The law states that if the GMO content is on the field, it must have been planted by the farmer.
No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue. Monsanto assumes that if the seed exists, it was planted. That's why Monsanto doesn't sue for trace amounts, and that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
Again, there was no intention on the part of the farmer to have that content. He was, and let me stress this, an organic rapeseed seed farmer. The business had been going for generations, and Monsanto's content destroyed that.
No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue.
After some research, I stand corrected. Though there should be, there is no legal recourse to pollen or seed contamination, nothing to prevent a patent holder from going against someone who simply doesn't want to do business with the patent holder. It is coercion, purely and simply.
. . . that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
The Schmeiser case is Canadian. They have a whole different currency and everything! And for some revealing detail, why don't we revisit the Schmeiser case?
After the Canadian Supreme Court both dismissed their case and sympathized with their plight, the Schmeisers were forced to change business (http://www.rightlivelihood.org/schmeiser.html): "Since the first court case, the Schmeisers shifted their agricultural business from canola to wheat, mustard, peas and oats in order to avoid future problems."
Keep in mind their line of organic rapeseed seeds went back decades. They were forced to completely retool their business to avoid dealing with Monsanto contamination. Ah, but did they?
But soon they found genetically modified Monsanto canola plants on their land again. They called the company and demanded that they be removed. Monsanto conducted tests and confirmed that these were their Monsanto Roundup Ready plants. Monsanto agreed to remove them if the Schmeisers signed a document with a non-disclosure statement and an assurance that they would never take Monsanto to court. The Schmeisers did not sign this statement and again demanded from Monsanto to take these plants off of their land. When Monsanto did not react, they paid some workers to remove the plants and sent Monsanto the bill of $600. When Monsanto did not pay, the Schmeisers sued them in a provincial court. In March 2008, the Schmeisers settled their lawsuit with Monsanto in an out of court agreement, in which Monsanto agreed to pay all the clean-up costs of genetically modified canola that contaminated the Schmeisers' fields.
And when we dig a bit deeper, it turns out the NPR dick (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted) was wrong: Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf) lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat? Seriously, it's one thing to state that no science available has found the flesh of a pig to be dangerous. It's another to shove a pork chop into a rabbi's mouth and bitch when he complains.
Though there should be, there is no legal recourse to pollen or seed contamination, nothing to prevent a patent holder from going against someone who simply doesn't want to do business with the patent holder.
There doesn't need to be a law, no. And there is recourse due to that Supreme Court case, which pretty much said that Monsanto's words on the matter (that they wouldn't pursue blown seeds) constituted a material act (my words, not theirs) and that future suits would likely be dismissed because of it.
That's likely all we'll get in the short term, and all we should!
Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
They own the life, but they're violating agreements. The agreements of using Monsanto seed is to not replant the seeds. To replant the seeds is a violation of the contract.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat?
I don't! What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices, either by outright bans or misleading, state-sponsored coercion.
The agreements of using Monsanto seed is to not replant the seeds. To replant the seeds is a violation of the contract.
As Clay Jenkinson, historian and Thomas Jefferson re-enactor, has said quite emphatically, the act of replanting seed is what farmers do. It has been what farmers have done for literally thousands of years. It is, and I do not say this lightly, the very definition of capitalism.
For Monsanto to insert a legal penalty for the act of farming—up to and including reserving acts of harassment (short, as you note, of lawsuit)—is for Monsanto to attempt to re-define the act of farming itself, by trying to become the rentier of the seed just as a landowner is the rentier of the farmer.*
I suppose Monsanto's little scheme of cornering a seed market would have been just fine and dandy, were it not for those pesky genes and their tendency to propagate where they can, rather than where they were intended.
What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices. . . .
Okay. I may not agree with the Talmudic and Salal prohibitions on swine flesh, but I absolutely agree with their right to live kosher; and the only way to do that, short of becoming your own farmer for all food consumed, is labeling. Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
*Fun fact: the term "farmer" refers to someone contracted to do a deed. Only over many years of landowners farming out the job of growing food on their land has the term become equivalent with a practitioner of agriculture.
As Clay Jenkinson, historian and Thomas Jefferson re-enactor, has said quite emphatically, the act of replanting seed is what farmers do. It has been what farmers have done for literally thousands of years. It is, and I do not say this lightly, the very definition of capitalism.
