get about that? Farmers are buying them, they must be good, they aren't just buying more expensive seeds for shits and giggles

 

[Dr Gregg]

Upon learning of Mr. McFarling

One court case, guy saved seeds violating the agreement
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/05opinions/05-1570.pdf

Another court case where farmer never signed the license getting seeds from seed sellers
Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs

Most things I see that even mention the "blowing of seeds from neighboring farms' are from these biased sites that never cite actual reports and court cases where this is mentioned. I'll keep looking

I don't care how many lawsuits Monsanto wins over their licensing agreements, this monopolistic practice is just plain WRONG.

Monsanto versus Farmers

For the first time in history, one company has unprecedented control of the sale and use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed.

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto’s the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn’t actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

But it's NOT monopolistic. No matter how many times you say that, it makes it no more untrue than the first time you said it.

Yup, other companies are free to research new seeds that can equal or are better than monsanto seeds. When it comes to innovation and new technology like this, the first person to get a patent on something automatically has a monopoly on their product for 20 years from patent filing date, which usually comes out to much less on products. That's how you reward hard work and innovation and new discoveries, by providing market exclusivity. If someone discovers and patents a cure for all cancer, they would have a monopoly on that product unless companies can maneuver around the patents or come up with their own innovation.

 

[MaggieMae]

tha'ts a fair criticism. But nothing has shown yet, even after years and years, of anything being environmentally damaging with GMO crops. Mostly its irrational fears of people scared of genetic manipulation and slippery slope arguments. People focus too much on science fiction movies

I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed.

What "bullying tactics"?



I still have no idea what you are trying to say. And, I've asked nicely and you keep dodging.

It seems no one is actually reading the links.

Some of these "investigators" were interviewed for the Food, Inc. documentary, so this is not "biased" and made up.

Monsanto versus Farmers

Farmers intimidated by Monsanto
Here’s what typically happens to US farmers who fall under suspicion of planting saved seed. Private investigators from the Pinkerton agency hired by Monsanto arrive on the farm without warning, sometimes accompanied by local police. They then proceed to take samples and photographs over the course of a few hours to a few weeks, without the farmer being present.

One Mississippi farmer who runs a farm shop from his farmhouse was subjected to constant surveillance by Monsanto investigators who watched the family coming and going, warned off customers, and even rented an empty lot across the street from where to position their cameras.

Monsanto used entrapment to file a lawsuit against another farmer, when one of their investigators begged seeds from him to help solve an erosion problem too late in the season to plant crops. If personal intimidation fails, Monsanto resorts to another violation of privacy by sending a registered letter threatening to "tie the farmer up in court for years" if he refuses to settle out of court for patent infringement. One farmer who challenged this intimidation had his name blacklisted on thousands of seed dealers’ lists. He concedes, "It is easier to give into them than it is to fight them."

A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.

In 1999, The Washington Post reported that the number of farmers under investigation in US and Canada was 525. A later report confirmed that Monsanto was investigating 500 farmers in 2004 "as they do every year." Once a farmer agrees to settle out of court he may be forced to present all documents relating to farm activity within 24 hours of request, purchase a specific quantity of company product and disclose the names of other people that have saved company seed.

All that may be perfectly legal, but it's legal bullying in my opinion. (And I'm usually on the side of lawyers.)

 

[Dr Gregg]

Here's a case where the farmer claimed cross pollination of plants

But as often occurs, court cases turn on particular facts. First, expert testimony accepted by the court explained that mere cross-pollination could not produce a canola crop that was 95 percent to 98 percent Roundup Ready. Second, in 1996, when the alleged cross-pollination would have occurred, the nearest farmer licensed to use Roundup Ready Canola was five miles away. Third, an expert in road vehicle aerodynamics testified that canola seed falling from passing trucks would travel no more than 8.8 meters.

Furthermore, although Schmeiser claimed that he used other herbicides to control weeds in his fields, including Treflan, Muster, and Assure in 1997 and 1998, he could produce no receipts to show that he had purchased those chemicals. However, he did have receipts that showed that he had bought Roundup. Finally, a neighboring farmer testified that Schmeiser's hired hand had told him several times that Schmeiser had grown Roundup Ready canola and then sprayed Roundup on the crop.

