Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Stupid, GMOs, Monsanto, Supreme Court, Organic Seed Growers, organic labels, farmers, United States courts of appeals, plain  
•       •       •

12625 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jan 2014 at 5:09 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-15 04:49:37 PM  
This federal judge sponsored by Monsanto.
 
2014-01-15 05:10:28 PM  
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?
 
2014-01-15 05:10:32 PM  
Next they will come for the space between.
 
2014-01-15 05:12:39 PM  
Many thanks to Greenpeace for paying for the laws that made both this lawsuit and Monsanto's dominant market position possible.
 
2014-01-15 05:12:40 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-15 05:13:23 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?


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.
 
2014-01-15 05:14:01 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?


Yes.

Monsanto: The First Ones Up Against the Wall When the Revolution Comes
 
2014-01-15 05:14:01 PM  
Well, we can see why the court favored Monsanto.  They totes promised not to sue.  "wink wink"
 
2014-01-15 05:14:51 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-15 05:15:43 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?


Yes.

So the only solution is to buy up houses next to their board of directors' homes, plant some patented grass and start suing them if even a blade of grass from your crop starts growing on their property
 
2014-01-15 05:15:56 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?


Yes. And you can't sue them for polluting your gene pool without wasting all of your money in court, so that you have to go bankrupt.

Mexico has been trying for years to keep one of the last active gene pool resources for unmodified corn free of Monsanto.
 
2014-01-15 05:16:25 PM  
Monsanto reps in rural areas should start having 'accidents".
 
2014-01-15 05:16:25 PM  
This lawsuit brought to you by the makers of Agent Orange - destroying food for 3 generations.
 
2014-01-15 05:16:47 PM  
But can they inherit it?

lh4.ggpht.com
 
2014-01-15 05:17:15 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.


www.lifeonpaws.co.uk
 
2014-01-15 05:18:20 PM  
Leela and the Gene Stalk had so much potential as an episode.

And then they sold out the ending. :(
 
2014-01-15 05:18:24 PM  
Monsanto has been doing this for ages.. This isn't new..
 
2014-01-15 05:18:27 PM  

highendmighty: This lawsuit brought to you by the makers of Agent Orange - destroying food for 3 generations.


Also makers of PCPs, which can be found in just about every living thing on the planet now.
 
2014-01-15 05:18:34 PM  
So, if Monsanto renegs, and starts suing people whose crops have been inadvertently contaminated, will this ruling be voided?
Bet not.
 
2014-01-15 05:18:38 PM  
The judge is ruling that the farmers cannot sue to prevent Monsanto from suing. The farmers were preemptively suing even though Monsanto has stated that it has not sued anyone nor any interest in suing.

As much as I don't like Monsanto, the ruling makes complete sense to me.
 
2014-01-15 05:19:17 PM  

highendmighty: This lawsuit brought to you by the makers of Agent Orange - destroying food for 3 generations.


Seriously? I need links, to spread on the facebooks.
 
2014-01-15 05:20:07 PM  
Dear Supreme court:

Every time you rule in favor of a corporate concern over common sense, you undermine the very fabric of american justice. There is no upside, there is no sentence containing a saving grace here. You've just done an evil deed in the name of money - impure and simple.
 
2014-01-15 05:20:53 PM  
 
2014-01-15 05:20:55 PM  
Monsanto is one of the most evil companies on the planet.

THIS. Farkin' food fascism.
 
2014-01-15 05:21:24 PM  
Oh for the love of . . .

1) the Supreme Court denied to hear the case.  This isnt a ruling, they generally deny to hear +99% of cases.

2) this was a suit by organic farmers suing Monsanto to preclude them from suing farmers in the future for inadvertant infringement (i.e. wind based distribution) .

3) As Monsanto hasn't brought such a suit, the organic farmers had no standing to sue.  There was no controversy (farmers were asking the court to prevent Monsanto from doing something Monsanto wasn't doing).

4) There is really no new or interesting law here, so of course the SCOTUS passed.

I may hate Monsanto too, but Jesus, this is a serious non-story here
 
2014-01-15 05:22:54 PM  

Shadi: The judge is ruling that the farmers cannot sue to prevent Monsanto from suing. The farmers were preemptively suing even though Monsanto has stated that it has not sued anyone nor any interest in suing.

As much as I don't like Monsanto, the ruling makes complete sense to me.


You're' right; thought-crimes shouldn't count.
But that's not why they should be suing.
They should be suing Monsanto for a product that causes environmental pollution, interfering with their productivity.
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.
 
2014-01-15 05:23:05 PM  
While Monsanto may be a bunch of dicks, the appeals court wasn't going to refuse to give them standing to sue farmers after the Supreme Court gave them a win against a farmer a month earlier.
 
2014-01-15 05:23:56 PM  
A unanimous win at the Supreme Court, I should add.
 
2014-01-15 05:24:11 PM  

Teiritzamna: Oh for the love of . . .

1) the Supreme Court denied to hear the case.  This isnt a ruling, they generally deny to hear +99% of cases.

2) this was a suit by organic farmers suing Monsanto to preclude them from suing farmers in the future for inadvertant infringement (i.e. wind based distribution) .

3) As Monsanto hasn't brought such a suit, the organic farmers had no standing to sue.  There was no controversy (farmers were asking the court to prevent Monsanto from doing something Monsanto wasn't doing).

4) There is really no new or interesting law here, so of course the SCOTUS passed.

I may hate Monsanto too, but Jesus, this is a serious non-story here


True. I'd still like to burn Monsanto to the ground. Just sayin'.
 
2014-01-15 05:24:21 PM  
Monsanto is a person, a person has a pinky, the Monsanto person pinky sweared that they would not sue, but a person also can cross their fingers and hold them behind their back which allows said person to lie with impunity. So I don't know which people to trust here...
 
2014-01-15 05:24:27 PM  

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.
 
2014-01-15 05:24:44 PM  
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!
 
2014-01-15 05:25:09 PM  

SquiggsIN: Somaticasual: Dear Supreme court:

Every time you rule in favor of a corporate concern over common sense, you undermine the very fabric of american justice. There is no upside, there is no sentence containing a saving grace here. You've just done an evil deed in the name of money - impure and simple.

But, CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE!   Think of the corporations!  I'm 100% convinced at this point that everything from the DEA to the EPA is up for sale for the right price.


I have to ask, do you even understand what corporate personhood even means?
 
2014-01-15 05:25:19 PM  
www.blogcdn.com
   There are ways to handle this.
 
2014-01-15 05:25:29 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!


No need. Illegal dumping of biological waste is already a crime.
 
2014-01-15 05:25:44 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.


www.foxers.com
 
2014-01-15 05:25:50 PM  
I don't see any inherent conflict in allowing companies a financial incentive to control the food supply. Nope, no problems there.
 
2014-01-15 05:26:22 PM  
This is f*cking stupid.
 
2014-01-15 05:26:24 PM  
Here's to hoping they fight that BS decision.

If anything, farmers should be able to sue Monsanto for spreading their crap GMO seeds.
 
2014-01-15 05:26:29 PM  
You'll eat it and you'll like it!

i1.ytimg.com
 
2014-01-15 05:26:39 PM  
For eight years I have been the leading supplier of hybrid seed corn in Winneshiek County, and the reason is clear: My seed is pure!

I have come to assume my dominant position in this farm community due to the high quality and timely delivery of my seed. Come to Schmidt Feed & Farm Supply, conveniently located in Kendallville just over the bridge, and you will leave smiling and satisfied in every way, if not utterly amazed at the performance. You must have my seed!

Use my select seed, and your crop will show resistance to blight and drought and be less susceptible to strain stalk diseases. If you do not believe me, I will take you to my farm and show you the potency of my seed. Strong, turgid, fattening plants shoot up through the ground in the torrid Iowa sun.
Grab the thick base of the stalk in your hand and feel that it is alive and growing larger by the minute. Sweat will shine on your face as you ride my massive tractor around the grounds of my expansive farm.
I will smile down at you as you kneel and gently run your hands through the moist patch of dense growth at my most precious, secret spot-the plot of land where I personally test each and every variety of seed corn that I sell.

Ask me for my seed, and the day you have longed for, the day you have dreamed about, will soon arrive: When the corn is large and ripe for the taking, you can place your lips around the heavy cob, savoring the texture, the smell and, finally, the taste as you bite gently and your mouth is filled with sweet juice.
 
2014-01-15 05:27:02 PM  
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.
 
2014-01-15 05:27:33 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?


yes
 
2014-01-15 05:27:53 PM  

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


By appealing to what court?
 
2014-01-15 05:27:56 PM  

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?
 
