Slashdot Mirror

The GMO producing companies are the most evil entities in the world.

They keep suing farmers when the wind blows their cr@p on other people's land. The fertilizers that keep their seeds going are a natural disaster for the soil, for the animals and all other crops in the vicinity. They forced a law in the US that doesn't even *allow* people to find out whether the product they buy is GM or not. They bait new customers with low prices, then when those farmers can no longer switch back to natural seeds, they ruin them. They expressly want natural seeds to die out so the whole world has to buy from them: they are sworn enemies of natural seeds because farmers can save those.

I trust natural selection. I don't trust greedy corporations that don't care about anyone or anything else. If you want the truth about them, read the stories of farmers who battled their army of lawyers for years. Percy Schmeiser's moving story at http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ is a good start.

Nice try Monsanto's shill but we're not all stupid farmers around here: Monsanto vs Schmeiser.

Monsanto, headquartered in St.Louis, makes the popular herbicide Roundup. Farmers all over the Prairies ---Schmeiser among them --- spray it on their fields, whereupon it kills every-thing growing there. Then they plant.

Explain this: a farmer uses this traditional method and traditional seeds, at some point Monsanto's GMO seeds blow into his fields and get mixed in with his original seeds. He continues to farm the traditional way, and since he never sprays his crop after planting, how would he know he's using GMO seeds?!

Ask yourself this: Monsanto's business model is to charge farmers annually for the use of their seeds. But since seeds can travel easily to adjacent farms who never signed a contract with Monsanto, how can Monsanto ensure that they're not losing potential new customers because the seeds have naturally landed on their farms already? Answer: legal bullying.

> you will find precisely zero cases where this happened. If you want to prove me wrong, then cite one case where a farmer was sued for unintentional infringement.

See Percy Schmeiser's struggle against Monsanto (which took several years) here:
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

"Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola." Then Monsanto sued him.

I cannot think of a more evil and greedy corporation than Monsanto and the likes. I thank God I live in a part of Europe where no GM crops are allowed.

I can harvest my corn crop tomorrow and sell it for $1.50/ear and my neighbor could decide to sell hers for $1.00. Some years we have farmers in the area give crop away for free because they can't sell it and it's about to go bad. So tell me how I'm supposed to be secure in my labor.

DUH! The government subsidy you get for growing the crop they told you to.

Next you're going to tell me that when my corn 'goes to seed' and some of those seeds blow over to my neighbors property and they start growing corn, it's 'theft' even though I haven't been deprived of any property...

Monsanto certainly thinks so.

Complete myth. Never happened. It's also a matter of law that patents don't apply in cases of accidental contamination.

Bzzzt. Thanks for playing

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Friday June 15, @06:09AM
They sue farmers who knowingly use seeds with the Monsanto gene in them without paying.

Burn in hell anonymous COWARD and use your actual ID instead of hiding like a little pussy girl. Plus read: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm There are also a TON of videos on youtube documenting Monsanto's RIAA/MPAA-like actions against farmers, destroying them in the process. I don't even know why slashdot allows registered users to post as ACs.

Italians have voted to not do this. They're tired of US corporations like Monsanto pushing them around. Actually, the US with the push of its power elite was heavily involved in fixing elections and installing a puppet government in Italy, and then making sure that government couldn't be tossed out once it was in. Now Italian workers are told they have to suffer under "austerity" (for them) and be ruled by foreign banks and foreign corporations.

Good for Mario Capanna and company. The Italians democratically voted this in, I have no desire for the Monsantos of the world to find some way to weasel around this. What does Monsanto do anyhow? Create plants with sterile seeds, so Monsanto can then grab all of the farmer's money? Sue farmer's whose fields are next to Monsanto seed fields, alongside the blowing winds, and get the courts and government's to side with them against small farmers?

The antiquated, anti-enlightenment ideas are not the working people and small farmers trying to protect themselves against a small handful of parasites trying to take ownership of everything. The backwards, antiquated ideas are the corporate newspapers and websites who attack anyone against against handing the whole world on a plate to the parasite heir Monsanto majority shareholders. In Italy, in Greece, in Spain, at Occupy Wall Street and Occupy everywhere, people are fed up with the high unemployment, and the expropriation of surplus value from the majority of working people to a handful of parasitic 1% heirs. This Monsanto GM IP deal is no different than the big companies in IT who own all the patents and are parasitically suing everyone around, and harming economic growth.

