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.

(Global Research)   Federal judge rules that Monsanto can sue farmers for the wind   (globalresearch.ca) divider line 243
    More: Stupid, GMOs, Monsanto, Supreme Court, Organic Seed Growers, organic labels, farmers, United States courts of appeals, plain  
•       •       •

12551 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 5:09 PM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-15 05:28:51 PM

MechaPyx: True. I'd still like to burn Monsanto to the ground. Just sayin'.


Oh sure.  I greatly dislike the company and its policies, (although for reasons somewhat different to what is usually discussed on Fark) but let's at least get mad at things that actually happened.

/sometimes just get tired of "Fark yells at cloud"
 
2014-01-15 05:28:57 PM
Wasn't it Monsanto that patented a way of raising pigs and then sued people for raising pigs like they do?

Maybe I'm imagining that.
 
2014-01-15 05:28:59 PM

Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: Here's to hoping they fight that BS decision.

By appealing to what court?


I don't recall mentioning any court.
 
2014-01-15 05:29:55 PM

Theaetetus: No need. Illegal dumping of biological waste is already a crime.


cdn.ebaumsworld.com
 
2014-01-15 05:30:07 PM
tlars699:
Then the organic farmers' lawyers are stupid, because polluting the environment, inhibiting your productivity, is a very real thing that you can sue over.
Organic Non-GMO farmers' corn would be polluted by Monsanto DNA, thus ensuring that the farmers can only sell their inspected goods as inferior product at lower prices- ie GMO corn.


Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.
 
2014-01-15 05:30:14 PM

vudukungfu: This federal judge sponsored by Monsanto.


bears bears bears.
 
2014-01-15 05:30:37 PM

sprgrss: SquiggsIN: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

Again DNRTA but, i've followed this issue and YES.  If FarmerX doesn't buy from them and FarmerY buys from them and as FarmerY's harvest truck passes FarmerX's field and one seed contaminates FarmerX's field it's now FarmerX's fault he's growing their patented product and must either start paying them or end up going bankrupt fighting them in court.

And you would be 100% wrong on the law.


Beyond the cases where this exact scenario has happened?  Monsanto has frequently done "spot inspections" of non-customers fields and then sued them for having a portion of their crop that had been contaminated by the glyphosate-resistant (Round-up ready) version of crops they've patented.  Farmers who've been contaminated can't bank their own seeds and replant without being in violation of the patent law despite the fact that they've never bought the product and that it was the wind that put it on their property (or Monsanto employees with a vendetta).
 
2014-01-15 05:30:50 PM

walktoanarcade: Theaetetus: walktoanarcade: Here's to hoping they fight that BS decision.

By appealing to what court?

I don't recall mentioning any court.


Why don't you explain to use why you think it is a bullshiat decision.
 
2014-01-15 05:31:25 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: SquiggsIN: DNRTA

I've kept up with most stories associated with agribusiness for a long time.

Monsanto is one of the most evil companies on the planet.

...

Between the corporations farking us, the bankers robbing us, the police beating us, and the government growing increasingly corrupted about it all, it's hard to keep any one story going for any length of time.

anyone get the feeling it's time to start burning everything down?


After reading what you wrote, I see that that is already happening. metaphorically anyway.  But yeah - it is pretty much time for a revolution.
 
2014-01-15 05:31:37 PM

Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?


Not any more.

In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers' argued, that contamination from Monsanto's products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company's genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"


As part of the litigation, they made a voluntary promise not to do that anymore, backed with a legal document that would prevent them from doing so even if they changed their minds. Because of that, the court ruled that there was no need for additional protections against such events, which means no need for the courts to do anything.
 
2014-01-15 05:31:47 PM

The Life Of Brian: Such a farce - WHY even claim there is 'democracy' any more.....(or a 'republic' as you Yanks like to say)

Are they next going to patent the load I put in my sock tonight??

Hope I don't spill any since that then could be used to make another me through cross contamination - and TRUST ME you do NOT want another ME!


They wanted to, and if your name was Henrietta Lacks, then yes they could.
But luckily for you, one dude in CA already won that lawsuit for you. He had rare antibodies, and a blood collection agency was trying to patent his DNA and turn it into meds, and give him NO proceeds, even though they could only get the antibodies from the dude. Dude won. Yay!
 