2014-01-15 05:27:58 PM  

Teiritzamna: Oh for the love of . . .

1) the Supreme Court denied to hear the case.  This isnt a ruling, they generally deny to hear +99% of cases.

2) this was a suit by organic farmers suing Monsanto to preclude them from suing farmers in the future for inadvertant infringement (i.e. wind based distribution) .

3) As Monsanto hasn't brought such a suit, the organic farmers had no standing to sue.  There was no controversy (farmers were asking the court to prevent Monsanto from doing something Monsanto wasn't doing).

4) There is really no new or interesting law here, so of course the SCOTUS passed.

I may hate Monsanto too, but Jesus, this is a serious non-story here


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.
 
2014-01-15 05:28:15 PM  

tlars699: highendmighty: This lawsuit brought to you by the makers of Agent Orange - destroying food for 3 generations.

Seriously? I need links, to spread on the facebooks.


wiki Monsanto - you get this: The company also formerly manufactured controversial products such as the insecticide DDT, PCBs, Agent Orange, and recombinant bovine somatotropin (a.k.a. bovine growth hormone).
Their first ever product was saccharin.   PRAISE THE ARTIFICE!
On the bright side, they did develop LED's...
 
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 05:30:50 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 05:34:27 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 05:38:27 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 05:39:48 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 05:48:57 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
 
2014-01-15 05:49:16 PM  

sprgrss: 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."


I believe he meant that the defendant would bring in Monsanto as a rule 14 third party defendant to indemnify them.
 
2014-01-15 05:50:18 PM  

KidneyStone: 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.


No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.
 
2014-01-15 05:51:27 PM  
If you're a local farmer whose crop has been contaminated, you should sue Monsanto for damaging your property.
 
2014-01-15 05:52:18 PM  

sprgrss: KidneyStone: 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.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.


Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!
 
2014-01-15 05:53:38 PM  

megarian: This is f*cking stupid.


It's only gonna get worse.

There will be blood.

Eventually.
 
2014-01-15 05:53:53 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.


The highly-underfunded and -understaffed regulatory bodies that are supposed to be covering more than they can reasonably handle? Those? Yeah, that reassures me quite a bit...

/When you don't fund your regulatory bodies, you sell them to megacorporations
//And if Product X sells for more than Product Y because it is not Product Y, then when it becomes Product Y that is a major loss, regardless of your feelings on GMOs. GMO and non-GMO are not the same thing in any sense.
 
2014-01-15 05:54:15 PM  

The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: 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.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!


Considering that every single person with legal training in here is saying that this decision was proper, regardless of their feelings towards Monsanto, is it more likely that he's right or that we're all shills?

/yesterday, I was apparently the CEO of EA, so I'm fine with being called the CEO of Monsanto today. It's a step upwards in dignity.
 
2014-01-15 05:56:46 PM  

Theaetetus: I believe he meant that the defendant would bring in Monsanto as a rule 14 third party defendant to indemnify them.


Sorry - wasn't clear.  Yes, i could see a third party practice action.

Also, thinking about it (although i think they are fairly ridiculous) there have been enough "private pollution suits" against manufacturers with no privity between the parties (see MTBE suits) that i could see some state negligence tort getting jujitsued into a CoA against Monsanto.
 
2014-01-15 05:57:31 PM  

Theaetetus: 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.


Is bowman the guy in food inc?
 
2014-01-15 05:57:52 PM  
You know I'm not sure WHAT I think of GMO products.... Is it ok to take a fish gene and put it in corn (just making up something)...

What I hate is the corporate control and 'ownership' the courts seem to be giving to corporations..

HOW can you patent LIFE? Modified or not?

On topic, HOW can you sue me if I grow your shiat on MY property - If I STOLE it then there are laws against that already on the books....If I bought it, or it blew in, too bad - it's MINE.

There should be no laws against what nature does, well, naturally!
 
2014-01-15 05:58:23 PM  

The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: 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.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!


If they HAVE sued someone for being contaminated with their stuff then that would be outrageous! Please can you supply some links of info on that I would love to know more.
 
2014-01-15 05:59:43 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


[citation needed.jpg]

Monsato has not sued any farmer for having inadvertent wind blown seeds that contaminated their crops.  In fact, they have promised they will never sue a farmer that has only trace amounts of their patented seed in their field.

This lawsuit was apparently an effort by some people to proactively force Monsato to give them preemptive immunity to use Roundup ready seeds even if it's more than the trace amounts that might appear in their crops by the wind.    That's just silly.  No company is going to give blanket immunity to a set of plaintiffs ahead of time that would essentially allow those plaintiffs to steal their intellectual property in unlimited amounts and pay no fees or royalties.
 
2014-01-15 05:59:45 PM  

Theaetetus: legal training


Oh, Theae, look to your  4th Edition Farktionary:

Shill: A person who actually knows something about a subject and attempts to correct urban legends/"Everyone Panic!" stories
 
2014-01-15 06:01:47 PM  
This confirms my belief in HAARP being funded by Monsanto so they can take over the globe by seeding winds they create and direct via high power transmissions into the ionosphere.


Did they pinky-swear to not sue? If you don't have it in writing you can bet they reserve the right to do so.

/Thanks Obama!
 
2014-01-15 06:02:16 PM  

simkatu: 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

[citation needed.jpg]

Monsato has not sued any farmer for having inadvertent wind blown seeds that contaminated their crops.  In fact, they have promised they will never sue a farmer that has only trace amounts of their patented seed in their field.

This lawsuit was apparently an effort by some people to proactively force Monsato to give them preemptive immunity to use Roundup ready seeds even if it's more than the trace amounts that might appear in their crops by the wind.    That's just silly.  No company is going to give blanket immunity to a set of plaintiffs ahead of time that would essentially allow those plaintiffs to steal their intellectual property in unlimited amounts and pay no fees or royalties.


This law suit is bs, but if I am a farmer who collects and reseeds, with everyone around me using round up ready, then I'd think in a few seasons, despite my wishes, my fields are going to be a lot more than trace amounts.
 
2014-01-15 06:02:26 PM  

The Life Of Brian: You know I'm not sure WHAT I think of GMO products...


All I know is that Monsanto cucumbers cause genital baldness.  Google it!
.
.
.
.
.
/KIDDING!
 
2014-01-15 06:03:42 PM  

The Life Of Brian: HOW can you patent LIFE? Modified or not?


Because if it's an artificially created organism that didn't exist in nature before, and it's not obvious to create it, then why shouldn't you be able to patent it? They've got biological computers now that can do simple calculations - should they be unpatentable, simply because they use RNA instead of transistors?

More importantly, organisms have been patentable for 30 years, during which time, Congress has twice amended the patent act without adding a single exemption, so there's a presumption that Congress intended the patent act to cover such things.

/incidentally, the same argument applies to processes performed by a computer
 
2014-01-15 06:04:01 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.


I hope you're not a real lawyer.  If someone (like one of the plaintiffs) is growing heirloom seed as a business, and their seed is contaminated by GMO genetic material, they can no longer sell that seed to those who do not want GMO seed.  They have been injured.

GMO seed is not yet mandatory.

Give it time.
 
2014-01-15 06:05:13 PM  

SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.


Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress". 

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.
 
2014-01-15 06:05:30 PM  

SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.


So you should be allowed to sue someone to stop them from doing something that they are not doing and have agreed they won't do?  Could you explain exactly what part of this law is wrong?  How would you fix it?

SquiggsIN: Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?


Because they understand how laws work?  Because as far as I can tell, you really really want to be mad about something here, are deeply misinformed about what that thing is, and are now lashing out against those who are attempting to help you remedy your ignorance.  I mean, whatever floats your boat, but pissed off and ignorant is no way to  . . . well ok its actually the American Pastime.  Carry on.
 
2014-01-15 06:05:38 PM  
The US Supreme Court upheld biotech giant Monsanto's claims on genetically-engineered seed patents and the company's ability to sue farmers whose fields are inadvertently contaminated with Monsanto materials.

/So, in other words, unless you use our seed, we will sue the shiat out of you until you do. So much for a free and fair market..
 
2014-01-15 06:05:38 PM  

Theaetetus: The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: 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.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!

Considering that every single person with legal training in here is saying that this decision was proper, regardless of their feelings towards Monsanto, is it more likely that he's right or that we're all shills?

/yesterday, I was apparently the CEO of EA, so I'm fine with being called the CEO of Monsanto today. It's a step upwards in dignity.


So does that mean I cannot have a different opinion? I may have a GED in law somewhere around here..hell I think there are some homeless people buried under the crap I have in my house!

(FYI - I have you fav in green with the comment " favorite: Cool. Shoots down morons" So I'm not being an ass, or at least not try to..I have been drinking!)
 