Goliath Whomps David - Reason Magazine

Again, claim not proven.
more on the case
High Plains Drifting: Wind-Blown Seeds and the Intellectual Property Implications of the GMO Revolution

Are you planning to post all of them? Not interested.

Then why are you here? YOu are not interested in the facts of the matter, just want to believe what you already believe? That's pretty damn pathetic, close minded, and not very intelligent. Why would you even admit that you don't care about what the actual facts and the laws say on the matter?

Sorry, I care about facts, and won't let you continue to lie and slander things you apparently know nothing about.

 

[Si modo]

I'm sorry MaggieMae you can't win this fight. I've spent most of my day scouring the web looking for legitimate sites that these two would take into consideration but to no avail I can't find any. So it comes to this either the company has successfully covered their asses or there isn't any. As Doc has said if the farmers signed an agreement and they broke it then they deserve to have the "book" thrown at them, matter of fact most of the cases I read the farmers did breach their contract(there is a case or two out there where I believe the farmer though).
That said I still see Monsanto as an unethical corporation, I still can't get pass this;

In December 2000, Dutch journalist Marjon Van Royen investigated local health reports in Colombia and found that there had been "consistent health complaints," including "burning eyes, dizziness and respiratory problems."
According to Elsa Nivia, a Colombian agronomist who works with the Pesticide Action Network, local authorities reported 4,289 humans suffering skin or gastric disorders in the first two months of 2001. Some 178,377 animals (cattle, horses, pigs, dogs, ducks, hens and fish) were reported killed by the spraying.
Digging further, Van Royen found something alarming: another additive called Cosmo-Flux 411 F was being added to increase the toxicity of Roundup Ultra The Roundup/Cosmo-Flux mixture has never been scientifically evaluated nor has the public - either in the US or in Colombia - been informed of this practice.
In a talk at the University of California at Davis in May 2001, Nivia said: "The mixture with the Cosmo Flux 411 F surfactant can increase the herbicide's biological action four-fold, producing relative exposure levels which are 104 times higher than the recommended doses for normal agricultural applications in the United States; doses which, according to the study mentioned, can intoxicate and even kill ruminants." The use of this enhanced Roundup would not be acceptable in the US without prior testing and scientific evaluation.
The Roundup label warns: "Do not apply this product in a way that will contact workers or other persons, either directly or through drift. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application."
"Drift" is a major issue, as Senator Wellstone discovered first hand. The small crop duster airplanes and helicopters that spray chemical herbicides in Colombia often fly too high to accurately target the drug crops. Labels warn that spraying must be done on windless days. But nature does not often provide windless days in the tropical Andean valleys. A small plane flying as low as 65 feet is subject to high crosswinds that characterize rainforest ecology. These winds easily blow the herbicide toward non-target areas, contaminating crops, rainforests or bodies of water.
Last spring, the German government lodged complaints against the fumigation program when chemical "drift" destroyed Colombian aquaculture projects they had underwritten- fishponds meant to provide protein for campesino subsistence.

Monsanto and the 'Drug War'

This is a whole other topic. I would be pleased to discuss it with you, if you want to start a thread about it.

Here, it has little to do with GMOs.

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed..

So you don't care about the facts of the matter?


and how is it their fault that they had the innovative idea, and the finances and innovative vision to do extensive research and development before any other company did, and spent 6 billion on it, and are now benefitting from it. Intellectual property is a huge things, especially this day and age of new technologies and innovation, that must be protected if we want more innovation, as its risky, costs lots of money, and requires hard work.

They are not stopping other companies from developing better seeds, are they? Granted, they have a huge advantage cause they have a huge market share and lots of resources.

Or poor, poor Monsanto. You don't think they haven't recouped their $6 billion ten times or more over?