2014-01-15 05:32:52 PM
SquiggsIN:
Beyond the cases where this exact scenario has happened?  Monsanto has frequently done "spot inspections" of non-customers fields and then sued them for having a portion of their crop that had been contaminated by the glyphosate-resistant (Round-up ready) version of crops they've patented.  Farmers who've been contaminated can't bank their own seeds and replant without being in violation of the patent law despite the fact that they've never bought the product and that it was the wind that put it on their property (or Monsanto employees with a vendetta).

The one major instance of a farmer being sued for infringement involved a farmer who purposefully infringed.

Monsanto has no colorable claim to sue a farmer who has Monsanto seed inadvertently land on his field.  Monsanto does have a colorable claim when said farmer recognizes that Monsanto seed is growing on his land and purposefully cultivates and segregate the seeds from those plants for the express purpose of growing Monsanto seed without paying the licensing fee.
 
2014-01-15 05:32:56 PM

tlars699: Then the organic farmers' lawyers are stupid, because polluting the environment, inhibiting your productivity, is a very real thing that you can sue over.
Organic Non-GMO farmers' corn would be polluted by Monsanto DNA, thus ensuring that the farmers can only sell their inspected goods as inferior product at lower prices- ie GMO corn.


Well that would require them to actually have those facts in evidence.  This whole case was based on the theoretical instance of 1) Monsanto pollen affecting these organic farmers' crops and 2) Monsanto suing them for infringement.

As to whether they could sue Monsanto for pollution of their crop - i am not entirely sure.  Proximate cause would likely mean that they could possibly sue a neighboring farmer using Monsanto crops under some state tort, but that to sue Monsanto itself would require some extra showing that Monsanto's crops are more likely to pollinate than others or are specially hard to contain.

Its actually an interesting question - may have to look it up.
 
2014-01-15 05:33:31 PM
If Monsanto ever sues over this, no one should pay and should refuse.
 
2014-01-15 05:33:46 PM

meow said the dog: It is not something which I have the familiarity but sometimes I do the wearing of the boy briefs because they have the comfort so perhaps for the boy this is also the thing which provides to he the comfort. Was this the boyshorts or the thong of the underwear? I am not someone who has the assureness of this but would wish for learning of so.


Go home Meow. You're drunk.
 
2014-01-15 05:33:52 PM
This just in, filing a lawsuit over something that hasn't occurred might not stand up in court.  More at 11.
 
2014-01-15 05:34:04 PM

SquiggsIN: Farmers who've been contaminated can't bank their own seeds and replant without being in violation of the patent law despite the fact that they've never bought the product and that it was the wind that put it on their property (or Monsanto employees with a vendetta).


Bad facts make bad law. In the Bowman case, he wasn't just an innocent farmer who happened to have windblown patented seeds in his field - he bred several generations while applying RoundUp specifically to kill off all of the non-Monsanto crops and get a genetically pure Monsanto field. Him being a dick and trying to get something without paying for it basically killed any chance of a favorable decision on patent exhaustion.
 
2014-01-15 05:34:09 PM
ignacio:
As part of the litigation, they made a voluntary promise not to do that anymore, backed with a legal document that would prevent them from doing so even if they changed their minds. Because of that, the court ruled that there was no need for additional protections against such events, which means no need for the courts to do anything.

No, that's not what happened.  The court said because Monsanto isn't suing people then there is no case or controversy and therefore the case is not justiciable.
 
2014-01-15 05:34:12 PM

sprgrss: Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.


You must work in or be heavily invested in agribusiness to be this stupid on the subject.
 
2014-01-15 05:34:27 PM
see  "Henry Kissinger / food" ...
 
2014-01-15 05:34:35 PM

sprgrss: tlars699:
Then the organic farmers' lawyers are stupid, because polluting the environment, inhibiting your productivity, is a very real thing that you can sue over.
Organic Non-GMO farmers' corn would be polluted by Monsanto DNA, thus ensuring that the farmers can only sell their inspected goods as inferior product at lower prices- ie GMO corn.

Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.


Well you could argue that Organic food sells at a premium and that contamination by non-organic pollen has reduced its value.  making out a tort against Monsanto would still be tricky, as discussed above, but i think you could at least say there could be a colorable argument based on the reduction of value of the organic produce.
 