2014-01-15 06:07:03 PM  

Teiritzamna: Oh for the love of . . .

1) the Supreme Court denied to hear the case.  This isnt a ruling, they generally deny to hear +99% of cases.

2) this was a suit by organic farmers suing Monsanto to preclude them from suing farmers in the future for inadvertant infringement (i.e. wind based distribution) .

3) As Monsanto hasn't brought such a suit, the organic farmers had no standing to sue.  There was no controversy (farmers were asking the court to prevent Monsanto from doing something Monsanto wasn't doing).

4) There is really no new or interesting law here, so of course the SCOTUS passed.

I may hate Monsanto too, but Jesus, this is a serious non-story here


Yep

/stop making since on this site. it will get you called all kinds of names.
 
2014-01-15 06:07:24 PM  
*shrugs* watch Monsanto's GMO products get affected by an unstoppable virus strain
 
2014-01-15 06:07:57 PM  

NickelP: simkatu: 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

[citation needed.jpg]

Monsato has not sued any farmer for having inadvertent wind blown seeds that contaminated their crops.  In fact, they have promised they will never sue a farmer that has only trace amounts of their patented seed in their field.

This lawsuit was apparently an effort by some people to proactively force Monsato to give them preemptive immunity to use Roundup ready seeds even if it's more than the trace amounts that might appear in their crops by the wind.    That's just silly.  No company is going to give blanket immunity to a set of plaintiffs ahead of time that would essentially allow those plaintiffs to steal their intellectual property in unlimited amounts and pay no fees or royalties.

This law suit is bs, but if I am a farmer who collects and reseeds, with everyone around me using round up ready, then I'd think in a few seasons, despite my wishes, my fields are going to be a lot more than trace amounts.


Just reread it. They pledged not to sue if less than 1% is their seed. What a joke.
 
2014-01-15 06:08:13 PM  

AdamK: *shrugs* watch Monsanto's GMO products get affected by an unstoppable virus strain


You tease.
 
2014-01-15 06:08:39 PM  

Cathedralmaster: 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?

Yes.

Monsanto: The First Ones Up Against the Wall When the Revolution Comes


Get your Guy Fawkes masks, ham radio's and pitchforks ready...

But seriously there is a diminishing retruns effect going on.  Things continue to get so bizarre and f'd that there is less ability to form a reaction.  This just seems like another move toward a straight corporatocracy.

Am I that wrong?
 
2014-01-15 06:09:47 PM  

The Life Of Brian: So does that mean I cannot have a different opinion?


Nah - see above. Saying "the law  should be changed" is one thing, and may even get us agreeing. Saying "the court was wrong" is a different thing. The latter is objectively wrong, and gets our pedantic and judiciary-supportin' hairs up, while the former is more of a subjective political and policy question.

(FYI - I have you fav in green with the comment " favorite: Cool. Shoots down morons" So I'm not being an ass, or at least not try to..I have been drinking!)

Aw, thanks!
 
2014-01-15 06:10:19 PM  

vudukungfu: This federal judge sponsored by Monsanto.


QFT
 
2014-01-15 06:10:21 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.


Loving very much to be having the pleasure of reading this, Meow.
 
2014-01-15 06:11:54 PM  

highendmighty: The Life Of Brian: You know I'm not sure WHAT I think of GMO products...

All I know is that Monsanto cucumbers cause genital baldness.  Google it!
.
.
.
.
.
/KIDDING!


Well I keep putting those cuc's in my salad and STILL have to man-scape every week!

WHY cannot Monsanto get on the IMPORTANT genetic stuff - MORE hair on TOP, LESS hair down low!

Come on - REALLY - would that not be where the REAL money is - and what's with back hair! I LAY on my back so its not like it needs insulation!

/ya ya...have an appointment with my psychiatrist tomorrow..nobody call 911, or 999 or ...
 
2014-01-15 06:12:35 PM  
I wonder how long it will be before people rightfully start blowing up Monsanto offices and facilities?
 
2014-01-15 06:13:04 PM  

SquiggsIN: Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress". 

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.

That's the worst part about most lawyers.  You all think you're smarter than the rest of us because you're in the DELIBERATELY-CONVOLUTED PROFESSION of law-making.


I'm also an engineer. That makes me even more technical and pedantic.
 
2014-01-15 06:14:26 PM  
Hmmm tying to decide...should I go with citation needed? or It's a conspiracy! in this thread.
 
2014-01-15 06:15:48 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.



-- Best response there.

---- FTA:
"If Monsanto can patent seeds for financial gain, they should be forced to pay for contaminating a farmer's field, not be allowed to sue them,"said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now!, in a statement  "Once again, America's farmers have been denied justice, while Monsanto's reign of intimidation is allowed to continue in rural America."

I'm REALLY surprised there haven't been terrorist attacks on anything Monsanto yet.
Or have they happened and the Monsanto-bought PRESS didn't mention it?
 
2014-01-15 06:16:35 PM  

sprgrss: 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.


Those particular farmers, no. Other farmers who used seed corn derived from their crops after being incidentally pollinated by Monsanto growing neighbors? Yes.
Though this NPR link makes the dude with the most profiled case of this set of circumstances look like a real douche bag.
Still, they sued him even though it took him several growing seasons to cultivate that kind of corn.
Saying you own a patent on genetics on any living organism should not hold up in court. He did not buy their seeds, true, but it wasn't really their DNA either.
It was a knock-off that he created for his own use.
 
2014-01-15 06:17:01 PM  
"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters. "

I swear their garden division said they would not be pursuing home seed savers, mostly because 1) no GMOs are available to the home gardener, and 2) you typically don't save hybrid seed; but I cannot ind it again.

Haven't those sued so far had like 90%+ purity, pretty much negating any claims of "accidental" contamination?

I'd also like to add that piracy of the product also negates claims that "no farmer really wants this stuff"

Finally, and far more strenuously, can we please, please, PLEASE!!!!!! rethink the patenting of life, especially plant life?
 
2014-01-15 06:17:07 PM  
Why isn't Monsanto being sued for polluting neighboring farms with GMOs?
 
2014-01-15 06:17:50 PM  

gaspode: The Life Of Brian: sprgrss: KidneyStone: 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.

No, Monsanto has not been doing that for years.

I wish people would actually read the court cases instead of relying upon shiatty advocacy journalists.

Ha you know what's funny, I have you Fav. with the comment "Monsanto Shill. Constantly argues even when proven wrong " so I guess its not surprising to see you in here shilling for them!

If they HAVE sued someone for being contaminated with their stuff then that would be outrageous! Please can you supply some links of info on that I would love to know more.


I'll preface this with the fact I'm too lazy to look it up and its from memory, but I've watched a couple times a documentary on CBC - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation - about a farmers who decided to fight Monsanto over them taking legal action after they kept seed from their OWN fields that got cross contaminated by adjacent Monsanto fields of 'patented' plants.

Now I could look it up... But hey, I'm drunk..and you can easily look it up on Google too..
 
2014-01-15 06:18:40 PM  

NickelP: Just reread it. They pledged not to sue if less than 1% is their seed. What a joke.


But in all the years of Roundup there has never been a person with more than 1% of their crop that was Roundup ready that has been sued that wasn't intentionally and knowingly stealing the product.   While, 1% might seem like an unreasonably small amount to guarantee, it seems like it's a level that has worked so far, seeing as how not a single person has ever inadvertently discovered had a crop with more than 1%.
 
2014-01-15 06:19:11 PM  
images.sodahead.com

\ahh this one always makes me laugh so WINNER!
 
2014-01-15 06:19:40 PM  
Damn my last comment, before I get jumped on..they MAY have bough Monstanto seeds they harvested some to keep the next year...I cannot remember for sure and I don't want to get punched for giving the wrong info!
 
2014-01-15 06:20:12 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: megarian: This is f*cking stupid.

It's only gonna get worse.

There will be blood.

Eventually.


Yeah, our blood
 
2014-01-15 06:20:15 PM  
SquiggsIN:
Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.

I work on making AIDS drugs cheaper and defend the rights of the homeless.  I sleep great.
 
2014-01-15 06:20:47 PM  

Copper Spork: Many thanks to Greenpeace for paying for the laws that made both this lawsuit and Monsanto's dominant market position possible.


White ringer says what?
 
2014-01-15 06:21:40 PM  

simkatu: has ever inadvertently discovered had a crop


s/b "has ever inadvertently discovered he had a crop"
 
2014-01-15 06:21:56 PM  

Teiritzamna: SquiggsIN:
Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.

I work on making AIDS drugs cheaper and defend the rights of the homeless.  I sleep great.