I did some pretty thorough Google searching and as far as I can determine this article is an outright lie. There are about 60 actual farms involved in the lawsuit, and there has NEVER been a verifiable case where Monsanto has sued a farmer who had accidentally contaminated crops.

Obviously not very thorough, there have been many cases of Monsanto suing farmers for having Roundup ready plants in their fields due to contamination. This guy's website tells his story, he gives case dates and the courts where the cases were heard. Sounds pretty verifiable to me.

(I'm from Europe; here it's known as GMO (Genetically Modified Organism). I may call it GM / GMO interchangeably).

I'm pretty sure I have been eating mostly GM foods, probably for the past 20 years of my life.

I'm pretty sure you haven't. Luckily, there aren't that many GM foods being grown yet, and used for human consumption.

With plenty of preservatives, added sugar, caffeine, sodium and every other nasty chemical ever put in food. Never had any diet-related health problems. Healthy blood sugar, healthy immune system, body mass actually slightly under normal but not unhealthily so.

Almost like me, then. Until I became 32, I was fine too. Then I started feeling weird from drinking Coke, so I stopped drinking soda drinks entirely.
Since then, things have started tasting weird or made me uncomfortable, one at a time, so I've stopped drinking or eating them.
Butter, most dairy products, white bread, pork, tea (once I had had green tea, I couldn't drink ordinary tea anymore, it just tasted 'dead').

Also, I believe I have seen that movie. I am aware of the almost comically evil nature of Monsanto. They're third in line on my list of people to line against the wall when the revolution happens (after the professional lobbyists and the MAFIAA).

Good.

However, "evil corporation" does not imply "unsafe food".

No, but it damn well doesn't imply "safe food" either. The "evil corporation" doesn't care, one way or the other, as long as they can turn a profit, which is why such 'food' should be checked rigorously, for decades, under controlled conditions, before entering field testing, if ever. Once a GMO plant is out, the genome will spread in nature, there's no taking it back. Also, the modified genome can transfer to your gut bacteria, which is very bad.
Anyway, Monsanto's plan is to get their hands into each and every big and small farmer's pockets: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm
They don't give a damn if they destroy the worlds food supply in the process, as long as they can retire with billions in their bank accounts.

Wrt. FDA, I consider them to be thoroughly corrupt, but we can discuss that elsewhere.

Point me at one instance of someone dying from GM food (specifically because the food was GM, mind you, not because it was spoiled or something) and I can point you at ten people who died from normal food, and a thousand more who died from the lack of any food.

Very good point. How would I or anyone else know, if someone who died from cancer or some infection due to a damaged immune system, got that way because he/she ate GM food?
Human trials with GM food are practically non-existent, because they would reveal all too clearly in what ways one's health would deteriorate once you start eating GM food in quantity on a daily basis.
Rats are good substitutes for human subjects, though.
You might also want to read a position paper from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine.

PS: Was marking me a foe really necessary?

No. The point I wanted to put across, was that you'll very easily make enemies when discussing GMO, because there's so much at stake; the world's food supply. If it gets irreversibly contaminated with harmful/deadly genes, we're all dead. Game over.
Anyway, I've read hundreds, if not thousands of pages about GM(O), and I made up my mind a couple of years ago; at the very least, it's harmful, and should be abolished.

You mean like they didn't sue the Nelson farm. Or Schmeiser. Or that they have that they should be allowed to sell seeds that haven't passed environmental safety studies, between now and when the studies are finished. Because to prohibit them from selling seeds before safety/ecological studies pass is unconstitutional.

Nope, they won't sue anyone. Just ignore the hulking gorilla with the patents, they really are friendly.

Most, if not all, GM plants are engineered so that they don't produce pollen. That's why farmers need to buy new seeds every year. This is done in order to prevent flux of engineered material to nature.

Apparently not all:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

.. he has never, says Schmeiser, purchased seed from the St. Louis, Mo.-based agricultural and biotechnology giant Monsanto Co. Even so, he says that more than 320 hectares of his land is now "contaminated" by Monsanto's herbicide-resistant Roundup Ready canola, a man made variety produced by a controversial process known as genetic engineering. And, like hundreds of other North American farmer, Schmeiser has felt the sting of Monsanto's long legal arm: last August the company took the 68-year-old farmer to court, claiming he illegally planted the firm's canola without paying a $37-per-hectare fee for the privilege. ...