2014-01-15 05:34:37 PM

firemanbuck: sweet juice.


We need to pair you with 'boy shorts.' God it's hot in here.
 
2014-01-15 05:34:40 PM

sprgrss: tlars699:
And just because they haven't sued these particular farmers yet, their behavioral trend shows that they would have, if the farmers hadn't prevented it.

No, not even remotely close.  The farmers didn't prevent anything.


Are they being sued right this very minute? No? Would they have been by now if they hadn't started this process? Yes? Prevention occurred... for now.
Though agreed, it doesn't really stop Monsanto, once this blows over.
 
2014-01-15 05:35:23 PM
Look, can we finally just admit... openly... that the legal system is nothing more than a capitalist enterprise?

Monsanto, and various others, win asinine judgements like this because they have enough money to wear opponents out, or to lobby the right ears to gain favour. Companies sue individuals and smaller companies all the time in the knowledge that they'll win (or gain a positive settlement) just because the opposition can't afford to go as long.

There's nothing even vaguely related to justice left in the West, especially when it comes punitive matters. I know lawyers, and it's what they laugh about over beer and wings -- not because they think it's right, but because there are still some people left who think that things work in any other way. Reality TV is more genuine.
 
2014-01-15 05:36:46 PM

teenage mutant ninja rapist: SquiggsIN: DNRTA

I've kept up with most stories associated with agribusiness for a long time.

Monsanto is one of the most evil companies on the planet.

I don't know what has to happen to get more publicity on what is going on with our food system.  We have fewer and fewer companies controlling more and more of our supply and their goals generally have profit above safety or fairness.  Do we wait until every plant on the planet is patented?  I think Monsanto would love to spread their GMOs to the point they can sue you for the crabgrass in your yards.

Between the corporations farking us, the bankers robbing us, the police beating us, and the government growing increasingly corrupted about it all, it's hard to keep any one story going for any length of time.

anyone get the feeling it's time to start burning everything down?


yes. VERY YES!
 
2014-01-15 05:36:58 PM

tlars699: sprgrss: tlars699:
And just because they haven't sued these particular farmers yet, their behavioral trend shows that they would have, if the farmers hadn't prevented it.

No, not even remotely close.  The farmers didn't prevent anything.

Are they being sued right this very minute? No? Would they have been by now if they hadn't started this process? Yes? Prevention occurred... for now.
Though agreed, it doesn't really stop Monsanto, once this blows over.


Have they ever been sued for what they putatively stopped Monsanto from suing them for?  No.

They didn't stop anything.
 
2014-01-15 05:37:38 PM

SquiggsIN: sprgrss: Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.

You must work in or be heavily invested in agribusiness to be this stupid on the subject.


Yes, anyone who understands science or the law is stupid or has a vested interest.
 
2014-01-15 05:37:45 PM

tlars699: The Life Of Brian: Such a farce - WHY even claim there is 'democracy' any more.....(or a 'republic' as you Yanks like to say)

Are they next going to patent the load I put in my sock tonight??

Hope I don't spill any since that then could be used to make another me through cross contamination - and TRUST ME you do NOT want another ME!

They wanted to, and if your name was Henrietta Lacks, then yes they could.
But luckily for you, one dude in CA already won that lawsuit for you. He had rare antibodies, and a blood collection agency was trying to patent his DNA and turn it into meds, and give him NO proceeds, even though they could only get the antibodies from the dude. Dude won. Yay!


Ummm...I've been drinking since 1pm Eastern time... Got a strong buzz going...actually I'm pretty farked up.... and I CANNOT figure out what the hell you just said!

/when I get confused I just take my clothes off...so I'm gonna do that now....
 
2014-01-15 05:37:53 PM

TheKingOfMexico: Look, can we finally just admit... openly... that the legal system is nothing more than a capitalist enterprise?


Passing laws itself is nothing more than a capitalist enterprise at this point too.  The lobbyists won.
 
2014-01-15 05:38:27 PM

TheKingOfMexico: win asinine judgements like this


Can you explain what is asinine about this particular judgement?

hint: you will need to actually read it.
 