I talk to other nerds about nerdy things, write them up in huge detail, and then argue with more nerds about why they're cool. It's like Fark, but I get paid.
 
2014-01-15 06:22:29 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?


Sounds like all they need to do is drive around with their seeds in the bed of a truck. Then release the lawyers
 
2014-01-15 06:23:11 PM  

tlars699: They should be suing Monsanto for a product that causes environmental pollution, interfering with their productivity.


One of the fundamentals of civil tort is damages. The farmers cannot claim future or potential damages.
 
2014-01-15 06:24:06 PM  

Theaetetus: Teiritzamna: SquiggsIN:
Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.

I work on making AIDS drugs cheaper and defend the rights of the homeless.  I sleep great.

I talk to other nerds about nerdy things, write them up in huge detail, and then argue with more nerds about why they're cool. It's like Fark, but I get paid.


OMG - i never realized that prosecutors were just Kotaku bloggers . . . .

/must now figure out an analogy making corporate attorneys Cracked writers
 
2014-01-15 06:25:58 PM  
Why did nobody tell me that totalfark is so.. so... Beautiful! I can see EVERYTHING!
 
2014-01-15 06:26:25 PM  

NickelP: simkatu: 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

[citation needed.jpg]

Monsato has not sued any farmer for having inadvertent wind blown seeds that contaminated their crops.  In fact, they have promised they will never sue a farmer that has only trace amounts of their patented seed in their field.

This lawsuit was apparently an effort by some people to proactively force Monsato to give them preemptive immunity to use Roundup ready seeds even if it's more than the trace amounts that might appear in their crops by the wind.    That's just silly.  No company is going to give blanket immunity to a set of plaintiffs ahead of time that would essentially allow those plaintiffs to steal their intellectual property in unlimited amounts and pay no fees or royalties.

This law suit is bs, but if I am a farmer who collects and reseeds, with everyone around me using round up ready, then I'd think in a few seasons, despite my wishes, my fields are going to be a lot more than trace amounts.


Fact: Monsanto has never commercialized a biotech trait that resulted in sterile - or "Terminator" - seeds. Sharing the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops. We stand firmly by this commitment, with no plans or research that would violate this commitment.

Seem to be an awful lot of promises.

How does Promissory estoppel work?

/for your consideration
 
2014-01-15 06:26:27 PM  

Theaetetus: The Life Of Brian: HOW can you patent LIFE? Modified or not?

Because if it's an artificially created organism that didn't exist in nature before, and it's not obvious to create it, then why shouldn't you be able to patent it? They've got biological computers now that can do simple calculations - should they be unpatentable, simply because they use RNA instead of transistors?

More importantly, organisms have been patentable for 30 years, during which time, Congress has twice amended the patent act without adding a single exemption, so there's a presumption that Congress intended the patent act to cover such things.

/incidentally, the same argument applies to processes performed by a computer


I see your point..and it is an interesting theoretical question..

SO I put it this way...What if life on this planet was silicon based, and this silicon based life form developed to our level, and found a way to make carbon based life - does that mean its just chemicals and such?

Ya I'm a geek - and that very issue has been dealt with in every version of Star Trek that there is....

And you know, WHAT if we do one day have computers that are 'self aware' - Hell I don't know!
Way beyond my simplistic mind....But just because its new doesn't mean that it has no, umm, is 'rights' the correct word? I'm getting confused now myself but I think you understand where I'm coming from...

MAN this is TOO deep for my days off! ]

I suggest you try some good Canadian Rye Whiskey - good stuff!
 
2014-01-15 06:27:18 PM  

Shadi: tlars699: They should be suing Monsanto for a product that causes environmental pollution, interfering with their productivity.

One of the fundamentals of civil tort is damages. The farmers cannot claim future or potential damages.


Fair enough. Wait a season, sue them when it happens.
 
2014-01-15 06:27:41 PM  

simkatu: NickelP: Just reread it. They pledged not to sue if less than 1% is their seed. What a joke.

But in all the years of Roundup there has never been a person with more than 1% of their crop that was Roundup ready that has been sued that wasn't intentionally and knowingly stealing the product.   While, 1% might seem like an unreasonably small amount to guarantee, it seems like it's a level that has worked so far, seeing as how not a single person has ever inadvertently discovered had a crop with more than 1%.


Isn't that just a really biased way of saying they have won every case where at least on percent of their seed was found? I don't think that is surprising. It is the point of the lawsuit.
 
2014-01-15 06:27:52 PM  

tlars699: Why did nobody tell me that totalfark is so.. so... Beautiful! I can see EVERYTHING!


Shhhh...it's a secret...We're trying to keep the rabble out.
 
2014-01-15 06:29:01 PM  

firemanbuck: For eight years I have been the leading supplier of hybrid seed corn in Winneshiek County, and the reason is clear: My seed is pure!

I have come to assume my dominant position in this farm community due to the high quality and timely delivery of my seed. Come to Schmidt Feed & Farm Supply, conveniently located in Kendallville just over the bridge, and you will leave smiling and satisfied in every way, if not utterly amazed at the performance. You must have my seed!

Use my select seed, and your crop will show resistance to blight and drought and be less susceptible to strain stalk diseases. If you do not believe me, I will take you to my farm and show you the potency of my seed. Strong, turgid, fattening plants shoot up through the ground in the torrid Iowa sun.
Grab the thick base of the stalk in your hand and feel that it is alive and growing larger by the minute. Sweat will shine on your face as you ride my massive tractor around the grounds of my expansive farm.
I will smile down at you as you kneel and gently run your hands through the moist patch of dense growth at my most precious, secret spot-the plot of land where I personally test each and every variety of seed corn that I sell.

Ask me for my seed, and the day you have longed for, the day you have dreamed about, will soon arrive: When the corn is large and ripe for the taking, you can place your lips around the heavy cob, savoring the texture, the smell and, finally, the taste as you bite gently and your mouth is filled with sweet juice.



I can't help but to be reminded of a business here in town.  I'm not even sure why, because they're not in the seed business.  They sell pearl necklaces.
 
2014-01-15 06:30:47 PM  

Radioactive Ass: Go home, Meow drunk. You're drunk Meow.

 
2014-01-15 06:32:47 PM  
So let me get this straight without using incendiary names.

Farmer A has seeds that grow red tomatoes. Next door, Farmer B has seeds that grow orange tomatoes. Wind happens sometimes.

Farmer A sued to prevent Farmer B from suing if Farmer A accidentally ended up with some orange tomatoes even though Farmer B has stated they would not do so? And the court ruled that Farmer B should not be restricted from their day in court if they wanted it?

If Monsanto had sued to prevent other farmers from suing Monsanto for inadvertent seeding. most of you would be siding with the legal minds in this thread and applauding this ruling.
 
2014-01-15 06:33:39 PM  

tlars699: Why did nobody tell me that totalfark is so.. so... Beautiful! I can see EVERYTHING!


All it really does is increase your chance of getting a link listed by 2%..... And get those who do not have that TF next to their name to make fun of you...
 
2014-01-15 06:35:55 PM  
Theaetetus:

Hey - let me axe you something you probably don't know the answer to.  How much of the DNA of a Monsanto strain is patented?  In other words, if a neighboring farmer's corn mutates by just one nucleotide, wouldn't that be a new strain independent of Monsanto's patented variety?
 
2014-01-15 06:38:11 PM  

Billified: So let me get this straight without using incendiary names.

Farmer A has seeds that grow red tomatoes. Next door, Farmer B has seeds that grow orange tomatoes. Wind happens sometimes.

Farmer A sued to prevent Farmer B from suing if Farmer A accidentally ended up with some orange tomatoes even though Farmer B has stated they would not do so? And the court ruled that Farmer B should not be restricted from their day in court if they wanted it?

If Monsanto had sued to prevent other farmers from suing Monsanto for inadvertent seeding. most of you would be siding with the legal minds in this thread and applauding this ruling.


Pretty much. I agree with the ruling but it's more like farmer b has been filing lawsuits all over the place which cost million to fight. The farmers trade group is getting tons of calls from their members asking for help. So they file an action against farmer b saying to cut that shiat out. While farmer b is being a huge dick, what the trade group is asking is legally unreasonable.
 
2014-01-15 06:41:55 PM  
1. The farmers were suing to make it illegal for Monsanto to ever sue if they find Monsanto's patented genes in their crop.