Facts of the matter aside, I can't say enough times that what they are doing by putting small farmers out of business is wrong, no matter how they or you try to spin it. IF they treated these farmers as actual partners instead of potential enemy competitors, it may not have turned out so ugly. But this is corporate greed, plain and simple. Monsanto doesn't give a shit about food supply, world hunger, or anything else other than it's own profit.

 

[Si modo]

I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed.

What "bullying tactics"?



I still have no idea what you are trying to say. And, I've asked nicely and you keep dodging.

It seems no one is actually reading the links.

Some of these "investigators" were interviewed for the Food, Inc. documentary, so this is not "biased" and made up.

Monsanto versus Farmers

Farmers intimidated by Monsanto
Here’s what typically happens to US farmers who fall under suspicion of planting saved seed. Private investigators from the Pinkerton agency hired by Monsanto arrive on the farm without warning, sometimes accompanied by local police. They then proceed to take samples and photographs over the course of a few hours to a few weeks, without the farmer being present.

One Mississippi farmer who runs a farm shop from his farmhouse was subjected to constant surveillance by Monsanto investigators who watched the family coming and going, warned off customers, and even rented an empty lot across the street from where to position their cameras.

Monsanto used entrapment to file a lawsuit against another farmer, when one of their investigators begged seeds from him to help solve an erosion problem too late in the season to plant crops. If personal intimidation fails, Monsanto resorts to another violation of privacy by sending a registered letter threatening to "tie the farmer up in court for years" if he refuses to settle out of court for patent infringement. One farmer who challenged this intimidation had his name blacklisted on thousands of seed dealers’ lists. He concedes, "It is easier to give into them than it is to fight them."

A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.

In 1999, The Washington Post reported that the number of farmers under investigation in US and Canada was 525. A later report confirmed that Monsanto was investigating 500 farmers in 2004 "as they do every year." Once a farmer agrees to settle out of court he may be forced to present all documents relating to farm activity within 24 hours of request, purchase a specific quantity of company product and disclose the names of other people that have saved company seed.

All that may be perfectly legal, but it's legal bullying in my opinion. (And I'm usually on the side of lawyers.)

Protecting one's investment in research by protecting intellectual property is not bullying, in my book.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed..

So you don't care about the facts of the matter?


and how is it their fault that they had the innovative idea, and the finances and innovative vision to do extensive research and development before any other company did, and spent 6 billion on it, and are now benefitting from it. Intellectual property is a huge things, especially this day and age of new technologies and innovation, that must be protected if we want more innovation, as its risky, costs lots of money, and requires hard work.

They are not stopping other companies from developing better seeds, are they? Granted, they have a huge advantage cause they have a huge market share and lots of resources.

Or poor, poor Monsanto. You don't think they haven't recouped their $6 billion ten times or more over?

Facts of the matter aside, I can't say enough times that what they are doing by putting small farmers out of business is wrong, no matter how they or you try to spin it. IF they treated these farmers as actual partners instead of potential enemy competitors, it may not have turned out so ugly. But this is corporate greed, plain and simple. Monsanto doesn't give a shit about food supply, world hunger, or anything else other than it's own profit.

What's the matter Maggie, Cat get your toungue? What about your herO Obama's connections to Monsanto, You got nothing to say? Well that would be a fucking first eh? ~BH

- Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

 

[MaggieMae]

And Nate, if you were truly being open minded, you wouldn't take such a horrible, opinionated and biased piece of journalism from an internet site that cites emails as sources and other nonsense. And you would be able to see from the get go that is was garbage journalism. That really should be clear from the articl. compare the first 2 I posted, to that one, and you see a clear difference between one stating facts, and the other throwing bias and opinion into it

Now, there are other real journalistic pieces critical of monstanto, but the OPs link most definitely was not

I don't know why you've got your ass in the air over Nate's "source" when the same information can be found at just about every news outlet, and then some. Go find a source more suitable to your liking, if you don't accept Truthout.