2014-01-15 05:38:44 PM

Teiritzamna: sprgrss: tlars699:
Then the organic farmers' lawyers are stupid, because polluting the environment, inhibiting your productivity, is a very real thing that you can sue over.
Organic Non-GMO farmers' corn would be polluted by Monsanto DNA, thus ensuring that the farmers can only sell their inspected goods as inferior product at lower prices- ie GMO corn.

Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.

Well you could argue that Organic food sells at a premium and that contamination by non-organic pollen has reduced its value.  making out a tort against Monsanto would still be tricky, as discussed above, but i think you could at least say there could be a colorable argument based on the reduction of value of the organic produce.


The nuisance action wouldn't be against Monsanto, but against the neighboring farmers, if such a tort claim actually exists.  It's too attenuated.
 
2014-01-15 05:39:14 PM
With more countries banning gmo products the farmers may be trying to protect their ability to export to those countries.

All it would take is for Monsanto to claim the farmers product was "contaminated" with Monsanto's magic to bankrupt the farm by queering the deal with other nations.
 
2014-01-15 05:39:18 PM

sprgrss: SquiggsIN: sprgrss: Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.

You must work in or be heavily invested in agribusiness to be this stupid on the subject.

Yes, anyone who understands science or the law is stupid or has a vested interest.


How much Monsanto stock do you own exactly?
 
2014-01-15 05:39:48 PM

WhoGAS: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

That's pretty much it...as far as I read, too.

But surely that cannot be right.  We're missing something, right?  It's only if they try to knowingly use them or knowingly sell them, right?  I think that's lame, too, but at least it's more logical.


You missed something.

The court refused to issue a preemptive ban on Monsanto suing people. Monsanto apparently already entered a binding agreement not to sue anyone over unintentional inclusion, and would certainly fail should they ever try to claim against someone over such a thing anyway. The case was a very silly one, as it was saying that 'something might happen in our opinion and then Monsanto might do something in our opinion so we want a court to rule on that'. It. doesnt. work. like. that.

(I would like to clarify my personal opinion of fark Monsanto specifically, and generally companies shouldn't be able to own any damned genetic material anyway but that is a wholly separate issue)
 
2014-01-15 05:39:55 PM

sprgrss: anyone who understands science or the law is stupid or has a vested interest.


kristinhoppe.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-01-15 05:40:16 PM
I hate Mon$anto - I don't want their roundup ready genes in my food, but I'm not allowed to know if they're there or not.  Or any of their other frankentamination.

I think I read in the article that they had "never" and agreed to never sue for inadvertent contamination of a non customer's crops.  Funny, it seems to me that I've read of several incidents where they had and are ruining innocent farmers' lives and driving them out of the farming business completely.  Maybe I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will be kind enough to let me know if I am.   I will get too annoyed if I go look for evidence

Frankenfood is the reason that we will go out, not with a bang, but a whimper.  They do all this crap to food and they have NO EFFING IDEA if it has any long term effects.  And recently there was scientific evidence that the "junk" DNA as scientists called strings of bases in  DNA that they didn't know what it was for, is actually NOT junk but performs additional genetic functions.  So they DOUBLY, TRIPLY, QUADRUPLY, EXPONENTIALLY  have no idea what it does and can do to people who ingest or are exposed to it long term.

/shakes tiny fists with rage and tears.
 
2014-01-15 05:40:19 PM

SquiggsIN: sprgrss: SquiggsIN: sprgrss: Except there is no scientific evidence to support your claim and GMO products are approved by the regulatory bodies for planting in the United States.  There is no colorable claim.

You must work in or be heavily invested in agribusiness to be this stupid on the subject.

Yes, anyone who understands science or the law is stupid or has a vested interest.

How much Monsanto stock do you own exactly?


I own no shares of Monsanto stock.  Neither do I work for, nor anyone who does work for Monsanto.

Instead of attempting to make this about me, why don't we stick with the subject.
 
2014-01-15 05:40:35 PM

Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?


Actually if Monsanto Pollen can be found to have germinated your corn, then yes, they can sue you for not buying their genetics. They have developed a genetic code that enables them to figure that out fairly quickly, sort of like a trademark on DNA.
See, you're not paying them for seed corn. You're paying them for a genetic product that they exclusively developed from scratch. So, if you have their genetic product in your corn, then you're stealing their product.