I wish I shared your optimism that GMO crops are sterile out of a desire to protect the environment rather than a way to finacially lock-in farmers to annual seed purchases.

Bad day for scientific research? No. It's set back of limited duration.
Is GM food "bad"? Dunno, jury's still out on that and it really depends which camp you want to listen to.
Is the licensing and patenting of GM crops bad? Oh hell yes. The goal of "crop lock-in" is real, demonstrated and rather scary IMO.
Would this be a good time to discuss licensing or policies to halt this type of corporate behavior? Definitely. In fact it's so long overdue we may have passed the tipping point five years ago.

For your consideration:
Haitian rice
Monsanto Lawsuit / canola
Monsanto Lawsuit / soybeans
Patented disease
University gene patents

I think that this imbroglio underscores the need to limit or do away with gene patents, as there is little chance that the men in white coats (or the ones in black suits that pay them) will stop their tinkering, and I'm not sure that it needs to stop.

Monsanto agreed to pay the Schmeisers $660...for costs associated with removing the patented Roundup Ready canola from their field in 2005.

Sweet!

This says that his wife got $140. That looks like a different case.

Here's an article about the $660:

In October 2005, Schmeiser's farm was visited yet again by Monsanto, and again, in the form of their RoundUp Ready Canola. Schmeiser took advantage of the company's removal program, but discovered that they would only remove the plants if he signed a release form that contained a confidentiality clause, which he disapproved of. What followed led to an out of court settlement on March 19, 2008, and Monsanto paid Schmeiser the $660 it cost him to have the plants removed.

Note that Monsanto requires a release form (which sounds reasonable if they're coming on your property and removing stuff), but there's also a confidentiality clause (which sounds rather excessive).

Also, nobody's getting sued for cross-over pollination. That's a myth started by farmers who knowingly propagated seed against their contract, got caught, and lied about it

Tell that to Mr. Schmeiser. Never bought their product and was sued by Monsanto because THEY contaminated HIS field. http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ Sounds like you just don't want to accept that Monsanto really is as evil as they appear.

It's not like Monsanto suddenly owns all pigs ever born.....they can still keep using normal, everyday, unmodified pigs like they do now.

Yeah, right...if one of the Monsanto boars gets loose, all the pig farmers in the area will get sued on the theory that the Monsanto pig impregnated all of their sows and they now owe Monsanto royalties on all the progeny. Just look at their history of suing farmers whose crops were contaminated by pollen from nearby Monsanto-licensed fields of the same crops. For the full saga of one such case which the farmer had to take all the way to the Canadian Supreme Court, see http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm. Mr. Schmeiser's fight, along with Monsanto's other dirty tactics, is also covered in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto

Actually, no they didn't - no one is forced to eat GE crops, so at best you have a quibble.

Yes they do. Unlike what Monsanto said, and you fell for, GE crops do cross pollinate with non GE crops as well as wild relatives. Scientific studies have found this to be true, Parameters Affecting Gene Flow in Oilseed Rape. And because GE crops cross pollinates with wild relatives superweeds are created. With widespread use of GE seeds even organic farmers can't prevent cross pollination from happening. And once contaminated a crop is always contaminated. Unless trouble to remove the foreign genes is taken. Why in the world should someone who did nothing to make their crop GE be the ones to pay for it? Monsanto won't pay. Actually Monsanto will force a non GE crop farmer to pay if GE genes are found in the crop. Monsanto did that when they found Percy Schmeiser's farm was contaminated with Monsanto's patented genes.

Falcon

Actually, they can and they do.

So now that some scientist worked his ass off, farmers that don't want or buy their GM product are no longer allowed to save and replant seed exactly the same way they've done for all of human history?

That scientist's work is based on the intellectual property of the farmers. Have you ever seen natural maize? It's not all the same color like that corn you by at your grocery. Just because they aren't in the lab splitting genes doesn't mean their crops aren't GM'ed already.

Need a more recent example? When the US Govt started dropping Roundup in Central and South America to wipe out cocaine crops, guess what happened? Farmers bred roundup ready coke faster than Monsanto's scientists could have in the lab.

All Monsanto has done is step into an open source project and close it. Monsanto is the one trying to change the rules. Fuck Monsanto and fuck their scientists. Farmers will do just fine without them.

This not what has happend to this guy

"The crisis of pollution and depletion of water resources is viewed by Monsanto as a business opportunity."

