If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Supreme Court agrees to take case on whether Monsanto can forever own our food   (npr.org) divider line 130
    More: Interesting, U.S. Supreme Court, Monsanto, Roundup  
•       •       •

12532 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Oct 2012 at 8:22 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-16 08:01:21 PM
This could be ever so interesting.
I predict that if Monsanto loses, that they quickly will come out with a sterile hybrid.
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaha

sigh
 
2012-10-16 08:18:39 PM
Best part? Forever!
 
2012-10-16 08:24:15 PM
well duh - of course SCOTUS is going to rule in favor of a corporation.
 
2012-10-16 08:26:12 PM
Do they want my poop back? I've got a corny one that I haven't flushed yet.
 
2012-10-16 08:27:21 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: Do they want my poop back? I've got a corny one that I haven't flushed yet.


If your poop contains patented DNA, you owe Monsanto a lot of money, I'm afraid.
 
2012-10-16 08:27:23 PM
i44.tinypic.com

/not quite relevant but vaguely topical
 
2012-10-16 08:27:25 PM
Won't someone think of the lobbyists?
 
2012-10-16 08:30:57 PM
Umbrella Corp?
 
2012-10-16 08:34:18 PM
this can only end in tears...
 
2012-10-16 08:37:06 PM
It would be better if we stopped genetically engineering crops and just used them as fuel.
 
2012-10-16 08:38:16 PM
Monsanto is Thorn Industries from the movie "Omen II".
 
2012-10-16 08:40:10 PM
This should be good. Off to grab my genetically engineered popcorn.
 
2012-10-16 08:40:17 PM
imageshack.us
 
2012-10-16 08:41:14 PM
This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.
 
2012-10-16 08:43:25 PM
Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:08 PM
I wish that Monsanto would be ordered to cease and desist all operations immediately.

...I suspect that will never happen though.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:12 PM
In case anyone missed it, like forever, is the genetically modified is so you can spray roundup all over the crops. It has barely anything to do with increased food production.

/Modify 1 product and made a fortune.
//Use product number 2 on product 1 and make a fortune.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:16 PM

sprgrss: This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.


You've pretty much perfectly described 95% of the people posting in the politics tab.
 
2012-10-16 08:44:19 PM
toirock.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-16 08:45:14 PM

sprgrss: This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.


Oh do please clue us in. You may need to use small words. We don't all work for Monsanto
 
2012-10-16 08:47:29 PM
taobaofieldguide.com
 
2012-10-16 08:49:05 PM

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.
 
2012-10-16 08:52:00 PM
I pooped in my genes.
 
2012-10-16 08:53:15 PM
Go watch this movie. It's available to stream from netflix. What Monsanto does isn't just criminal, it's practically agricultural terrorism. They should be scorched from the surface of the Earth.
 
2012-10-16 08:53:22 PM

cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?


3D print new ones.

cuzsis: What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?


3D print your own food. Power to the 3D people!
 
2012-10-16 08:53:28 PM

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Considering that Monsanto has a very high percentage of the market in soybeans, that scenario is all too likely and has happened.

/you have a right to put up your own seed if you act in good faith
//fark Monsanto, anyway - putting insecticides into the genes of a plant just makes resistance in pests happen that much faster
///why, yes, I AM an entomologist
 
2012-10-16 08:53:53 PM
www.amateurgourmet.com

This movie.
 
2012-10-16 08:54:25 PM

cuzsis: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.


THIS!
 
2012-10-16 08:54:49 PM

cuzsis: Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.

What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.


I forgot to mention effort made to keep a viable population of plants that *aren't* GMO, for the purposes of starting over when we finally manage to fark up the first batch of GMO to the point where they become too poisonous to use consistently.

/that's a pipe dream though.
 
2012-10-16 08:57:49 PM

Quantum Apostrophe: cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

3D print new ones.

cuzsis: What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

3D print your own food. Power to the 3D people!


If you can 3D print a seed, I want some farking "time of the dinosaur" foods!

/would be awesome actually.
 