However, this would all change if it were considered biological contamination, otherwise known as pollution.
 
2014-01-15 05:40:55 PM
Makes me wonder after this ruling if Monsanto doesn't just drive around to the non-customer's fields with a truck that has a sprayer that shoots seeds into the field and then sues them a couple of months later for "illegal use of our product"... though I don't want to give Monsanto any ideas! :-/
 
2014-01-15 05:41:55 PM

Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?


Yup.
 
2014-01-15 05:42:18 PM

tlars699: Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?

Actually if Monsanto Pollen can be found to have germinated your corn, then yes, they can sue you for not buying their genetics. They have developed a genetic code that enables them to figure that out fairly quickly, sort of like a trademark on DNA.
See, you're not paying them for seed corn. You're paying them for a genetic product that they exclusively developed from scratch. So, if you have their genetic product in your corn, then you're stealing their product.

However, this would all change if it were considered biological contamination, otherwise known as pollution.


No, Monsanto cannot sue you if your corn is inadvertently pollinated by Monsanto-strains of corn.
 
2014-01-15 05:42:55 PM
static2.wikia.nocookie.net
You think you own wherever your seeds land on
The crops are just a live thing you can claim
But I know every stalk of wheat and corn and rye
Has a life, has a spirit, has a name

You think the only farmers who are people
Are the farmers who purchase licenses from you
But if your patents get invalidated
You'll be unable to sue, you cannot sue

Have you ever heard Monsanto cry 'bout blue corn fields?
Or said that soybean farmers have all sinned?
Can you sing with all the voices of the lawyers?
Can your seeds spread far and wide via the wind?
Can your lawsuits follow each breath of the wind?
 
2014-01-15 05:42:56 PM
d23:

[www.lifeonpaws.co.uk image 566x650]

I never liked the "mstd" fark account.
 
2014-01-15 05:43:14 PM

sprgrss: The nuisance action wouldn't be against Monsanto, but against the neighboring farmers, if such a tort claim actually exists.  It's too attenuated.


Read my above response, i mostly agree with you.  I do however think there could be a claim if it could be shown that Monsanto pollen is more likely to spread/Monsanto products are harder to contain.  I personally have heard no evidence suggesting this, or course, but I haven't heard anything to the contrary either.  I could see in a suit against a neighboring farmer joining Monsanto and alleging that they the seller sold "defective goods" in that they were more likely to spread.

I think anyone making such a claim would lose - but they might be able to get past a 12(b)(6)
 
2014-01-15 05:46:15 PM
www.indiepundit.com
 
2014-01-15 05:47:00 PM

meow said the dog: I do the wearing of the boy briefs because they have the comfort


Pics please...
 
2014-01-15 05:47:26 PM
I can't believe no one has said this yet...

Well, that blows.

My work here is done.
 
2014-01-15 05:48:04 PM

Teiritzamna: sprgrss: The nuisance action wouldn't be against Monsanto, but against the neighboring farmers, if such a tort claim actually exists.  It's too attenuated.

Read my above response, i mostly agree with you.  I do however think there could be a claim if it could be shown that Monsanto pollen is more likely to spread/Monsanto products are harder to contain.  I personally have heard no evidence suggesting this, or course, but I haven't heard anything to the contrary either.  I could see in a suit against a neighboring farmer joining Monsanto and alleging that they the seller sold "defective goods" in that they were more likely to spread.

I think anyone making such a claim would lose - but they might be able to get past a 12(b)(6)


The plaintiff would lack privity of contract with Monsanto, so they wouldn't be able to sue for Monsanto selling "defective goods."
 
2014-01-15 05:48:18 PM

Blues_X: So, if their seeds are blown onto your property and germinate, they can sue you for not paying for them?

Am I reading that right?


More like pollen, but yeah. And Monsanto has been doing it for years.
 
2014-01-15 05:48:57 PM
1. Make some genetic changes to some corn
2. Get patent for corn
3. Buy a few acres upwind of Monsanto seed farm.
4. plant corn
5. sue Monsanto for stealing your patent and have all seed confiscated.
6. Starve everybody
 
Displayed 50 of 243 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report