"Monsanto's genetic engineering trials in India are dangerous and anti-democratic"

"Why Iraqi Farmers Might Prefer Death to Paul Bremer's Order 81"

"Corporate biopiracy and the terminator seed"

"Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer and seed saver of many years, was sued by the Monsanto Corporation (producer of the poisonous "Round Up") for growing GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) seeds patented by Monsanto. The seeds had blown into the ditch by his field. He is fighting this huge corp. which has the potential to control all the food in the world if not stopped."
http://www.suesupriano.com/audio/schmeiser.mp3
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

"Terminator ban undermined at UN meeting in Spain"

This is about "full-spectrum domination" as far as I'm concerned; imagine if you could simply turn off a region's food supply.

It's good for everyone because if the yield from the Monsanto crop does not exceed its cost no one will grow it. Subsequently, it's likely to reduce the cost of food. Since there is more than one company producing these foods, there will not be a monopoly and thus Monsanto will only be able to charge marginally above what the technology costs to produce.

The bell has tolled. Monsanto has already sued, and won, a Canadian farmer for growing Roundup Ready corn on his farm. Percy Schmeiser, a farmer in Alberta, Canada, was sued by Monsanto for growing Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn on his farm. He did not plant any RR corn, instead he did what farmers throughout the world throughout the history of agriculture did, he saves seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Unfortunately for him, what he didn't know was that RR corn from another farm had crossbred with his corn. When Monsanto sued he lost his crop.

Actually, this would be a good thing. Then people wouldn't get in trouble for accidentally growing Monsanto's crops (pollen blew in on the wind and mingled with some unsuspecting farmer's seed crop), and it wouldn't take over from other varieties in the wild. Thus, you could still grow heritage wheat (or whatever) in your backyard.

Ah but that has already happened. A farmer in Alberta, Canada, Percy Schmeiser, was found to have Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn in his field. Corn he did not plant, but it had crossbred with corn he grew. Like farmers throughout the world since the dawn of agriculture, he saved seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. Even though he didn't steal anything from Monsanto when Monsanto sued him he lost his crop. In another case an organic farmer, which bans GE, in Canada lost a shipment when inspectors in Europe, Germany I think, found alien DNA in his corn.

Nobody is forced to use Monsanto's products, right?

Play with fire all you want. You have every right to take risks on your own behalf. But releasing a fertile, open-pollinated GMO crop is effectively making that risk decision for everyone else. Does Monsanto have the right to do that, in pursuit of profit. I think not.

Note that the greatest hazard of GMO crops is not the poorly studied potential dangers of the GM organism itself: it's the danger of running afoul of Monsanto's intellectual property.

It does:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

tm

Actually, he won, partially, and is firing back with another case due in 2008.

Tm

The farmer was Percy Schmeiser. It was Canola seed and it is infecting much of the plains. But Monsanto gets paid $15 per acre regardless of whether the farmer planted it or it blows into his field.

Have you forgetten about two little things called "Wind" and "Bees"? Genetically altered grain's pollen will spread.

Theres a story of a guy and his father who for years grow his own canola from seed they had been breeding. Then a seed producer, Monsanto, came in with a crop of these genetically altered canola next to his field. The cross pollination destroyed his crop in 2 years. The first year produced the defunct seeds. The next year the seed did not germinate.

Imagine if few dozen farmer planted altered grain near seed field. Within a few years our entire agricultural system would be wiped out except for a few select seed producers.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
http://www.savethepinebush.org/News/04FebMar/Percy Schmeiser.html

But if you happen to be a farmer that likes to reuse your own seeds, and it happens that your neighbor uses a T-gene crop, and they cross-pollinate with your plants, your seeds can inherit the T-gene and next years seeds are no longer any good. The gene prevents germination, it doesnt stop pollination or production of seeds. The same issues with other genetic-modified crops have come up already and made their way through court, specifically the Monsanto RoundUp resistant rape-seed/canola plants.

Tm

"We noticed most of the dead hives are close to cornfields. ... And when we asked other beekeepers what was the principle crop near their hives, they said corn, corn, corn."

Even worse, the Terminator genes are dominant. Which has a very devastating effect if introduced by a single farmer in places where farmers still use some of their harvest as seeds for the next year.