2. The judge says no, because:
 a.  The judge says Monsanto has already made a legally binding promise not to sue over incidental contamination from cross pollination from normal cross pollination.
 b.  Monsanto wants to reserve the right to sue for flagrant violations of the violation of their patent.
3. Judge says you can't sue someone to bar them from theoretically suing you in the future.  The courts don't work that way.  (The judge didn't say this, but if you want protection from lawsuits you need legislative protection.)

http://grist.org/food/the-genetically-modified-food-debate-where-do- we -begin/
 
2014-01-15 06:42:27 PM  
Monsanto: The evil company you've come to love, run by satan. Come for the seeds, stay for the extra evil. Bring the family and enjoy.
 
2014-01-15 06:42:39 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?


Yes, this has been an issue with them for a while. It's most of the reason why Monsanto is such an evil company.
 
2014-01-15 06:42:52 PM  

highendmighty: Theaetetus:

Hey - let me axe you something you probably don't know the answer to.  How much of the DNA of a Monsanto strain is patented?  In other words, if a neighboring farmer's corn mutates by just one nucleotide, wouldn't that be a new strain independent of Monsanto's patented variety?


That's the other interesting problem here. If you consider anything derived from their original strain to be theirs, we will hit a point where every version of some crops has to be licensed to them
 
2014-01-15 06:45:17 PM  

SquiggsIN: Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.


I sleep quite well at night being a poor public servant.
 
2014-01-15 06:46:53 PM  

NickelP: Isn't that just a really biased way of saying they have won every case where at least on percent of their seed was found? I don't think that is surprising. It is the point of the lawsuit.


No it isn't.  In every case where someone had more than a trace amount there was substantial evidence or an admission that the person purposely acquired Roundup seeds in order to have a crop that was Roundup ready.   If we are going to question whether or not a jury of 12 people in a civil suit is capable of evaluating evidence, then we're going down the wrong path I think.

There hasn't been anyone that has been sued by Monsato that claims they were victims of the wind.  That's why there were only folks suing that were preemptively trying to get immunity from lawsuits.   Had they actually been sued, then they would have had standing and the courts would have let their lawsuit proceed.   Since they weren't sued, they had no standing.
 
2014-01-15 06:48:11 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?


Just like in Canada where if Monsanto planted one of their seeds in your field, then your field is determined to be a Monsanto TM planted field.  wind, animals, farkers, employees does not matter.
 
2014-01-15 06:50:10 PM  

NickelP: Pretty much. I agree with the ruling but it's more like farmer b has been filing lawsuits all over the place which cost million to fight. The farmers trade group is getting tons of calls from their members asking for help. So they file an action against farmer b saying to cut that shiat out. While farmer b is being a huge dick, what the trade group is asking is legally unreasonable.


Except even the factual grounds of the suit are somewhat different.  Monsanto was able to show it has not sought enforcement for inadvertent infringement and has agreed that it will not.  

As far as i know the only case where such claims were in play was a suit in Canada, which was resolved as  Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902.  The rick of that opinion is that all claims against the defendant regarding inadvertent infringement had been dropped and all that was left were claims for willful infringement (the farmer was growing a crop of 95-98% pure Roundup Ready plants, far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence).

While Monsanto is a litigious fark of a company, they tend to hammer farmers who actually are using seeds from year to year in violation of their agreements.  I don't know of any instances where they have brought a wind dispersal claim in the last 10 years.*

/*would be exceedingly happy to be proved wrong mind you - just don't know of anything other than "but of course they are doing it!" claims
 
2014-01-15 06:51:05 PM  
I'm waiting for one of these monsanto dickwads to be shot for molesting animals or crops.

www.paphospeople.com
 
2014-01-15 06:51:20 PM  
I don't really know what this whole discussion is about so I should shut up (and stop sponsoring people for TF!)

Regardless of what people think and what I'm about to say may suggest, I ain't rich... BUT I did get a shipping notice today on:

Intel® Core™ i7-4930K Processor - Six Core, 12MB L3 Cache, 3.4GHz

 MSI X79A-GD45 PLUS Intel X79 Motherboard - ATX, LGA2011, Intel X79, DDR3 2400 MHz (O.C.), SATA III (6Gb/s), RAID, 8-CH Audio, Gigabit LAN, USB 3.0 - X79A-GD45 PLUS

Corsair Hydro Series CW-9060009-WW H100i Extreme Liquid/Water CPU Cooler - 2 x 120mm Fan, Multi-socket Support, built-in Corsair Link


SO...

NA NA NA I have a better computer (coming by UPS) than you!

/I'll go to bed now...
 
2014-01-15 06:52:27 PM  

simkatu: NickelP: Isn't that just a really biased way of saying they have won every case where at least on percent of their seed was found? I don't think that is surprising. It is the point of the lawsuit.

No it isn't.  In every case where someone had more than a trace amount there was substantial evidence or an admission that the person purposely acquired Roundup seeds in order to have a crop that was Roundup ready.   If we are going to question whether or not a jury of 12 people in a civil suit is capable of evaluating evidence, then we're going down the wrong path I think.

There hasn't been anyone that has been sued by Monsato that claims they were victims of the wind.  That's why there were only folks suing that were preemptively trying to get immunity from lawsuits.   Had they actually been sued, then they would have had standing and the courts would have let their lawsuit proceed.   Since they weren't sued, they had no standing.


Scroll up for the damning link on how these lawsuits ar bs. The one guy used roundup on a small part of his field to see how contaminated it was.

I said they had no standing. I have no idea why you are arguing that point.
 
2014-01-15 06:52:37 PM  
Also, oblig:

www.quickmeme.com
 
2014-01-15 06:57:01 PM  
Wait to hear it from another source. GlobalResearch is a crank site.
 
2014-01-15 06:58:12 PM  
So if they can sue you for them contaminating your crops can you sue them for contaminating your crops? Seems that it would work both ways.
 
2014-01-15 06:59:23 PM  
From what I read in the article, it seems Monsanto doesn't want the option to sue to be taken away from them  in case these farmers used their product without paying for it.  It doesn't seem that Monsanto is bad at all.  It is of my opinion that they are just protecting their interest.
 
2014-01-15 07:00:20 PM  
NickelP:

Scroll up for the damning link on how these lawsuits ar bs. The one guy used roundup on a small part of his field to see how contaminated it was.

Then proceeded to cultivate and segregate those seeds for subsequent replanting.
 
2014-01-15 07:00:44 PM  

Whodat: So if they can sue you for them contaminating your crops can you sue them for contaminating your crops? Seems that it would work both ways.


Criss-Cross...

You kill my mother I kill your wife...

OK?

www.alcohollywood.com
 
2014-01-15 07:01:30 PM  

Whodat: So if they can sue you for them contaminating your crops can you sue them for contaminating your crops? Seems that it would work both ways.


The party you would sue would be your neighbor and not Monsanto, whose relationship is too attenuated.
 
2014-01-15 07:02:31 PM  

sprgrss: NickelP:

Scroll up for the damning link on how these lawsuits ar bs. The one guy used roundup on a small part of his field to see how contaminated it was.

Then proceeded to cultivate and segregate those seeds for subsequent replanting.


To what end? He didn't job he was goin to get sued why not? Wasn't the courts conclusion he received no economic gain?
 
2014-01-15 07:03:16 PM  

NickelP: sprgrss: NickelP:

Scroll up for the damning link on how these lawsuits ar bs. The one guy used roundup on a small part of his field to see how contaminated it was.

Then proceeded to cultivate and segregate those seeds for subsequent replanting.

To what end? He didn't job he was goin to get sued why not? Wasn't the courts conclusion he received no economic gain?


The same reason why any farmer grows any crop
 
2014-01-15 07:03:19 PM  

The Life Of Brian: I don't really know what this whole discussion is about so I should shut up (and stop sponsoring people for TF!)

Regardless of what people think and what I'm about to say may suggest, I ain't rich... BUT I did get a shipping notice today on:

Intel® Core™ i7-4930K Processor - Six Core, 12MB L3 Cache, 3.4GHz

 MSI X79A-GD45 PLUS Intel X79 Motherboard - ATX, LGA2011, Intel X79, DDR3 2400 MHz (O.C.), SATA III (6Gb/s), RAID, 8-CH Audio, Gigabit LAN, USB 3.0 - X79A-GD45 PLUS

Corsair Hydro Series CW-9060009-WW H100i Extreme Liquid/Water CPU Cooler - 2 x 120mm Fan, Multi-socket Support, built-in Corsair Link


SO...

NA NA NA I have a better computer (coming by UPS) than you!

/I'll go to bed now...


I do not envy you the headache you will have when you awake.  But for now, rest well, and dream of LARGE CPUs.
 
2014-01-15 07:06:38 PM  

sprgrss: NickelP: sprgrss: NickelP:

Scroll up for the damning link on how these lawsuits ar bs. The one guy used roundup on a small part of his field to see how contaminated it was.

Then proceeded to cultivate and segregate those seeds for subsequent replanting.

