Monsanto is trying to control nature. Bees don't care if they're picking up pollen from a "Monsanto Licensee" ! Why should the recipient of the pollen be held liable?
This is the case that is always mentioned, but the facts in the case are overwhelmingly in Monsanto's favor. If this is the only case detractors have, then, yes, I'd say that "The neighboring farmer bs is just a smokescreen."
I am unaware of any case in which an innocent farmer was a legitimate victim of accidental transfer. Can you please cite another source?
Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready. They never tried to claim that somebody who accidentally gets their plants owes them money.
(And before anybody accuses me of being a Monsanto fanboy or something: I really don't care about this issue. I just decided to actually do some research after reading like 10 different rants against Monsanto in one day, and I found that although Monsanto sound like dicks, people still seem to feel the need to exaggerate.)
> Monsanto's claim in that case was that they had informed him the previous year that part of his field was contaminated, and he responded by intentionally planting seeds from the crops they had told him were Roundup Ready.
If iPhones hacked into Android phones on the same network and installed iOS, would Apple have any case against the folks who subsequently used that iOS installation on their Android devices?
I can't see the commonalities you're trying to draw between the actual scenario Monsanto thought happened (guy accidentally acquired their seed, intentionally decided to grow it and sell it instead of his own seed) and the scenario you're presenting (person accidentally gets OS installed on their phone, continues using phone).
Accidentally acquired their seed? He grew his own crops, collected his own seeds, and re-planted that seed the next year, like pretty much every farmer in history has.
Monsanto's product contaminated his seeds, through no fault of his own. An apology, not a lawsuit, was in order.
Yes, basically. That isn't an unreasonable reading of patent law. If he had actually tried to apply Roundup to the crops or sell the seeds to other farmers, he probably would have lost the suit. As I understand it, he won because he wasn't actually using the patented technology, not because the patent was rendered void by the fact that the seeds were produced on his land.
The thing you have to realize about patents is that it doesn't matter if you yourself built the thing that implements the patent; what matters is just whether you're using the patented technology or not.
Which I find insane when it comes to crops. If the person had willfully taken some seeds and used them sure, but patent law really should have some sort of exemption for cases where the patented product is overtly trespassing. It's ridiculous that because some company patented a gene a farmer who never wanted the plant in the first place is limited in what he can do to his own property. (Can't use roundup, can't harvest his seeds, etc.)
It's a small step from this situation to creating a virus, patenting it and releasing it in the wild and calling all people that get the cold your property.
Patent ownership in this kind of case (the plants, not the people) needs to be dialed back.
Never mind a human virus. If Monsanto could create an airborn plant retrovirus they could potentially frame someone for stealing Monsanto seed and planting their entire farm.
Says who? Why don't you do some research before calling something BS? Read this account: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Monsanto is trying to control nature. Bees don't care if they're picking up pollen from a "Monsanto Licensee" ! Why should the recipient of the pollen be held liable?