And even worse than that is when the seeds from a farm growing the monsanto crops gets carried (by wind/birds/whatever) over to a neighboring farmer's fields, who is NOT using Monsanto seeds to grow crops... The farmer is now violating the seed patent as his plants are partly from this other seed, and he cant get rid of them with the normal herbicide since they are resistant. Add to that, that if he is trying to re-use his seed for next year's crops, and happens to mix in some of the monsanto seeds, his whole seed crop is now violating the patent, and when Monsanto finds out, they will demand their fees for this "use" of their technology. Luckily with the terminator gene, the crops just wont grow. But then again, since pollen is spread in the wind as well, and carries the genetic info, and the pollen from the monsanto field blows across the other farmers, which then starts producing seeds with either the roundup resistance or terminator gene or both... well you see where Im going. Not that its happened or anything.

Tm

BT and GMO is as much about patents as anything else. See the case of Percy Schmeiser. http://www.percyschmeiser.com/crime.htm His field was contaminated by Monsanto genetics. Monsanto sued him and won!

I own a piece of land that has some tillable acres. It had a history of rotated corn and beans sprayed with herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. I planted it to pasture. http://mikesmind.com/home/?p=33 What amazed me more than anything is that I couldn't find an earthworm on the tillable portion! The earth was basically dead. It's starting to come back now.

Genetic modifications and the subsequent application of chemicals is poisoning our land.

What with patented GM crops we see farmers being sued in the US for reusing GM seeds grown from their own crops.

"Uh, no. That would be being sued for violating the contract they entered into when they bought said seeds"

Do you have a citation for a farmer knowingly violating such a contract. Do you see such restrictions as being ethical. This link refers to the company saying that it didn't matter whether the farmer know his field was contaminated.

"You're second paragraph ignores the aspect of the neighbor farmer suing the GM crop farmer for polluting his strain"

What a ludicrous statement to make. Can you produce any citatin of just such an occurance. He's more likely to sue the GM company and not a fellow tiller of the soil. Farmer sueing farmer bares no relation to my other points.

The GM companies would of course have the farmers buying their seed annually from the companies.

"Uh, yeah. That would be the contract mentioned. Funny how you're on the side of someone who knowingly buys GM seeds to reap the benefits of, say, bh and then knowingly tries to avoid the stipulation and scam -- that is, rip off -- to get the benefits free the next years"

Nothing I said previously supports your assertion that I approve of farmers knowing stealing. To go back to the source analogy, your accusation of farmers stealing the benefits sounds similar to accusations leveled against the OS community, stealing our IP, violating our patents, is a clone of 'commercial' software.

My point is that farmers who want to opt out of GM will be unable as they will only be able to buy GM crops or will be unable to reuse seed from bought GM crops or their crops will be contanimated with GM and the won't be able to use their own seed or non GM seeds will be banned.

The plant breeders have been producing better crops and able to make a profit for decades before GM. You bought from them when you wanted a guaranteed good seed. You then had a choice as to whether to reuse your own seeds or buy new. You could also breed your own strain and resell it on. GM if it becomes will virtually eliminate the smaller plant breed or good amatur. Similar to what the current US patent regime and IP laws are doing to the computer industry.

Incidentally I believe that most of the methods for injecting foriegn DNA into a cell have also been patented. So even if I clean roomed a method for injecting frost resistance, I couldn't sell it without paying the owner of the patent. In todays IP climate I doubt if two bright computer hackers (Apple) could start a business in their garage. The lawyer fees alone would have them bankrupt on the first day. 'Steve , I have an idea for building a GUI, other Steve, I dunno dude, lets consult a lawyer first in case we're violating some somebodies intelluctual property', first Steve, I dunno, it's going to cost a lot of granola, if only we had a dad for a lawyer'.

Old fashioned plant breeding is a threat to GM, that's why the companies would like it banned. The same with Open Source v Closed Source. While OS exist the bottom line of the closed source companies are threatened. The computing version of GM would be certain patented protocols. Doesn't matter who builds or sells the systems, everyone has to pay you-know-who for the Intellectual Property. That's another good analogy.

--

"Canadian organic farmers have launched a class-action suit against two major manufacturers of genetically modified crops"

"Six farmers from France and the United States have launched a lawsuit against Monsanto and other corporations involved in genetic engineering of crops. The lawsuit, filed early this year in Washington DC, alleges that Monsanto, the Dow Chemical Company, AstraZeneca and Novartis International formed a cartel

I believe god owns the source code to our dna.

Perhaps we should let Monsanto and all the other asshats who keep patenting genes that they simply discovered in nature so they can sue others for patent infringement.

