Slashdot Mirror
PubPat Kills Four Key Monsanto Patents
IP Ergo Sum writes "PubPat's request for reexamination resulted in the rejection of four key Monsanto patents. According to PubPat, those particular patents were being used to 'harass, intimidate, sue — and in many cases bankrupt — American farmers.'"
VICTORY IS (nutra)SWEET.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
It's about time - but attacking the patents one by one is not a real long term solution, changes to legislation is the only thing that can fix the problem of frivolous patents.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
Monopolies are at best bad for the market, and at worst bad for Humanity. In this case, Monsanto's monopolizing has caused a lot of grief for many traditional farmers who save the previous year's crop seeds. This kind of thing really makes me sick.
and propagate. http://science.howstuffworks.com/cloning1.htm
Yea, it's one step forward after the 2,401,323 steps we've taken back in the last few years!
I hate printers.
Not a mirror but a short article on the case here.
Patenting / copyright / other methods to articifially control something being copied are STUPID when applied to an entity who's sole purpose is to make copies of itself.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
5164316: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5196525: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5322938: DNA construct for enhancing the efficiency of transcription
5352605: Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters
Yes, the first three have the same title. I haven't read any of them yet. You can find the full text on the USPTO web site. Search by patent number here.
Here is another article to tide you over until the tech details are available again. It seems that they are centered around the roundup ready seeds.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
70% of the Indian population is dependant on agriculture for their livelihood - it was closer to 80% a few decades ago. Monsanto has tied up with Indian companies, and it's business practices have driven several hundreds of farmers to debts and suicide. BT (Biologically Treated) cotton from Mahyco (if I remember right) has caused havoc in farmers' lives in several Indian states.
Monsanto specialises in technologies that make farmers dependant on these firms every year for seeds and patented techniques. Not only should such patents be outlawed; it should be made a crime to work against nature and create genetic modifications that prevent seeds from germinating.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Sorry. Missed a paragraph when pasting. Here's the relevant text:
The largest recorded judgment made thus far in favor of Monsanto as
a result of a farmer lawsuit is $3,052,800.00. Total recorded judgments
granted to Monsanto for lawsuits amount to $15,253,602.82. Farmers have
paid a mean of $412,259.54 for cases with recorded judgments.
Startling though these numbers are, they do not begin to tell the whole
story. Many farmers have to pay additional court and attorney fees and are
sometimes even forced to pay the costs Monsanto incurs while investigating
them. Final monetary awards are not available for a majority of the 90 lawsuits
CFS researched due to the confidential nature of many of the settlements.
No farmer is safe from the long reach of Monsanto. Farmers have
been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone
else's genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a
previous year's crop has sprouted, or "volunteered," in fields planted with
non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they
never signed Monsanto's technology agreement but still planted the patented
crop seed. In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been
applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use
was unwitting or a contract was never signed.
I've read reports of farmers being sued by Monsanto because their crops get contaminated by GM strains via wind, animals, or farm equipment. Could the farmers sue Monsanto for polluting their crops' gene pool?
You're obviously not up-to-speed with Monsanto. What happens is that a neighboring field cross-pollinates, or some seeds blow off of a passing truck, and all of a sudden, your "grandfather's strain" has been contaminated with the patented Monsanto genes. Somehow, they test your field and they sue you. You can't argue with the DNA, so you are SOL and they shut you down, even though you never wanted their genes to start with.
years ago Monsanto actually got Fox News to kill a story about the adverse effects of BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) in Humans.
o i=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=monsanto+BGH+fox +news&spell=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/
the reporters got shit canned for it and Monsanto protected their bottom line.
Milk is very bad for you with all this BGH in it.
Causes Cancer.
I think you as the farmer growing normal crops could sue (IANL) for cross pollination but from what I can gather genetically modified plants should not cross pollinate. I do think that the "law" would require the farmer to prove he was innocent since it very easy for the producer of the genetic strain to prove that the farmer has their strain.
a nto-pig-patent-111.
On a side note, From what I can gather the patent on GM grain is from 1994 (I thought it went further back than that) so there is still 7 years to go, however there are many groups and even nations opposing GM grains and other GM products. Monsanto really comes across as a company that does not care about anything except being a monopoly that controls all the world's food supply. It has even gone so far as patenting pigs http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/mons
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
In the cases that are cited in the press release the acts are all intentional.
I think it's a given that the purpose of any biological system is to reproduce; mules are a freak.
I don't see any different between patenting instructions for the biological machines in our cells and for the silicon machines in our computers.
Indeed: patenting software is a bad idea whatever the context.
