Why is Monsanto so hated?

[DC]

Why would people buy their seeds, and at a premium, if they had lower yields? Are farmers morons?

Why do people buy RedBull when it doesn't give wings?

 

[WildCat]

Why do people buy RedBull when it doesn't give wings?

So you think farmers are losing money buying Monasnto GM corn, and don't know it?

 

[lomiller]

I'm not going to argue pointless hypotheticals about what the law might or might not mean.

There is nothing hypothetical about the law. It exists it says what it says and anhyone who has ever dealt with the patent system can tell you inadvertant infringment is not a defence.

You want to claim otherwise then it's up to you provide evidence.

has Monsanto sued someone and WON for unintentional infringement? If they have, you are right. If they have not, what is your point?

Most of the cases end up settled with an NDA clause forbidding the farmer from discussing the suit but it's already been demonstrated in this thread that Monsanto has sued and won for cases like this.

 

[lomiller]

What you describe is not patent infringement.

The patented genes are in the crop the farmer is growing. I have sympathy for the notion that should not constitute infringement but there is no exception for that in the law.

 

[WildCat]

There is nothing hypothetical about the law. It exists it says what it says and anhyone who has ever dealt with the patent system can tell you inadvertant infringment is not a defence.

And anyone who knows anything about biology can tell you that this is not infringement, inadvertant or otherwise.

And you have shown no evidence at all that it is.

 

[WildCat]

The patented genes are in the crop the farmer is growing.

So?

I have sympathy for the notion that should not constitute infringement but there is no exception for that in the law.

It's not infringement, and you haven't shown any evidence at all that it is.

Will you be doing so, or is a claim now evidence on this board?

 

[ThunderChunky]

There is nothing hypothetical about the law. It exists it says what it says and anhyone who has ever dealt with the patent system can tell you inadvertant infringment is not a defence.

Provide evidence that accidental contamination is not a defense. That is what we are taking about. This is clearly a hypothetical scenario that you are dreaming up until you can provide real world examples of it happening. Again, if this is not happening in the real world, what is your point?

You want to claim otherwise then it's up to you provide evidence.

The burden is on you, because you are making the unsupported claim that accidental contamination is a form of patent infringement.

Most of the cases end up settled with an NDA clause forbidding the farmer from discussing the suit but it's already been demonstrated in this thread that Monsanto has sued and won for cases like this.

Settled cases are just that, settled. If you position was correct there would be court rulings finding defendants guilty for accidental contamination. You have yet to provide such evidence and refuse to do so. You now claim it's already been demonstrated, provide the link.

 

[lomiller]

Provide evidence that accidental contamination is not a defense.

Nope, sorry. That's not how it works. You claim it's a defense so you prove that claim.

The burden is on you, because you are making the unsupported claim that accidental contamination is a form of patent infringement.

I've already linked to the law in question.

 

[lomiller]

So?


It's not infringement, and you haven't shown any evidence at all that it is.

What next will you claim crops are not really crops? Seriously. Sit back and consider how deep in the woo you have to be to try are argue that growing patented crops isn't infringing on the patent.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Nope, sorry. That's not how it works. You claim it's a defense so you prove that claim.

Anything can be a defense (just like you can sue for anything), whether it works in court is the question. You claimed something is infringement, I asked you to back that up with court cases. You have refused/failed to do so, yet you keep claiming it's infringement. If your claims are true there should be court cases to back you up and you should be able to find them.

If there are no such court cases, what is your point? This is now the third time I have asked you this simple question.

I've already linked to the law in question.

You have linked to no court cases dealing with this issue, which is what was requested. Linking to a generic law page and saying "hey it doesn't mention this" means nothing. You need to find a page that actually mentions this issue.

 

[WildCat]

What next will you claim crops are not really crops? Seriously. Sit back and consider how deep in the woo you have to be to try are argue that growing patented crops isn't infringing on the patent.

What you described isn't "growing patented crops". Assume I plant a field of DeKalb hybrid corn, and the neighboring field is Monsanto GM corn. My DeKalb hybrid corn doesn't magically become Monsanto corn because pollen blew into it and fertilized my crop, any more than the Monsanto corn now becomes DeKalb corn because some pollen from my field blew into his.

Your claim, frankly, is ridiculous.

 

[DC]

So you think farmers are losing money buying Monasnto GM corn, and don't know it?

I didn't say that. And higher yields are not the only basis farmers decide for a specific plant.
and Monsanto's most sold seeds are not about higher yields. they are mainly if not only about roundup resistence. the new series II is claimed to have higher yields, we will see in a few years if they indeed have higher yields.

I think you listen to much to the marketing departement of Monsanto.
yields of the same plant can vary extremely from region to region, year to year.

 

[WildCat]

I didn't say that. And higher yields are not the only basis farmers decide for a specific plant.
and Monsanto's most sold seeds are not about higher yields. they are mainly if not only about roundup resistence. the new series II is claimed to have higher yields, we will see in a few years if they indeed have higher yields.

I think you listen to much to the marketing departement of Monsanto.
yields of the same plant can vary extremely from region to region, year to year.

I'm pretty sure farmers know how to best determine what is the best seed for them to plant, without any input at all from some armchair know-it-all who never planted anything more than a backyard garden.

If they didn't get value for their money they wouldn't buy seed from Monsanto.

 

[DC]

I'm pretty sure farmers know how to best determine what is the best seed for them to plant, without any input at all from some armchair know-it-all who never planted anything more than a backyard garden.

If they didn't get value for their money they wouldn't buy seed from Monsanto.

so you moved that goalpast of higher yields.

 

[WildCat]

so you moved that goalpast of higher yields.

I spoke hastily before. Yield is only part of the equation, expenses are another. If yield remains the same but other expenses are lower (such as pesticides or fertilizer or irrigation or tilling) then the farmer still makes more money.

What is your argument DC? Do you think farmers are just suckers for slick marketing, and are incapable of determining what seed works best for them? It just amuses me to no end how many people who never planted anything in their lives think they know more than the farmer who literally bets the farm every spring when he decides what seed to plant, particularly when it comes to GM crops.

 

[DC]

I spoke hastily before. Yield is only part of the equation, expenses are another. If yield remains the same but other expenses are lower (such as pesticides or fertilizer or irrigation or tilling) then the farmer still makes more money.

What is your argument DC? Do you think farmers are just suckers for slick marketing, and are incapable of determining what seed works best for them? It just amuses me to no end how many people who never planted anything in their lives think they know more than the farmer who literally bets the farm every spring when he decides what seed to plant, particularly when it comes to GM crops.

No, Farmers have their database to check the yield performance of seeds in the different regions in the US.

A lot GMO fans are just suckers for slick marketing and have no clue what seeds are actually sold most.

 

[WildCat]

No, Farmers have their database to check the yield performance of seeds in the different regions in the US.

A lot GMO fans are just suckers for slick marketing and have no clue what seeds are actually sold most.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here, your second sentence seems to contradict the first.

 

[Pythonic]

Why hate them? They had the best ride at Disneyland!

 

[ThunderChunky]

A lot GMO fans are just suckers for slick marketing and have no clue what seeds are actually sold most.

The GMO critics tend to be the ones with the least scientific knowledge.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Report issued by the national academy: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12804