To what end? He didn't job he was goin to get sued why not? Wasn't the courts conclusion he received no economic gain?

The same reason why any farmer grows any crop


He didn't benefit from growing their crop though
 
2014-01-15 07:08:13 PM  
If there had even once been a situation where Monsanto sued someone who hadn't intentionally screened out the patented seed that "accidentally" grew on their land and replanted that, I might be bothered.

As it is, I applaud this decision as rational.
 
2014-01-15 07:08:49 PM  
Great! Monsanto has its own secret rubber stamp court just like the NSA.
 
2014-01-15 07:13:13 PM  

mark12A: Monsanto is one of the most evil companies on the planet.

THIS. Farkin' food fascism.


But most Farkers are convinced EA is because of ruining their childhood or something.
 
2014-01-15 07:19:12 PM  
Seriously SCOTUS? WTF?
 
2014-01-15 07:28:00 PM  

Shadi: The judge is ruling that the farmers cannot sue to prevent Monsanto from suing. The farmers were preemptively suing even though Monsanto has stated that it has not sued anyone nor any interest in suing.

As much as I don't like Monsanto, the ruling makes complete sense to me.


Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

:stare:
 
2014-01-15 07:28:20 PM  
Those who are Canadian know Dr. David Suzuki... I'm coming up on 45 years of age and I watched his film strips in high school.... Watch this....

http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/economy-business/agriculture/g en etically-modified-food-a-growing-debate/david-suzuki-speaks-out-agains t-genetically-modified-food.html

FYI - I met this amazing man one morning..I was going to a company meeting and across the street was the CBC building...I went to the cafeteria to get a bagel, turned around and there he was! I said "Good Morning Dr. Suzuki". He said good morning to me...
 
2014-01-15 07:30:24 PM  

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.


I'm curious about your initial qualifying statement.   You say you've kept up with most stories associated with the agribusiness, but you don't supply sources.  One could easily state something similar about Whale Conservation, but get most of their stories from Greenpeace and SSCS-related media outlets.

/Just curious
//Most sources have an agenda
 
2014-01-15 07:39:33 PM  
Those who are serious on this discussion...please watch this an give your opinion... Ya I posted it already, but I was typing and not really listening..then I replayed it...and I think this gives a great answer to WHY gmo's are not in our best interest....


http://www.cbc.ca/archives/categories/economy-business/agriculture/g en etically-modified-food-a-growing-debate/david-suzuki-speaks-out-agains t-genetically-modified-food.html
 
2014-01-15 07:39:58 PM  

Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.


"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.
 
2014-01-15 07:40:44 PM  
So, if the wind were to cause Monsanto seeds to accidentally contaminate topsoil on every property in the U.S., could Monsanto be taken back to court for failure to enforce its patents under the "all-or-nothing" provisions of the current intellectual property laws?
 
2014-01-15 07:40:57 PM  
Can anybody point to ONE SINGLE CASE of a farmer who was SUED for growing GMOs INADVERTENTLY?

ALL cases I know of involve farmers who deliberately selected the GMO seeds, knowing full well they were GMO seeds, and planted them specifically for this reason.
 
2014-01-15 07:42:48 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.


MSTD, the atomic wedgie thread was last week. I think you just coredumped in this thread.

Good luck on learning of so, though.
 
2014-01-15 07:43:12 PM  
Delicious Monsanto pollen!

imagizer.imageshack.us
 
2014-01-15 07:44:10 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?


Yes, and in fact they have deliberately contaminated competitors' fields with their products in order to sue them into oblivion.
 
2014-01-15 07:45:48 PM  

dinch: 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.

[www.foxers.com image 700x700]


I have always admired MSTD for that quirky sense of....English language, but I didn't realize she had such a fine...pair of shorts.
 
2014-01-15 07:47:28 PM  

Mucus Mule: Delicious Monsanto pollen!

[imagizer.imageshack.us image 500x222]


The tested that, you know that right?

http://entomology.umd.edu/files/entm/documents/mhwg/bee_NTO_paper.pd f
"In field studies, colonies foraging in sweet corn plotsand fed Bt pollen cakes for 28 days showed no adverse effects on bee weight, foraging activity, and colony performance. "

It's the neonictonoids.

//Also, please don't use homemade nicotine sprays as organic pesticides.
 
2014-01-15 07:52:34 PM  

Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.


Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves.  You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point.  Seed purchased is seed owned.  Screw  licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR.  It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?
 
2014-01-15 07:56:01 PM  

Kahabut: Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves.  You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point.  Seed purchased is seed owned.  Screw  licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR.  It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?


It hasn't been that way for a long long long time.

You're going to fight 100+ years of precedent on seed propagation and selling. It isn't exactly something new that came along with Monsanto.

Blame Burpee if you're going to blame anyone.
 
2014-01-15 07:56:44 PM  

Kahabut: Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves.  You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point.  Seed purchased is seed owned.  Screw  licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR.  It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?


I also take it that you don't believe in leases either.
 
2014-01-15 07:58:55 PM  
FTFA

"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).'"

/eyetwitch

Next year "Monsanto has decided to sue a local farmer due to,,,"

If it becomes profitable to sue a company will do so, and without the chance to quickly determine whose property in this case is what, "the big guy will always win on precedent"

www.funcage.com
 
2014-01-15 08:10:09 PM  

sprgrss: Kahabut: Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves.  You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point.  Seed purchased is seed owned.  Screw  licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR.  It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?

I also take it that you don't believe in leases either.


So you're taking the moron route.  Interesting.

A lease is not a sale, is not a rental is not a dog.  But it's nice to know you are so confused you can't tell the difference.
 
2014-01-15 08:11:23 PM  

Kahabut: So you're taking the moron route.  Interesting.

A lease is not a sale, is not a rental is not a dog.  But it's nice to know you are so confused you can't tell the difference.


I want you to distinguish leases from licensing rights.
 
2014-01-15 08:13:11 PM  

highendmighty: Monsanto cucumbers cause genital baldness


Use lube and/or aim more carefully.
 
2014-01-15 08:18:22 PM  

sprgrss: Kahabut: So you're taking the moron route.  Interesting.

A lease is not a sale, is not a rental is not a dog.  But it's nice to know you are so confused you can't tell the difference.

I want you to distinguish leases from licensing rights.


Show me the "lease" that Monsanto uses.  For that matter, show me where licensing rights have any jurisdiction over physical objects sold to a third party.  (hint, software is not a physical object, and is never technically sold, only access to the software is sold)

Ever heard of the doctrine of first sale?
 
2014-01-15 08:24:47 PM  

meat0918: Kahabut: Shadi: Kahabut: Except for the 150+ lawsuits and 700 other cases settled out of court, sure, makes perfect sense.

"Since 1997, we have only filed suit against farmers 145 times in the United States. This may sound like a lot, but when you consider that we sell seed to more than 250,000 American farmers a year, it's really a small number. Of these, we've proceeded through trial with only eleven farmers. All eleven cases were found in Monsanto's favor."

Your numbers are just a tad bit off. And even the lawsuits Monsanto mentions are saved seed lawsuits, not wind blown. Farmers purchased Monsanto product and tried to violate the licensing.

Out of the couple hundred million starbucks customers, how many do you think starbucks has sued?

You're quoting Monsanto, justifying themselves.  You don't see a problem with that?

I'm not going to argue the point.  Seed purchased is seed owned.  Screw  licensing and screw you for even entertaining the thought that you can tell me what I can do with a PHYSICAL OBJECT THAT I PAID FOR.  It's called ownership.

Monsanto is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with our legal and business frameworks.

So I'm just curious, are you a patent troll, work for monsanto, or just a moron?

It hasn't been that way for a long long long time.

You're going to fight 100+ years of precedent on seed propagation and selling. It isn't exactly something new that came along with Monsanto.

Blame Burpee if you're going to blame anyone.


To clarify, the blanket statement "Seed purchased is seed owned" is not accurate for all seed.  Some purchased seed is that way, a lot of others have non-propagation clauses attached to them, and purchase of said seed is assent to abide by those clauses.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 even this allows farmers to save seed.  I am not a lawyer, but I think since Monsanto patented their seeds rather than got this different plant intellectual property right is how they are winning these battles.  I'm still not sure how they can apply the Plant Patent act to their RR seeds and don't have to abide by the PVPA, but I literally learned about the PVPA about 20 minutes ago.

I feel for the farmers; since it appears they had always been protected until patents started to fly rather than PVPA rights.
 
2014-01-15 08:25:38 PM  

SquiggsIN: How much Monsanto stock do you own exactly?


Honest to god. This is all I needed to read:

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.