The source of the OP is such a clear piece of propaganda, that's why. If you can't see that, then you have your head up your ass. I've posted several factual articles, and even court cases to show that many of the claims in these articles are not factual. IN the OP, some of the references they cite are group emails. HOw is that evidence? The layman person who doesn't care about what the facts are probably won't even check what the actual source is. Amazing you can't see how that article is biased. And his links were what I linked anyway, and it never says that they are forcing Haiti to buy their seeds. THey don't have to buy them if they don't want to. THey are getting a free round of seeds in tough times.

The only truth in the OP article is that the Haitians are burning the seeds. The other shit about Monstanto is not factual nor supported by any evidence, just claims

I didn't even read the OP. I am, however, surprised you wouldn't suck up every word, since Truthout is a "leftist" Internet outlet.

I'm very, VERY familiar with this particular issue, and I suggest you do further research yourself and stop being so fucking argumentative over sources.

 

[Si modo]

I don't even care about that. My issue with Monsanto is their bullying tactics which puts small busineses OUT of business. Why is it everyone screams bloody murder about small business failures, but nobody thinks this is just plain bad and reeks of corporate greed..

So you don't care about the facts of the matter?


and how is it their fault that they had the innovative idea, and the finances and innovative vision to do extensive research and development before any other company did, and spent 6 billion on it, and are now benefitting from it. Intellectual property is a huge things, especially this day and age of new technologies and innovation, that must be protected if we want more innovation, as its risky, costs lots of money, and requires hard work.

They are not stopping other companies from developing better seeds, are they? Granted, they have a huge advantage cause they have a huge market share and lots of resources.

Or poor, poor Monsanto. You don't think they haven't recouped their $6 billion ten times or more over?

Facts of the matter aside, I can't say enough times that what they are doing by putting small farmers out of business is wrong, no matter how they or you try to spin it. IF they treated these farmers as actual partners instead of potential enemy competitors, it may not have turned out so ugly. But this is corporate greed, plain and simple. Monsanto doesn't give a shit about food supply, world hunger, or anything else other than it's own profit.

If farmers need to steal from suppliers to stay in business, then they should be out of business.

 

[Si modo]

I don't know why you've got your ass in the air over Nate's "source" when the same information can be found at just about every news outlet, and then some. Go find a source more suitable to your liking, if you don't accept Truthout.

The source of the OP is such a clear piece of propaganda, that's why. If you can't see that, then you have your head up your ass. I've posted several factual articles, and even court cases to show that many of the claims in these articles are not factual. IN the OP, some of the references they cite are group emails. HOw is that evidence? The layman person who doesn't care about what the facts are probably won't even check what the actual source is. Amazing you can't see how that article is biased. And his links were what I linked anyway, and it never says that they are forcing Haiti to buy their seeds. THey don't have to buy them if they don't want to. THey are getting a free round of seeds in tough times.

The only truth in the OP article is that the Haitians are burning the seeds. The other shit about Monstanto is not factual nor supported by any evidence, just claims

I didn't even read the OP. I am, however, surprised you wouldn't suck up every word, since Truthout is a "leftist" Internet outlet.

I'm very, VERY familiar with this particular issue, and I suggest you do further research yourself and stop being so fucking argumentative over sources.

No offense, Maggie, but you wondered why Monsanto didn't just plant soybean. That sort of shoots a bit of a hole in your actual knowledge of this subject.

No offense.

 

[MaggieMae]

and where is the evidence of this?how do you know the court cases didn't find that the farmer just claimed it blew onto their farm and the evidence showed that they reused or stole seeds.

And again, I'm reading your article and it reads


So if they didn't like the agreement, why buy their seeds? how is that monsanto's problem, who spent 6 billion dollars on seed research? They are not allowed to make ap profit on their hard work and innovation? Sounds liek a lot of whining from farmers that signed agreement but now don't like it. Again, the first couple paragraphs of chapter 2 so far says just that. Again, why did they buy the seeds in the first place?

In the documentary, there were many interviews of both farmers who had attempted to work with Monsanto, those who refused to work with them, and also Monsanto's legal team representatives. You'll have to see the film to have your questions adequately answered. But I wouldn't be so quick to accuse these farmers of just "whining" until you DO know more.