2012-10-16 08:59:52 PM

cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?


But then you're talking about breaking up a monopoly. I'm pretty sure that's a completely different thing, though I'd agree, we can't let a single company own all the seed crops.

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

Again, I'll agree, we can't let that happen, but this case isn't where we should work on that. On the contrary, it wouldn't surprise me, if Monsanto wins this case, it might make it easier for them to create a monopoly and patent all the agricultural crops. (Because the next time a case against them comes up, the SC will be more likely to reject it out of hand, for being groundless.)
 
2012-10-16 08:59:57 PM
If Monsanto wants to protect their patented crop, they should be forced to cull them from every harvest regardless of what the farmer planted, especially if the farmer planted non-Monsanto seed and is trying to save it. Shouldn't Monsanto Corporation be required to remove their product from the farmer's harvest at their own corporate expense?
 
2012-10-16 09:02:12 PM
Here's a clue to how the decision will come out.

Michael R. Taylor
Former Monsanto executive, current Obama administration FDA executive
farm9.staticflickr.com 

Islam A. Siddiqui
Former Monsanto lobbyist, current Obama administration Chief Agriculture Negotiator
farm6.staticflickr.com
 
2012-10-16 09:03:00 PM

sprgrss: This would be far more interesting to read is someone were to write the article based upon what the actual issues are and not some blithe drive-by article.

The vast majority of people upset with Monsanto and the court cases have zero clue what they are really about, but read overly misleading articles and form opinions based upon incomplete or distorted facts.


As my dear, departed grandfather liked to say- "Put up or shut up."
 
2012-10-16 09:03:02 PM

Honest Bender: [www.amateurgourmet.com image 450x300]

This movie.


Good movie.
 
2012-10-16 09:05:04 PM
Many folks protest Monsanto's business practices, like this Greenpeace protester spraying paint on a company research soybean field in Iowa.

Hahaha, was it a water soluble, VOC-free paint which won't poison the air or water table? Or is this one of those deals where, "fark the environment, we've got to protect the environment."
 
2012-10-16 09:07:59 PM
The most outrageous case from Monsanto I've heard of it a farmer using non-Monsanto seed (that are not round-up-proof)
Monsanto see from a passing truck allegedly has some blown into his field and it mixed in with his seeds. When Monsanto found out they said all of his seed, whether round up ready or not, was subject to their patent because some of the seed had been mixed in. It was either pay Monsanto for seed he already paid someone else for, or throw it out.
 
2012-10-16 09:09:22 PM
you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet. this may change in the future, who knows. be prepared. with the cost of foods rising as fast as they are we should grow victory gardens & scoff the old pamphlets telling you how to grow indoors, hydroponic, etcetera. your government doesn't care if your kids starve to death.
 
2012-10-16 09:10:37 PM
I am pretty sure I understand the ramifications of this issue, and that fellow above can blow it out his ass.

Monsanto is evil.

Businesses that work to control future development and innovation in this manner are evil and an anathema to a free market.
 
2012-10-16 09:11:27 PM
photo.goodreads.com

//Beware the blister rust
 
2012-10-16 09:12:37 PM

Dadoo: cuzsis: What if you don't want to use Monsanto's seed and it's the only one left?

But then you're talking about breaking up a monopoly. I'm pretty sure that's a completely different thing, though I'd agree, we can't let a single company own all the seed crops.

What happens when all of the agricultural crops are patented?

Again, I'll agree, we can't let that happen, but this case isn't where we should work on that. On the contrary, it wouldn't surprise me, if Monsanto wins this case, it might make it easier for them to create a monopoly and patent all the agricultural crops. (Because the next time a case against them comes up, the SC will be more likely to reject it out of hand, for being groundless.)


According TFA, over 90% of the seeds in that region (accessible by farmers who wish to plant) come from Monsanto. Their genetic monopoly is almost complete here.

Which is why this case might actually be useful. In short, you have a farmer who's choice of seeds is almost *entirely* Monsanto. It's getting beyond the ridiculous to expect him to hunt high and low for that remaining less than 10% that *aren't* in order to plant a small crop.