That's great. Farming has changed. Those who do not want to use Monsanto seeds are free to do so.
Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
What information does a GMO label provide that's of relevance. "It's genetically modified" is not an answer, as the existence of genetic modification alone is not anything a consumer needs to be concerned about, unlike calorie counts or whether something is Kosher. It's a "nice to have" label.
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
What information does a GMO label provide that's of relevance. "It's genetically modified" is not an answer, as the existence of genetic modification alone is not anything a consumer needs to be concerned about, unlike calorie counts or whether something is Kosher. It's a "nice to have" label.
Never mind losing it, here's where you're missing the plot entirely. Except for the allergic, there is nothing in pork or shrimp or cheeseburgers or Leviticus-prohibited whatever that should be objectionable as food. These have been tested again and again by the same scientists who give GMO crops a clean bill of health.
Yet people object. They furthermore have every right to object, even though their objections are based on pre- and often anti-scientific mumblings, faiths and prejudices every bit as superstitious and shallow as those who prefer to eat foods modified only by cross-breeding.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
To deny this very simple fact outs you as either diabolical or (more likely) riddled with the ill-ease of cognitive dissonance.
Except for the allergic, there is nothing in pork or shrimp or cheeseburgers or Leviticus-prohibited whatever that should be objectionable as food. These have been tested again and again by the same scientists who give GMO crops a clean bill of health.
I don't disagree. However, the information is relevant in these situations, which is not the case for GMO. They object for relevant, clear, reasonable reasons.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
The Kosher label is because of religious dietary restrictions. What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications? Will we then label seedless watermelons?
However, the information is relevant in these situations, which is not the case for GMO.
No, no, no. The US Constitution has no religious test: based on this, the secular regulatory arm has no authority to consider one religious text and its prohibitions as carrying more weight than another.
What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications?
Should someone object to GMO because it's treyf, then unlabeled food is treyf, and they can move to label non-GMO (similar to the little circled U and K on rabbinically inspected and approved foods). The FDA has no authority to judge one religious tenet over the other.
Will we then label seedless watermelons?
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees. These, as I noted elsewhere, are simply sterile mule melons, no jellyfish genome material required.
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
No, no, no. The US Constitution has no religious test: based on this, the secular regulatory arm has no authority to consider one religious text and its prohibitions as carrying more weight than another.
And Kosher labeling is not required. Not should it be.
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees.
Scary!
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
They're not labeled as GMO. That's the point, nor should they be, nor should any GMO food.
And. . . . Jeff has left the building. The Logic Building, where the reasonable discuss things reasonably. Why is that?
Because Jeff has missed the necessary element of a patent. A patent, to be issued, must be on a form or variant that is not obvious to those in the arts. Growing sterile hybrids? Grafting? Been done for thousands of years. You and I could grow it, yes; but it would never be given patent protection. It is therefore not GMO, not in terms that have any relevance to the discussion of GMOs.
GMO = patented life forms.
Ah, but you know that. You're smart enough to know that. What you aren't smart enough to do is know when to quit trolling an argument with specious obfuscation. You get, apparently, so wrapped up in your Trolling Dance and hopping about like an electrocuted monkey that you make silly, silly statements that have no bearing whatsoever on the argument.
Once again, GMO = patented life forms. The modifications are unique enough both to science and to the patent office that they have been granted the patent protection that enables Monsanto and others to go tear-assing around the world making life very different and likely more and more miserable to those who actually grow the seed into food.
When you wish to discuss this, get back to us. Meanwhile, Troll Monkey, I leave you to your spastic Troll Monkey Dance.
I don't get your line of thought is all, and that you're coming up with some novel claims and then turning around and calling me a troll doesn't do much for your side of the argument at all.
There is nothing novel about pointing out that seedless watermelons are by definition not GMO because they cannot be patented. Sure, we can "modify" genes through cross-breeding; that is not in discussion here, however. Only modifications drastic enough to be considered new to the agricultural arts can be considered for patent protection, aka GMO.