I think it's clear enough. Doesn't matter if they haven't done it yet, they reserve the right to do it. And so they will.  Because eventually their GMO material will be everywhere, and it will then be worthless. Unless they take drastic steps to protect it.

Enjoy your Roundup food.
 
2014-01-15 08:28:42 PM  

cryinoutloud: SquiggsIN: How much Monsanto stock do you own exactly?

Honest to god. This is all I needed to read:

"Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means," said Kyle McClain, the Monsanto's chief litigation counsel, according to Reuters.

I think it's clear enough. Doesn't matter if they haven't done it yet, they reserve the right to do it. And so they will.  Because eventually their GMO material will be everywhere, and it will then be worthless. Unless they take drastic steps to protect it.

Enjoy your Roundup food.


RR soybean patent expires next year btw.

I kinda wonder how many other seed companies will sell one in 2016.
 
2014-01-15 08:35:09 PM  
Lawyers, internet wannabe lawyers and fark educated, got news for you, as a FARMER, farmer and ex member of the bar Monsanto is the devil.   I cannot grow crops from seeds I harvest from my own land if they have been contaminated by the devils seed.  Try and find any farmer who can harvest their own seed!  The devil makes you buy theirs every year. This is part of the devils way of controlling farmers.  I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen.  Monsanto is evil.

/get off my porch
//ever taste a real tomato?
 
2014-01-15 08:41:42 PM  

trophy1903: Lawyers, internet wannabe lawyers and fark educated, got news for you, as a FARMER, farmer and ex member of the bar Monsanto is the devil.   I cannot grow crops from seeds I harvest from my own land if they have been contaminated by the devils seed.  Try and find any farmer who can harvest their own seed!  The devil makes you buy theirs every year. This is part of the devils way of controlling farmers.  I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen.  Monsanto is evil.

/get off my porch
//ever taste a real tomato?


Thank you.  So farking much this.

/not a farmer
//owns some farm land
///fark monsanto.
////got 40 acres out back, mostly wild forest, and some swamp.  They will never find the bodies.
 
2014-01-15 08:45:22 PM  

trophy1903: Lawyers, internet wannabe lawyers and fark educated, got news for you, as a FARMER, farmer and ex member of the bar Monsanto is the devil.   I cannot grow crops from seeds I harvest from my own land if they have been contaminated by the devils seed.  Try and find any farmer who can harvest their own seed!  The devil makes you buy theirs every year. This is part of the devils way of controlling farmers.  I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen.  Monsanto is evil.

/get off my porch
//ever taste a real tomato?


Yes, they are evil, but I'm calling bullshiat on your "I can't grow stuff because of Monsanto", and "Monsanto makes you buy their seed".

Otherwise, how the fark do other farmers grow organic crops??

Also, plant some hedges and use some set backs from other corn crops.  Here are some basic guidelines http://ohioline.osu.edu/agf-fact/0153.html
 
2014-01-15 08:49:09 PM  

trophy1903: ]I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen.  Monsanto is evil.


Starts with your neighbors.  Wouldn't they be the evil ones for planting the Monsanto seed?  Are they evil because they want higher yields?  Aren't you polluting their GMO RR crops with your pollen as well?

Would you support their right to sue you if you do?

Who was growing their first?  You or your neighbors?
 
2014-01-15 08:50:32 PM  

meat0918: Yes, they are evil, but I'm calling bullshiat on your "I can't grow stuff because of Monsanto", and "Monsanto makes you buy their seed".

Otherwise, how the fark do other farmers grow organic crops??


Why don't you talk to the farmers in Oregon that had their wheat embargoed because some Monsanto seed got mixed in by the wind.
 
2014-01-15 08:54:05 PM  

Teiritzamna: 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.


I don't think the likelihood of pollination is relevant. Cross pollination by a non-GMO strain does not alter the "no GMO content" status of the resultant seed, while such pollination with a GMO strain blows the ability of the farmer to label his crop as he has attempted to grow it: a real damage.
 
2014-01-15 08:55:42 PM  

Kahabut: meat0918: Yes, they are evil, but I'm calling bullshiat on your "I can't grow stuff because of Monsanto", and "Monsanto makes you buy their seed".

Otherwise, how the fark do other farmers grow organic crops??

Why don't you talk to the farmers in Oregon that had their wheat embargoed because some Monsanto seed got mixed in by the wind.


I did.

Prevailing opinion is industrial sabotage, since the seed was never in commercial production, and the seed place then sent it to be destroyed has no idea if they actually destroyed it or where that seed is.
 
2014-01-15 08:58:44 PM  
All the organic farmers have to do to prove they have no Monsanto crops is to let Monsanto
crop dust their fields with roundup. If all the crops die, then they didn't have any GMO's.
 
2014-01-15 09:03:07 PM  

meat0918: Kahabut: meat0918: Yes, they are evil, but I'm calling bullshiat on your "I can't grow stuff because of Monsanto", and "Monsanto makes you buy their seed".

Otherwise, how the fark do other farmers grow organic crops??

Why don't you talk to the farmers in Oregon that had their wheat embargoed because some Monsanto seed got mixed in by the wind.

I did.

Prevailing opinion is industrial sabotage, since the seed was never in commercial production, and the seed place then sent it to be destroyed has no idea if they actually destroyed it or where that seed is.


Another thing.  That was conventional and organic wheat, because it hurt our export market, and the wheat ended up sold anyways since nothing else tested positive.

Additionally, the reason it never entered commercial production is because the farmers told Monsanto they would not grow it, because they could not sell it.

Corn, beet, and soy farmers were not so picky.
 
2014-01-15 09:03:31 PM  
In other news, federal judge opens a large bank account.
 
2014-01-15 09:15:36 PM  
Best Justice money can buy.
 
2014-01-15 09:25:36 PM  
Found this on an NPR message board because I knew that this "Monsanto never has and has committed it never will sue if our patented seed or traits are found in a farmer's field as a result of inadvertent means,"  was pure bullshiat:

On Myth 2, Mr. Charles completely adopts Monsanto's argument on these points and ignores the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs in the OSGATA et al v Monsanto lawsuit, like me, that Monsanto has repeatedly accused those contaminated with its seed of patent infringement, including Troy Roush and Dawn and David Runyon.

Monsanto has not denied these cases, and instead points to other cases where farmers were not contaminated. But just because Monsanto sometimes sues farmers who intentionally used their seed DOES NOT mean they've NEVER accused farmers who did not intentionally possess their seed. Further, what's the word "trace" mean when Monsanto says "We won't sue farmers fo possessing TRACE amounts of our seed." Contamination is often unnoticeable unless/until someone tests their seed supply or is contaminated by RoundUp and then notices some of their field doesn't suffer. Thus, contamination can be in much more than "trace" amounts.

Lastly, we asked Monsanto to simply put in writing that they'd never sue us before we moved forward with the case.  Instead of simply confirming they'd never sue us, since we want nothing to do with their GE seed, Monsanto instead hired a team of lawyers and accused us, the plaintiffs, of trying to pull a publicity stunt and being liars. I'd much rather be tending to the work on my seed farm than being involved in a lawsuit against one of the biggest, most aggressive companies in the world, but I have to protect myself and this case, where we're only seeking the peace of mind that Monsanto could never sue us for patent infringement (and not a single dime), is the only way to do so.

If Mr. Charles really thinks its a "myth" that Monsanto would ever sue me or my co-plaintiffs or other organic, biodynamic and plainly non-GMO farmers for patent infringement, I'd gladly take an insurance policy from him offering to defend me from any potential accusations in the future. If he's not willing to give me that insurance policy, then he's not willing to put his money where his mouth is, which is exactly what I'm being forced to do today, put my money and my business and my family's future on the line hoping and praying Monsanto never sues me for patent infringement when I get contaminated by their seed, something they do not even dispute will happen due to the prevalence of their seed in the marketplace.

Jim Gerritsen, President
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association
Lead Plaintiff, OSGATA et al v. Monsanto
Washington,


I'm glad the courts are so impressed by Monsanto's binding agreement not to sue people they don't think they can win against, which, in plain English, is what they're bound to. And that seems to be the only basis that they won't sue.  If they think they have a case, they will just shockingly decide present a case that it was intentional germination, regardless of the truth. Because that's what they do. They want to be paid when their seed is on a farmer's land, no matter how it got there, and no matter whether the farmer knows it's there or not.  And once that farmer knows his field is contaminated, that farmer can't plant the seeds without risking  Monsanto's wrath. To grow his own seeds.

The court could have allowed farmers to deliberately opt out of Monsanto's demands to own natural processes, but instead and yet again, the courts have perpetuated Monsanto's ability to to use the courts to intimidate farmers into becoming paying customers to avoid lawsuits.
 
