Monsanto

[Steve]

Then change it. THAT'S your right.

[Steve]

I do, and have publically stated that I do, abhor Monsanto's business model.

[Steve]

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. IMO.

[Steve]

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).

[a36guy]

They should not be grown next to a farmer who saves seed, thats for sure. Its just a matter of time until some bug comes along and kills 2/3 the population. Then most of the worlds problems will be over.

[a36guy]

There should be a law to protect others from Monsanto crops infecting surrounding fields. This is were the big problem lies. .

[Wildbilly]

Legally? Sure. Morally? Rules in a knife fight?

[Wildbilly]

Now you are asking me to prove a negative. It would be better for you to prove the positive.

Do you know which watermelons taste the sweetest?

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.

-----

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.

[phorbin]

Supporting them on patent rights amounts to supporting their business model.

In for a penny, in for a pound.

[phorbin]

There are supposed to be buffer fields to do that.

*They*don't*work* and there is constant pressure to reduce the size of the buffers.

GM rapeseed/canola *has escaped* and is *growing in the wild as a weed* so there's no stopping it and no controlling it. Of course it's more prevalent in canola growing districts. (The core area of my city isn't a canola district and it crops up here.)

Monsanto has never been naive enough to believe that they could stop the genes from spreading. Buffer zones can slow it, not arrest it as noted above. The reason they've focused on bullying farmers is that they know the gene is going to escape and farmers are an easily mangled(sic) target; a strategic pinch-point, if you will.

Monsanto has enough smart, if evil minds to have worked it out ahead of time. Every action Monsanto launches in protection of its patent has to be seen within this context. --If I put myself in their planners' position I would see the spread as reasonable leverage to put more pressure on the buffer zones *because* the gene has escaped into the wild and the buffer zones have become irrelevant.

The question that I think has to be asked at all levels is, "Is it reasonable to assume that at the outset, Monsanto could have predicted the spread of the GM canola/rapeseed gene far beyond the borders of licensed farms to other farms and into the wild?"

If yes, and I believe the answer is yes, then the patent should be revoked, precedent set, and Monsanto held accountable in a significant, non-costofdoingbusiness way.

Time's up. Gotta run.

[Steve]

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.