Therefore, your mentioning something that can't be patented and claiming this is genetic modification is trolling, ie. bringing up irrelevant data points that do not in any way refer to the argument at hand in order to clutter the relevant discussion and scuttle discourse. It's the monkey dance, pure and simple.
There is nothing novel about pointing out that seedless watermelons are by definition not GMO because they cannot be patented.
Who else is expressing this point of view?
More to the point, when the patent expires, are they no longer GMOs? It's an amazingly weird argument.
Therefore, your mentioning something that can't be patented and claiming this is genetic modification is trolling, ie. bringing up irrelevant data points that do not in any way refer to the argument at hand in order to clutter the relevant discussion and scuttle discourse. It's the monkey dance, pure and simple.
So, by your definition, mentioning patents as being a defining characteristic of GMOs, with no support or reasoning behind it, is "trolling."
You're better off just engaging the argument as opposed to really poorly derailing it. It's one thing to have you go off on the corporate media nonsense, but it's another to make it personal while coming out of left field with something like this.
That's great. Farming has changed. Those who do not want to use Monsanto seeds are free to do so.
The farmers that we need to be worried about are not the ones who sign a contract with Monsanto promising not to re-plant their seed. The ones we need to be worried about are the ones who find their non-Monsanto crops cross-contaminated, and know their crops are cross-contaminated, and find themselves suddenly with seed they had intended to re-plant but find themselves under threat of legal suit if they do so.
The case you've cited, above, explicitly does not include any such "knowing" farmers (trace levels of contamination or not). They remain fully vulnerable to suit, given the outcome of that case.
No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue. Monsanto assumes that if the seed exists, it was planted. That's why Monsanto doesn't sue for trace amounts, and that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
Jeff, the underlying legal claims and analysis are complicated, and you clearly don't understand them.
The case was "thrown out" because Monsanto made a non-binding statement that it wouldn't sue farmers for engaging in a relatively de minimis amount of "unintentional" infringement, which statement the court in question declared to be binding by virtue of the court's own decision to dismiss the case as being too speculative to litigate - a baldly circular argument that has next-to-nothing to do with your own portrayal of the decision, to say nothing of your decision to run with only a vague reiteration of your already off-base misunderstanding of the legal theory.
You have spun yourself so completely out of sync with reality, I'm truly baffled. Your only counter-evidence against the claim that Monsanto is abusing its patents in an anti-competitive manner is a mischaracterization of a misunderstanding of a case whose protective scope, even if accepted at its face value, is far narrower than your argument allows.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 12:52 am (UTC)No, it doesn't. The law doesn't assume that, it's a civil issue. Monsanto assumes that if the seed exists, it was planted. That's why Monsanto doesn't sue for trace amounts, and that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
Again, there was no intention on the part of the farmer to have that content. He was, and let me stress this, an organic rapeseed seed farmer. The business had been going for generations, and Monsanto's content destroyed that.
This is his claim, yes.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 04:48 am (UTC)After some research, I stand corrected. Though there should be, there is no legal recourse to pollen or seed contamination, nothing to prevent a patent holder from going against someone who simply doesn't want to do business with the patent holder. It is coercion, purely and simply.
. . . that's why the case in the US was thrown out.
The Schmeiser case is Canadian. They have a whole different currency and everything! And for some revealing detail, why don't we revisit the Schmeiser case?
After the Canadian Supreme Court both dismissed their case and sympathized with their plight, the Schmeisers were forced to change business (http://www.rightlivelihood.org/schmeiser.html): "Since the first court case, the Schmeisers shifted their agricultural business from canola to wheat, mustard, peas and oats in order to avoid future problems."
Keep in mind their line of organic rapeseed seeds went back decades. They were forced to completely retool their business to avoid dealing with Monsanto contamination. Ah, but did they?
And when we dig a bit deeper, it turns out the NPR dick (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted) was wrong: Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF (http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf) lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat? Seriously, it's one thing to state that no science available has found the flesh of a pig to be dangerous. It's another to shove a pork chop into a rabbi's mouth and bitch when he complains.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 11:39 am (UTC)There doesn't need to be a law, no. And there is recourse due to that Supreme Court case, which pretty much said that Monsanto's words on the matter (that they wouldn't pursue blown seeds) constituted a material act (my words, not theirs) and that future suits would likely be dismissed because of it.