2014-01-15 09:38:20 PM  

Kahabut: sprgrss: Kahabut: So you're taking the moron route.  Interesting.

A lease is not a sale, is not a rental is not a dog.  But it's nice to know you are so confused you can't tell the difference.

I want you to distinguish leases from licensing rights.

Show me the "lease" that Monsanto uses.  For that matter, show me where licensing rights have any jurisdiction over physical objects sold to a third party.  (hint, software is not a physical object, and is never technically sold, only access to the software is sold)

Ever heard of the doctrine of first sale?


Doctrine of First Sale only applies to sales

I'm still waiting for you to distinguish.
 
2014-01-15 09:49:55 PM  
Why can't the farmers turn it around on Monsanto and sue them for contaminating their crops with GMOs?
 
2014-01-15 09:58:32 PM  
The plaintiffs asked Monsanto to pledge not to sue

Monsanto: "If we contaminate your crops, we'll sue you!"
 
2014-01-15 09:59:52 PM  

Mithraic_bullshiat: Why can't the farmers turn it around on Monsanto and sue them for contaminating their crops with GMOs?


Not sure.  I think they are protected because they didn't plant it, the farmer near you did.

It seems that an organic farmer, who gets a premium for his produce, would have standing to sue someone for the damage to his crops.

But last I knew, unless you are selling organic seed, they don't recommend you test your organic crops for GMO, out of fear of Monsanto or Bayer or fear of lost profits, I don't know.

I'm still not sure how they haven't lost the patent protection, since supposedly uncontaminated seed was suspected to be contaminated when studying cross pollination and the rates of cross pollination were above what they expected given the distances involved.

Again, IANAL, but that seems like a clear inability to protect your claim and patent.

I'm more pissed at Monsanto because they have so thoroughly poisoned the waters of this new technology that should and could be used to increase nutrition and yield without relying on as much of the various *-cides we use (pest-, herb-, nemato-, fungi-, etc.), and not pad the bottom line of some agrochemical company.
 
2014-01-15 10:15:01 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.


You don't understand the phrase 'regulatory capture', do you?
 
2014-01-15 11:40:44 PM  
I like Mexico's rationale for banning it: "And Mexico has over 20,000 varieties of corn that are grown and eaten through out the country -- we're talking huge amounts of corn."

It's not that I think GMO corn should be banned: genetic-modification is exactly what agriculturists have been doing for centuries, but we're now much better at it.   "Golden Rice" would save thousands of children from blindness due to Vitamin A deficiency. High protein GMO potatoes from India could help one's aloo to be alot more nutritious without adding more meat to our diets.

I agree that monoculture or threatening heirloom species is bad, but not from the Frankenfood perspective. We're Frankeneverything at this point. We gotta have a go at these things, there's no way to put it the science back in the box, as it were. However, Corn is Mexican. Remember the shiat another corporation tried to do with India and Basmati Rice. There needs to be something like Europe has with
"protective designation of origin".

I wish that scientists could be more like Jonas Salk and just be able to give that shiat away for the sake of the betterment of humanity. I understand the Golden Rice folks did try that and that Greenpeace blocked them. We've got a lot of people to feed. Let's be reasonable. (she says on Fark :P)
 
2014-01-16 12:20:21 AM  
1. as long as you don't use Monsanto's genetic markers, you're fine. Wind is going to happen and they do know this.
2. You want to sue a company, because they might sue you for cross breeding, but they never have nor ever will?
So let's sue them to make sure that they don't sue you, before they sue you, but they never have nor have they planned on it?

That makes absolute sense.

I understand what the farmers are trying to deal with and I understand what they are trying to do. But for everyone's sake, at least let them try a lawsuit before you decide to countersue them. That might actually be helpfull to everyone involved.
 
2014-01-16 12:30:51 AM  

Teiritzamna: Oh for the love of . . .

1) the Supreme Court denied to hear the case.  This isnt a ruling, they generally deny to hear +99% of cases.

2) this was a suit by organic farmers suing Monsanto to preclude them from suing farmers in the future for inadvertant infringement (i.e. wind based distribution) .

3) As Monsanto hasn't brought such a suit, the organic farmers had no standing to sue.  There was no controversy (farmers were asking the court to prevent Monsanto from doing something Monsanto wasn't doing).

4) There is really no new or interesting law here, so of course the SCOTUS passed.

I may hate Monsanto too, but Jesus, this is a serious non-story here


Pretty damn much. Don't get me wrong, Monsanto IS a collection of scum and villainy the likes of which are rarely seen outside Wallstreet trading floors, and with their own genetics labs to boot, so they might actually have a secret lair with pod people planning to take over the world, but THIS story is a lot of Sturm und Drang about nothing*...

*Yes, Virginia, Hubie went with proto-Romantic German lit coupled with Shakespeare reference over the obvious Gibsonesque "style over substance." I blame the Almost Human thread...
 
2014-01-16 12:40:00 AM  
adaptershack.com
 
2014-01-16 01:11:30 AM  

Mithraic_bullshiat: ."
Remember the shiat another corporation tried to do with India and Basmati Rice.



I don't. Would you share please?
 
2014-01-16 01:31:08 AM  

SquiggsIN: Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: Theaetetus: SquiggsIN: The law is wrong, the precedent is wrong, and it needs to be fixed.

Sure, but then your complaint shouldn't be about "stupid judges" or "corrupt courts", but rather "stupid legislators" and "corrupt congress". 

Do you wonder why people hate lawyers too?

Nah, it's normal. People tend to hate and fear that which they don't understand.

That's the worst part about most lawyers.  You all think you're smarter than the rest of us because you're in the DELIBERATELY-CONVOLUTED PROFESSION of law-making.

I'm also an engineer. That makes me even more technical and pedantic.

After going to engineering school and being around nothing but engineers for a few years I decided I didn't want to be around assholes like you all the time.  Thought about law school for myself too, and again, decided that being able to sleep at night was more important than lining a bank account.


Oh, come now. Is that the most self-righteous you can be? Because I've got a sneaking suspicion that the bar is actually much, much higher in your case.

Really, as much as I'd like to agree with you (Monsanto does, after all, makes it so easy), I would hate myself in the morning.
 
2014-01-16 01:54:27 AM  

notto: trophy1903: ]I want to grow my own organic, non gmo crops, and they pollute my land with their pollen.  Monsanto is evil.

Starts with your neighbors.  Wouldn't they be the evil ones for planting the Monsanto seed?  Are they evil because they want higher yields?  Aren't you polluting their GMO RR crops with your pollen as well?

Would you support their right to sue you if you do?

Who was growing their first?  You or your neighbors?


Are the genes of organically-grown, heritage tomatoes patented?  I did not know that. If they're not, then it's not really a level playing field or a fair argument, is it?

Stepping away from the genetic angle, try this parallel. If I, an organic farmer, dump some of my compost into your your non-organic garden patch, your crop is still the same thing you started after when you take it to market. If, on the other hand, you dump a sack of your chemical fertilizer into my garden, my product is no longer marketable as being "organic." Not a perfect comparison, but in the ballpark I hope.
 
2014-01-16 01:58:32 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
Typical Monsanto board meeting
 
2014-01-16 02:05:02 AM  

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.


monsanto is an asshole, and you are right to say that the concentration of food production is bad for everyone (except the companies that maintain that centralization).
 
2014-01-16 06:36:55 AM  
DrBenway:


Stepping away from the genetic angle, try this parallel. If I, an organic farmer, dump some of my compost into your your non-organic garden patch, your crop is still the same thing you started after when you take it to market. If, on the other hand, you dump a sack of your chemical fertilizer into my garden, my product is no longer marketable as being "organic." Not a perfect comparison, but in the ballpark I hope.

 I can't sue the fertilizer company in your scenario either, so yea, a great comparison.
 
2014-01-16 07:58:04 AM  

gaspode: 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.


Why should they fail? They have tons of money, and their agreement only pertains to farms with <1% contamination.
 
2014-01-16 06:44:22 PM  

sweetmelissa31: gaspode: 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.

Why should they fail? They have tons of money, and their agreement only pertains to farms with <1% contamination.


They will never ever succeed in a case in which they try to sue someone for genuinely unintentionally being contaminated with their crops. All the money in the world wouldnt change that. Im not THAT cynical about the courts sorry.

They WOULD succeed in a case where someone acquired some of their crops by any means and then deliberately cultivated/bred them into a crop. This is what has actually happened and will happen again.

I would like to emphasise that I deeply despise this aspect of law and would see IP law hacked almost to the ground in my ideal world, but these laws are not really GM or monsanto related, they are much older and completely perverse.
 
Displayed 232 of 232 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report