It was the first result that came up when I did a Google(monsanto farmer). If you haven't tried Google before, I highly recommend it.

From the linked page:

Percy Schmeiser is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan Canada whose Canola fields were contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola. Monsanto's position was that it didn't matter whether Schmeiser knew or not that his canola field was contaminated with the Roundup Ready gene, or whether or not he took advantage of the technology (he didn't); that he must pay Monsanto their Technology Fee of $15./acre.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

ask monsanto?

Well - the mod request was just ignorant. That happens sometimes.

Your point is well taken. I agree we are nowhere near understanding the results of modification of the gene pool. However there are some defects that we can try to repair and we'll learn a little from that. I'm thinking down's syndrom, bubble boy syndrom and things like that.

However you are correct that something like this while it may work may also have side effects we cannot anticipate.

Gene pool manipulation of a higher organism such as a human is not as dangerous as of other plants and animals. Already Monsanto has unleashed genetically modified rape. It is not under control. Our laws do not make it illegal it would seem for Monsanto to contaminate farmer's seed however it is illegal for farmers to use contaminated seed as has been pointed out in the Canadian case against Percy Schmeiser. http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

If we get genetically modified viruses and bacteria - those that reproduce at a cellular level as do fungus - then we may well be in serious trouble.

Genetics are evolving. This is what these new diseases and strains which jump species is all about - that is evolution. We tend to force evolution along in directions which are quite hazardous to our own well being and this has been proven by the superbugs hospitals have bred through the over use of antibiotics and sterilants. I'll give a simple example:

With the new anti-bateriacide detergants... does anyone really believe that it is a good idea to kill all the bacteria? Does anyone really think it is even possible? I can tell you that I have sterilized in an autoclave for over 2 hours at over 121C and still have samples contaminate. I have done this 3x in fact - once today - then let sit for 24 hours then do it again - and again! and still some will contaminate.

If food is present there is something that is going to come in to eat it. This is a simple biological fact of life.

So the issue is that we want to keep the benign and easy to control stuff around because it mops up the food supply that would otherwise be consumed by quite hardy and potentially very dangerous bugs.

What this means is that if some overzealous housewife were really able to kill 99.9% of the bugs in her kitchen then I would not want to eat in that kitchen because what would move in to take the place of what she killed would probably be able to eat me alive! That is the isssue with the hospitals. They have bred very dangerous bugs through well meaning but misguided efforts.

So, if the medical system has already shown it cannot properly manage say antibiotics for instance - then what of genetic recombination?

You are quite right to point out it has a dangerous side and we really need to proceed with a great deal of caution.

However I still feel there are specific areas where we can learn something and maybe achieve something. Fighting cancer is probably going to fall into this category. Fighting HIC with a magic bullet allso may fall into this category. At the some time I wonder if we'll unleash some new little prions or a new virus that will wipe out 99% of the population as they did in "12 Monkeys".

Probably the military's work in dangerous bugs is more dangerous than the medical community. At least the medical community are trying to do something positive for mankind. The purpose of the military is totally evil. Isn't it interesting how society can justify pure evil in the name of god and defense.

I was thinking of this: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

You mentioned farmers/seeds, so I didn't get that you were still talking about humans. I figure a lot don't know about Percy Schmeiser. From that article:

"In my case, I never had anything to do with Monsanto, outside of buying chemicals. I never signed a contract," Schmeiser says. At the end of the first suit, Schmeiser says he will pursue a second lawsuit he filed last fall against Monsanto for contaminating his seed.

One way the human patented genes thing could play out is if some company did gene therapy on you -- giving you patented genes, perhaps to cure an illness. Suppose the "fix" even gets into your sperm. Then you have kids, and pass on the patented genes -- well, it is time to pay up for your infringement.

Flight Sim - Started out on the Apple II, originally produced by subLogic. http://fshistory.simflight.com/fsh/timeline.htm

ActiveX - Not sure, but wasn't it supposed to be an alternative to Java in an attempt to derail Netscape/Sun? Not exactly innovative then...

Legal attrition - By your own admission, neither a product nor particularly innovative. I don't think we've seen the full depths Microsoft will sink to by a long way yet. But then, there are other companies equally prepared to sink to pretty disgusting depths - http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

Admin/User confusion - I'm not sure that this qualifies as "successful", unless you mean that Microsoft deliberately set out to build a security and administration model which was complicated, inconsistent and illogical and succeeded in this aim.