That's likely all we'll get in the short term, and all we should!
Monsanto has sued farmers for copyright infringement of the life they own. Appendix A of this PDF lists hundreds of coercions and lawsuits, some of them garnering Monsanto millions. I knew that NPR guy was being way too pro-corporate. Sadly, too many of them are.
They own the life, but they're violating agreements. The agreements of using Monsanto seed is to not replant the seeds. To replant the seeds is a violation of the contract.
Dude, if you're libertarian, why the fuck do you care what people choose to eat?
I don't! What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices, either by outright bans or misleading, state-sponsored coercion.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 05:50 pm (UTC)As Clay Jenkinson, historian and Thomas Jefferson re-enactor, has said quite emphatically, the act of replanting seed is what farmers do. It has been what farmers have done for literally thousands of years. It is, and I do not say this lightly, the very definition of capitalism.
For Monsanto to insert a legal penalty for the act of farming—up to and including reserving acts of harassment (short, as you note, of lawsuit)—is for Monsanto to attempt to re-define the act of farming itself, by trying to become the rentier of the seed just as a landowner is the rentier of the farmer.*
I suppose Monsanto's little scheme of cornering a seed market would have been just fine and dandy, were it not for those pesky genes and their tendency to propagate where they can, rather than where they were intended.
What I don't like is people using the power of the state to lessen my choices. . . .
Okay. I may not agree with the Talmudic and Salal prohibitions on swine flesh, but I absolutely agree with their right to live kosher; and the only way to do that, short of becoming your own farmer for all food consumed, is labeling. Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
*Fun fact: the term "farmer" refers to someone contracted to do a deed. Only over many years of landowners farming out the job of growing food on their land has the term become equivalent with a practitioner of agriculture.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-30 06:07 pm (UTC)That's great. Farming has changed. Those who do not want to use Monsanto seeds are free to do so.
Why is Monsanto and the rest of the Gene Splicing For Profit gang using the power of the state to lessen my choice about which foods are labeled and which are not?
What information does a GMO label provide that's of relevance. "It's genetically modified" is not an answer, as the existence of genetic modification alone is not anything a consumer needs to be concerned about, unlike calorie counts or whether something is Kosher. It's a "nice to have" label.
When the power of the state, as you call it, can be bought, in my opinion it loses any legitimacy in this kind of argument. When "state-sponsored" is corporate funded, it's corporate first and state second.
And you're losing the plot again.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 01:44 am (UTC)Never mind losing it, here's where you're missing the plot entirely. Except for the allergic, there is nothing in pork or shrimp or cheeseburgers or Leviticus-prohibited whatever that should be objectionable as food. These have been tested again and again by the same scientists who give GMO crops a clean bill of health.
Yet people object. They furthermore have every right to object, even though their objections are based on pre- and often anti-scientific mumblings, faiths and prejudices every bit as superstitious and shallow as those who prefer to eat foods modified only by cross-breeding.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
To deny this very simple fact outs you as either diabolical or (more likely) riddled with the ill-ease of cognitive dissonance.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 11:47 am (UTC)I don't disagree. However, the information is relevant in these situations, which is not the case for GMO. They object for relevant, clear, reasonable reasons.
The GMO label is therefore exactly analogous to the Kosher label, no matter how vociferously you insist on denying this. Furthermore, this has always been the point.
The Kosher label is because of religious dietary restrictions. What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications? Will we then label seedless watermelons?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:13 pm (UTC)You mean beyond the fact that they're called seedless watermelons and not watermelons?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 07:58 pm (UTC)Plants are made by manipulating cuttings and selective breeding aren't GMO.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 08:11 pm (UTC)Oh, so seedless watermelon is not created by genetically modifying existing watermelon?
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 09:01 pm (UTC)Plant cuttings aren't GMO
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 09:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 10:50 pm (UTC)No, no, no. The US Constitution has no religious test: based on this, the secular regulatory arm has no authority to consider one religious text and its prohibitions as carrying more weight than another.
What religious dietary situation exists for genetic modifications?
Should someone object to GMO because it's treyf, then unlabeled food is treyf, and they can move to label non-GMO (similar to the little circled U and K on rabbinically inspected and approved foods). The FDA has no authority to judge one religious tenet over the other.