The question of "What happens if you want to plant seeds that *aren't* Monsanto?" that I posted earlier, suddenly becomes quite relevant when only a small percentage of the seeds aren't.

/it's not the best case, I will certainly agree with you there.
//but I think, assuming our justices are being honest, that it's not a foregone conclusion either.
 
2012-10-16 09:12:42 PM

Dadoo: Why are they trying this case? I don't really see how Monsanto could lose. If you want to use Monsanto's seed, you have to play by their rules.

The case they should be trying is the one where, you're not using Monsanto's seed, but your neighbors are. I've read that Monsanto claims if your neighbor's pollen blows over onto your farm, and you use the seed that results - even unknowingly - you're liable. Sorry, but your neighbor should be responsible for that, not you.


Monsanto doesn't do that. What happens in those cases, as it comes out later in discovery and the media has already moved along to the next story, is that the farmer was actually planting Monsanto seeds and planted them. In the cases of actual wind spreading, Monsanto was required to file lawsuits because the farmers refused to allow them to investigate whether or not it was a case of cross-contamination or IP infringement. In the instances of cross-contamination, Monsanto would move to voluntarily dismiss the cases.

This all gets lost along the way because it isn't a sexy story for the media to cover.
 
2012-10-16 09:13:30 PM

cuzsis:
/patents need to be limited to the first few generations, after that they are "generics" and anyone can use them.


Even better, DNA should not be patentable.
If you design a strain of plant or animal, and want full control of it and its future offspring, make it sterile so you are the only one who can produce or sell seed. Otherwise, fark you, too bad.
 
2012-10-16 09:14:02 PM

KrispyKritter: you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet


Cool. Go for it. Then, when your neighbor's monsanto crop contaminates yours you'll get sued by Monsanto. Because they DO keep tabs on farmers. All farmers. And they WILL sneak onto your farm and take samples. And they WILL sue you for "using" their GMO without a license. And you WILL lose.
 
2012-10-16 09:15:46 PM
all this talk about GMO food being unsafe is laughable. There is zero scientific evidence to support those claims.
 
2012-10-16 09:16:43 PM

Honest Bender: KrispyKritter: you can still buy heirloom seeds from many sources on teh internet

Cool. Go for it. Then, when your neighbor's monsanto crop contaminates yours you'll get sued by Monsanto. Because they DO keep tabs on farmers. All farmers. And they WILL sneak onto your farm and take samples. And they WILL sue you for "using" their GMO without a license. And you WILL lose.


Holy hell, this post is so devoid of any actual factual basis it isn't even funny.
 
2012-10-16 09:23:18 PM

dbrunker: Here's a clue to how the decision will come out.

Michael R. Taylor
Former Monsanto executive, current Obama administration FDA executive


Hell, the Obama administration didn't even think this guy should get his day in court.

The Supreme Court took up the case against the advice of the Obama administration, which said the Federal Circuit reached the right conclusion in the case.

The "right" conclusion being whatever their wealthy donor friends wanted, of course. For once, subby's headline is accurate.

dl.dropbox.com
 
2012-10-16 09:32:30 PM
The SC is stacked with conservative fascist GOP fargotts, so I'm pretty sure they will rule in favor of the corp.
 
2012-10-16 09:33:38 PM
i.qkme.me 

/fark Monsanto.
 
2012-10-16 09:36:09 PM

BullBearMS: dbrunker: Here's a clue to how the decision will come out.

Michael R. Taylor
Former Monsanto executive, current Obama administration FDA executive

Hell, the Obama administration didn't even think this guy should get his day in court.

The Supreme Court took up the case against the advice of the Obama administration, which said the Federal Circuit reached the right conclusion in the case.

The "right" conclusion being whatever their wealthy donor friends wanted, of course. For once, subby's headline is accurate.

[dl.dropbox.com image 423x600]


This. Despite what the retards on the Politics tab tell you, the Democrats are not your friends, either.
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report