Posted on 05/13/2013 8:50:24 AM PDT by Theoria
Edited on 05/13/2013 9:14:20 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that farmers may not use Monsanto
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Patenting Life by Michael Crichton
I got flamed for pointing out how evil Monsanto is. That’s ok. I know they are, and no one will convince me otherwise.
And Obama will protect them at almost any cost.
The ruling has implications for many aspects of modern agriculture and for businesses based on vaccines, cell lines and software.
How long before we will have to pay a fee to a software or computer company for the products, services and advertising we use them for?
Soy is awful, and not good for you. And unfortunately, it’s in everything, it’s a cheap filler.
I hate the stuff.
What happens to ownership of plants that are used for seed after being cross pollinated by bees or wind? Does Monsanto own the new variant too?
Not sure I agree with the court, though I don’t know the particulars. If he had signed the contract agreeing not to retain seeds, then he should abide by those terms for plants from seeds he purchased in connection with that contract. If he got seeds from somewhere else which may or may not have had their IP in its genes, seems like if they have any complaint at all, it would be with whomever allowed those seeds to get into the pool available for sale to the public without agreeing to that contract.
Kagan the lesbian Communist comes up with the typical liberal, criminal explanation for why, as usual, they contradict conservative common sense: “It’s COMPLICATED!”
You can kill babies because “it’s complicated.” You can violate thousands of years of history and call it gay marriage because “it’s complicated.” You can destroy hundreds of years of accepted legal principles because “it’s complicated.”
And then, in a quieter voice: “Now pay me the money, Monsanto.”
My wife the vegan says my eating anything that had a parent is bad for you and soy is good.
I doubt the Courts would rule in favor for the farmers in that situation against a Monsanto or other.
They think they do. I believe I've heard of cases where farmers planted non-Monsanto crops which then became cross pollinated with Monsanto crops planted nearby, and they claimed he owed them something, even though he did nothing to obtain their proprietary genes. They should either sue the bees, or else stop planting stuff they don't want in the public domain under the sky that belongs to everyone.
Why would they want own genetically altered and dead bees? As for the wind that’s just a plus in the population control game!
If you really want to get the more irrational geriatrics shrieking, offer up evidence linking Monsanto and Donald Rumsfeld.
Add in a picture of DR shaking hands with Saddam Hussein after the nerve gas deal.
Then party forth!
/I’ve done this a few times over the years to demonstrate cognitive dissonance to third-party Freepers.
You can’t tar Kagan with this one. Every single justice voted the same way, including my buddy Thomas. (In fact, that’s the one thing that makes me think if I looked into it more deeply it might in some conceivable way be legitimate.)
Monsanto is very evil.
This decision will be used to continue the attack against farmers who save their own seed. THESE FARMERS DON’T WANT MONSANTO FRANKENSEEDS, but their seed crop gets contaminated because of neighboring farms. Their seed is ruined and Monsanto can not be legally responsible. Sometimes these farmers plant their own seed not knowing it has been contaminated and then they get sued out of existence by Monsanto.
Luckily my farm is tucked away in Applachia a long long way from the nearest cornfield. And I’m organic so all the frankenlovers can drink a big cup of DDTea and flame away. I’ll ignore you.
This guy wanted the Monsanto product and decided he would find a clever way to get around paying for it. He got caught. And now he has to pay.
I didn’t go to the NYT to read the rest of the article, but it sounds to me like had the farmer not signed the contract, he would have been free to plant the animal feed and harvest the roundup-resistant seed produced.
I learned once that the essence of ownership is control. If monsanto wants to assert ownership for a gene it cannot control in the environment then some new bit of legal reasoning or text needs to be developed.
Wow.
Life is now owned.
Just wait to the corporation starts claiming that they own people who ate GMO food.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.