Will we then label seedless watermelons?
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees. These, as I noted elsewhere, are simply sterile mule melons, no jellyfish genome material required.
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
no subject
Date: 2014-08-01 11:29 am (UTC)And Kosher labeling is not required. Not should it be.
You or I could grow seedless watermelons in our back yards without a zillion dollars in lab equipment and advanced degrees.
Scary!
Oh, and to complete the total and complete failure of your cinderblock-ish argument, the last time I checked, seedless melons were labeled. It's a selling point, not having to spit seeds all over the picnic table!
They're not labeled as GMO. That's the point, nor should they be, nor should any GMO food.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-01 10:03 pm (UTC)Because Jeff has missed the necessary element of a patent. A patent, to be issued, must be on a form or variant that is not obvious to those in the arts. Growing sterile hybrids? Grafting? Been done for thousands of years. You and I could grow it, yes; but it would never be given patent protection. It is therefore not GMO, not in terms that have any relevance to the discussion of GMOs.
GMO = patented life forms.
Ah, but you know that. You're smart enough to know that. What you aren't smart enough to do is know when to quit trolling an argument with specious obfuscation. You get, apparently, so wrapped up in your Trolling Dance and hopping about like an electrocuted monkey that you make silly, silly statements that have no bearing whatsoever on the argument.
Once again, GMO = patented life forms. The modifications are unique enough both to science and to the patent office that they have been granted the patent protection that enables Monsanto and others to go tear-assing around the world making life very different and likely more and more miserable to those who actually grow the seed into food.
When you wish to discuss this, get back to us. Meanwhile, Troll Monkey, I leave you to your spastic Troll Monkey Dance.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-01 10:05 pm (UTC)This is an entirely novel argument to me regarding labeling, that it involves a patent.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-02 06:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-03 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2014-08-03 05:34 pm (UTC)Therefore, your mentioning something that can't be patented and claiming this is genetic modification is trolling, ie. bringing up irrelevant data points that do not in any way refer to the argument at hand in order to clutter the relevant discussion and scuttle discourse. It's the monkey dance, pure and simple.
no subject
Date: 2014-08-03 05:40 pm (UTC)Who else is expressing this point of view?
More to the point, when the patent expires, are they no longer GMOs? It's an amazingly weird argument.
Therefore, your mentioning something that can't be patented and claiming this is genetic modification is trolling, ie. bringing up irrelevant data points that do not in any way refer to the argument at hand in order to clutter the relevant discussion and scuttle discourse. It's the monkey dance, pure and simple.
So, by your definition, mentioning patents as being a defining characteristic of GMOs, with no support or reasoning behind it, is "trolling."
You're better off just engaging the argument as opposed to really poorly derailing it. It's one thing to have you go off on the corporate media nonsense, but it's another to make it personal while coming out of left field with something like this.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 04:50 am (UTC)The farmers that we need to be worried about are not the ones who sign a contract with Monsanto promising not to re-plant their seed. The ones we need to be worried about are the ones who find their non-Monsanto crops cross-contaminated, and know their crops are cross-contaminated, and find themselves suddenly with seed they had intended to re-plant but find themselves under threat of legal suit if they do so.
The case you've cited, above, explicitly does not include any such "knowing" farmers (trace levels of contamination or not). They remain fully vulnerable to suit, given the outcome of that case.
no subject
Date: 2014-07-31 04:45 am (UTC)Jeff, the underlying legal claims and analysis are complicated, and you clearly don't understand them.
The case was "thrown out" because Monsanto made a non-binding statement that it wouldn't sue farmers for engaging in a relatively de minimis amount of "unintentional" infringement, which statement the court in question declared to be binding by virtue of the court's own decision to dismiss the case as being too speculative to litigate - a baldly circular argument that has next-to-nothing to do with your own portrayal of the decision, to say nothing of your decision to run with only a vague reiteration of your already off-base misunderstanding of the legal theory.
You have spun yourself so completely out of sync with reality, I'm truly baffled. Your only counter-evidence against the claim that Monsanto is abusing its patents in an anti-competitive manner is a mischaracterization of a misunderstanding of a case whose protective scope, even if accepted at its face value, is far narrower than your argument allows.