Active Directory - Or, as the rest of the world calls it, LDAP. It's an X.500 hierarchical database - not exactly a new and innovative idea. Integrating it with the innards of the operating system (rather than just providing a security API so others can integrate what they want, a la pam on Unix) is perhaps innovative - I s'pose you can have a half for that one.

Look at the case of Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer whose canola crop was contaminated with Monsanto's Round-Up Ready Canola.

This is a wide-spread problem that is pitting the small farmer against corporate giants. Look at this article from The Des Moines Register.

No they don't. They claimed that in court, but his wife is now suing Monsanto in small-claims court because they have failed to remove the very canola plants they sued her husband over 7 years ago from her organic garden.

Not necessarily. Monsanto have been known to sue farmers whose crops became contaminated with windborne patented seeds from their neighbours' feilds.

There was a case like that in Canada which concerned Roundup resistent Canola from Monsanto http://www.percyschmeiser.com/court%20costs.htm and the farmer lost.
The judge decided the farmer should have figured out that he had GE crop whether he bought it or not.

In this case of course the farmer simply used the crop. As you mention it would be interesting to find out if he could have someone pay for the removal of the GE crop if he did not plant it. Trespassing or illegal dumping seems a bit of a stretch but it would seem to me that either the neighbor from where it blew over or Monsanto should be made to pay for removing it.

There are more links out there if you 'google' for it.

I have mod points but I wanted to reply. In the case of Percy Schmeiser, he did file a countersuit.

"Schmeiser launched a $10 million lawsuit against Monsanto, accusing the company of a variety of wrongs, including libel, trespass and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready." from http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm

Monsanto is pure EVIL.

In North Ameria: GE canola, GE corn, GE soya, GE papaya, GE cotton. We are in the dark about what we eat.

In Europe: By law, GE items require labelling.

In India: Hundreds of suicides of farmers whose crops failed due to Monsanto's GE seeds.

Hardly. I'm well aware of the Schmeiser case, familiar enough to know what actually happened. To begin with, they didn't bankrupt him. Although the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the claim that Schmeiser infringed Monsanto's patent, they also ruled that he didn't benefit from it and that therefore he didn't owe Monsanto any damages and didn't have to pay Monsanto's legal fees. Secondly, the Schmeiser case was not so clearcut - the trial court ruled that Schmeiser KNOWINGLY used seed from a portion of his field that was contaminated by Monsanto seed. (Schmeiser knew that his field had been contaminated because he sprayed Roundup on part of it and discovered that the plants were resistant.) That may well have been a bad decision by the court, but it means that the legal situation was rather different.

In any case, while contamination by patented varieties is certainly a problem, it is NOT the same thing as prohibiting outright the re-use of seed. For one thing, under current law the farmer whose field is contaminated by patented seed seems to have an alternative to just re-using the contaminated seed (which many farmers don't want anyhow). That alternative is to sue those responsible for the contamination. For another, there are ways of modifying the patent law that would address this problem, such as holding the makers and users of modified seed to a "strict liability" standard, in which it is their responsability to prevent their seed from escaping.

As I said, I'm no fan of Monsanto, but this new law isn't nearly as bad as the article claims.

Percy Schmeiser may be a schmuck
but he's a hero to farmers who hate the Man
who gives the loan and takes the farm
and the judges just didn't care
the Man, er, Monsanto won

I've been saving seeds for generations
they were never mine just a resource
for the great grandchildren

but now Cargill done come
and took them all away
'cause the field is a sudden full of their
manufactory

Monsanto's GM canola has also crossbred with Canadian canola strains, making it impossible for Canadian farmers to guarentee that their canola crops are GM free, thus locking them out of the EU markets. Now, they want to do the same thing with wheat.

Leaving aside the fears and marketability problems surrounding GM plants, we still have the problem that patented plants are a huge threat to farmers. You can get in big, expensive trouble if you didn't license the genes that are growing in your field, even if you didn't plant them. If you save your own seed, and that seed gets contaminated by someone's patented, GM genes, you could loose a lifetime of work.

You appear to be unaware of the Schmeiser case. Agri-business companies do not rely on sterile seed and similar technologies to prevent "theft" of "their" "innovations". They also use the law as a bludgeon, sneaky DNA tests, etc. It's pretty much the same situation as the DVD racket.