Again, their claims, that can't be proven, that comes from a biased documentary that has an agenda. Like people don't lie, get real. Where is there evidence of this? A documentary doesn't get all the facts, court cases hear both sides and make a decision. And what kind of deal were they looking for? cHeaper than the normal license? Free seeds? Paying the licensing fee would be much cheaper than infringement and being sued.

I'll still look, but nothing I've seen so far shows actual evidnece and proof of all these claims, and seriously, a documentary is about as biased as you get. I like Michael Moore documentaries, but even I realize its totally slanted

I'm still looking for actual proof of what these people claim.

Oh okay, they made it all up and Monsanto doesn't twist the law and lie . Happy?

Now shaddap.

 

[Si modo]

In the documentary, there were many interviews of both farmers who had attempted to work with Monsanto, those who refused to work with them, and also Monsanto's legal team representatives. You'll have to see the film to have your questions adequately answered. But I wouldn't be so quick to accuse these farmers of just "whining" until you DO know more.

Again, their claims, that can't be proven, that comes from a biased documentary that has an agenda. Like people don't lie, get real. Where is there evidence of this? A documentary doesn't get all the facts, court cases hear both sides and make a decision. And what kind of deal were they looking for? cHeaper than the normal license? Free seeds? Paying the licensing fee would be much cheaper than infringement and being sued.

I'll still look, but nothing I've seen so far shows actual evidnece and proof of all these claims, and seriously, a documentary is about as biased as you get. I like Michael Moore documentaries, but even I realize its totally slanted

I'm still looking for actual proof of what these people claim.

Oh okay, they made it all up and Monsanto doesn't twist the law and lie . Happy?

Now shaddap.

The courts didn't think Monsanto twisted the law and lied.

Can we tell you to 'shaddup' now?

 

[MaggieMae]

Upon learning of Mr. McFarling

One court case, guy saved seeds violating the agreement
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/05opinions/05-1570.pdf

Another court case where farmer never signed the license getting seeds from seed sellers
Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs

Most things I see that even mention the "blowing of seeds from neighboring farms' are from these biased sites that never cite actual reports and court cases where this is mentioned. I'll keep looking

I don't care how many lawsuits Monsanto wins over their licensing agreements, this monopolistic practice is just plain WRONG.

Monsanto versus Farmers

For the first time in history, one company has unprecedented control of the sale and use of crop seed. They have accomplished this in three main ways: control of germplasm through ownership of seed companies; domination of genetic technology and seeds through patent acquisitions; and breaking age-old farming tradition by forcing farmers to buy new seed each year rather than saving and re-planting seed.

Buying or merging with most of the major seed companies, including their recent acquisition of the giant fruit and vegetable seed company Seminis, has made Monsanto’s the largest GM seed vendor in the world, providing 90% of the GM seed sown globally. It has also cornered most of the soybean market and 50% of the corn germplasm market in the US. And if Monsanto doesn’t actually own the seed purchasing companies, it has been known to impose the condition that a minimum of 70% (reduced from 90% by government regulators) of its patented seeds are sold by subsidiary companies. This ensures that its seeds are the most readily available to farmers.

Your opinion vs the law based on all the facts. Which one is more rational?

Robber barons once operated within the law too.

 

[MaggieMae]

Why would Monsanto 'just plant soy seeds'? They are a supplier TO the farmers.

I still don't know what you are trying to say. Really.

Sorry.

I'm saying I don't know of many people who died or got sick from non genetically altered soybeans. There was nothing wrong with the ones farmers used for decades before Monsanto discovered a huge profit base.

Farmers certainly CAN plant non-Monsanto seeds any time they wish to do so.

Obviously, they don't wish to do so.

I wonder why?

You're not reading links I've posted. It explains what happens when they try to plant their own seed. Monsanto sends out inspectors and 'miraculously' finds some of their own, then sues.

 

[Si modo]

I don't care how many lawsuits Monsanto wins over their licensing agreements, this monopolistic practice is just plain WRONG.

Monsanto versus Farmers

Your opinion vs the law based on all the facts. Which one is more rational?

Robber barons once operated within the law too.

So, you want no patents?