Monsanto

Page 3 of 3  
snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net says...

Supporting them on patent rights amounts to supporting their business model.
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Supporting the law of Free Speech does not equate to supporting the screaming of "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Supporting the law of Patent doesn't equate to endorsing Monsanto's behavior. "In for a penny, in for a pound" is not a legal theory, it's an idiom.
I think that plant patents have the potential to be used for good as well as evil.
It's expensive to develop hybrids and the developer should have the right to market his product with a (short) amount of "protected" time in order to recoup his investment. The fact that Monsanto is manipulating this law for evil does not mean it's a bad law, per se.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A patent, or more accurately the enforcement of patent, is not dependent upon contractual agreement.

Really? There's absolutely no chance of that? Source, please.

Not patented ones...

But there is a law that prevents the propagation of their roses without consent.

Whether or not you would "have a problem" is not the test. The fact of the matter is were one to do as you suggested, they would be in violation of patent and subject to J&P's relief request(s).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

prove the positive.

And there are laws about tearing tags off of mattresses, jay walking, and how much wine a home winemaker can make. Not many people are going to lose sleep about them, unless it is done flagrantly.

As would the people who copy movies for themselves. These are called "bread crumb" sins.
But there are no laws against the $600,000,000 from the health insurance companies that went into politicians pockets in the last two years. Hmmm.
No laws for a "Peace Candidate" who becomes a war monger or calls for "Change you can believe in", and does the same ol', same ol'.
ACORN gets cut off from federal spending, but weapon suppliers who rip-off the government get new contracts. Hmmm. ----- http://civileats.com/2009/04/30/you-say-tomato-i-say-monsanto /
You Say Tomato, I Say Monsanto April 30th, 2009 By Vanessa Barrington
Scientific American recently published an article called How to Grow a Better Tomato: The Case against Heirloom Tomatoes. The author details how plant breeders are going about saving heirloom tomatoes from their own fatal flaws. The article was written in a combative tone with the author seemingly intent on provoking a knee-jerk reaction from lovers of good, real food not managed under laboratory conditions. It worked. The article garnered 80 comments, most from home gardeners taking issue with the errors peppering in the article like tomato seeds on a cutting board. The piece even provoked comments from some of the people in the article--namely employees of Monsanto. Seeing the name Monsanto connected with the concept of "improving" yet another food, makes it a little difficult to be neutral, but I'm going to try to look at this article with an open mind.
The author says, "heirlooms are actually feeble and inbred--the defective product of breeding experiments that began during the Enlightenment and exploded thanks to enthusiastic backyard gardeners from Victorian England to Depression-era West Virginia. Heirlooms are the tomato equivalent of the pug--that "purebred" dog with the convoluted nose that snorts and hacks when it tries to catch a breath."
. . .
Both the plant breeder and the Monsanto PR person saw fit to comment on the article for their own reasons due to misstatements in the article, such as the assertion that hybrid seeds are sterile. They are not. Since the article ran, the editor has changed some of the offending passages (marked by asterisks). The comment by Monsanto's PR person stated that they didn't like the title of the piece because they are doing what they are doing for the love of heirlooms....because they really want to save them. And that's when we get to the real point. The company that brought us PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, tried to patent the pig, and has unleashed a litany of misery worldwide doesn't want to save heirloom tomatoes for us. They want to patent and own them. Though the company has met with resistance to nearly every product it has tried to sell worldwide, it just keeps plugging along like a nightmarish telemarketer on endless redial. Monsanto won't stop until they own every seed on the planet. This article in Grist from last year estimates that with Monsanto's 2008 acquisition of Dutch tomato breeding company, De Ruiter Monsanto may now control as much as 85% of the US tomato market. Even though the PR person states in the comment section that Monsanto is doing this for commercial gardens, not home gardeners, I think it might be prudent for all home gardeners to lock up your heirloom tomato seeds in a safe place and watch which way the wind blows.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dang, I always find what I'm looking for in the last place I look.
http://www.fedcoseeds.com/seeds/monsanto.htm
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thanks for that Billy. I'm glad they did the right thing, at least the right thing by my standards.
I would not have felt the same if Fedco had packaged Monsanto's seeds and sold them whilst pretending it was an "accident". I believe there will soon be a watershed case to determine the ultimate social responsibilities of Monsanto...and I really hope for our planet's sake that they are stopped (that's not hyperbole) but I don't think that Schmeiser's case is it. I think and feel that Schmeiser was wrong both morally and legally. <shrug> IMO.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Legally? Sure. Morally? Rules in a knife fight?
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The most high-profile case of contamination is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, where Monsanto Company sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement because his field was contaminated with Monsanto's patented Roundup Ready glyphosate-tolerant canola. The supreme court ruled that Percy was in violation of Monsanto's patent because the crops were growing on his land, but he was not required to pay Monsanto damages since he did not benefit financially from its presence.[28] On March 19, 2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc. came to an out-of-court settlement whereby Monsanto will pay for the clean-up costs of the contamination which came to a total of $660 Canadian. Also part of the agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that Monsanto could be sued again if any further contamination occurred.[29] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola
For Monsanto's spin on the case see http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_today/for_the_record/percy_schmeiser.asp This includes links to court decisions in 2001, 2002, and 2004, http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2001/2001fct256/2001fct256.html . http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2002/2002fca309/2002fca309.html . http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004scc34/2004scc34.html .
For Schmeiser's spin see http://www.percyschmeiser.com /
--
When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the
poor have no food, they call you a communist.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Balanced reporting? Bravo for you Billy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had toyed with heirlooms for a few years, but since finding this NG and all the info you guys have presented, I am no longer buying ANY seeds from anything other than organic companies that provide open-pollinated varieties and promote sustainability. I'd rather pay a dollar more for each seed packet than contribute to Monsanto's plan. Thanks to everyone here who has provided the info to open my eyes over the past year. --S.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
sometime in the recent past Suzanne D. posted this:

or another can't get seed in a given year. I use Fedco in Maine and it's been 3 seasons they've been trying to Lutz Green Leaf beets back in stock.
I think I'm getting a bucket of silica gel and try freezing some of next year's excess seed from suppliers & my garden. Good luck.
--
Wilson 44.69, -67.3

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.