Maybe we will get lucky and the net effect will be to take software from copyright protection and put it under patent protection
That's the sort of luck the world can do without. Patent duration would be extended to 100+ years within a month.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If GM crops nudge out the conventional ones, eventually we'll be in a position where a company can starve millions of people to death at will. Legally. And since capitalism essentially equates morality with legality and profitability, who will really argue with them? People really, really need to watch The Corporation. I'm all about making a buck, but we really, really need re re-evaluate what we let corporations get away with. Do even the most materialistic among us really want a private corporation owning not only the food, but the capacity of the plants to reproduce?
For an interesting look at the Monsanto history, GM foods, gene patenting, risks and impact across North America, I recommend you watch the documentary "The Future of Food" (torrent).
... and don't get me started on the "terminator gene".
Description:
THE FUTURE OF FOOD offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind the unlabeled, patented, genetically engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
From the prairies of Saskatchewan, Canada to the fields of Oaxaca, Mexico, this film gives a voice to farmers whose lives and livelihoods have been negatively impacted by this new technology. The health implications, government policies and push towards globalization are all part of the reason why many people are alarmed by the introduction of genetically altered crops into our food supply.
Shot on location in the U.S., Canada and Mexico, THE FUTURE OF FOOD examines the complex web of market and political forces that are changing what we eat as huge multinational corporations seek to control the world's food system. The film also explores alternatives to large-scale industrial agriculture, placing organic and sustainable agriculture as real solutions to the farm crisis today.
IMDB link. [imdb.com]
-Sin Maíz no hay País-
I hate to be a jerk, but I have to question why the farmers just don't stick to their traditional crops (versus the GM versions) if Monsanto is so horrible. Not one is forcing them to buy GM seeds (they could have kept saving and resuing their old seeds forever, without having to buy anything from Monsanto). So either buying Monsanto seeds isn't a losing deal (i.e. the farmers still make more money than they would have otherwise) or the farmers have poor judgement. Am I missing something?
It seems to me that a lot of them are pretty much suckered into it. They are made to think that this is the latest thing in modern agriculture and that it will benefit them with higher crop yields and thus higher profit margins. To people who are often already having trouble turning a profit this is hard to refuse. Not that is easy to get your hands on unmodified seed stock any more. To add insult to injury even if you inadvertently planted GM seeds you are also fucked. To quote TFA:
American farmers are hard pushed to find high quality, conventional varieties of corn, soy and cottonseed. Anecdotal evidence supports this. Troy Roush, an Indiana soybean farmer says, "You can't even purchase them in this market. They are not available." Similar reports come from the corn and cotton farmers who say, "There are not too many seeds available that are not genetically altered in some way.".....
.....A further example is seed dealers who sell seeds in plain brown bags so farmers sow them unknowingly. This happened to Farmer Thomason who was harassed into court by Monsanto and sued for over a million dollars. He had no choice but to file for bankruptcy despite never intending to plant Bt cotton.
.....Farmers are under pressure to confirm their identity as modern agriculturalists, particularly in developing countries. But replacing the traditional strategy of saving and replanting seeds from diverse varieties by a patented seed with all its restrictions threatens food security at household and global levels......
Here's another choice quote:
Researchers at the University of Manitoba, Canada tested 33 samples of certified canola (oilseed rape) seed stock and 32 were contaminated with GM. The Union of Concerned Scientists tested traditional US seed stocks of corn, soy and canola and found 50% corn, 50% soy and 83% canola contaminated by GM.
.....Outcomes of lawsuits brought by Monsanto against farmers are mostly kept under wraps. If farmers are tempted to breach confidentiality they can face fines greater than the settlements. But where judgments have been publicly recorded, sizeable payments benefit not only Monsanto, but also partner companies.
One hundred percent purity is no longer achievable, and even if non-contaminated seed could be purchased, some contamination can take place in the field either by transfer of seed by wind, animals or via farm equipment.
Monsanto dominates the sale of seed stocks yet puts the onus of finding markets for crops on the farmer. Within their contract is the "Technology Use Guide" which gives directions on how to find grain handlers willing to accept crops not approved for use in the EU. While Monsanto acknowledges that pollen flow and seed movement are sufficient to contaminate neighbouring non-GM fields their implicit rule is that "the growers of the non-GM crops must assume responsibility and receive the benefit for ensuring that their crops meet specifications for purity.".....
Combined financial penalties have forced many farmers into bankruptcy and off their land. Agriculture is suffering losses all around because of the disappearance of foreign markets. The US Farm Bureau estimates that farmers lose over $300 million a year because European markets refuse GM corn. The US State Department says that as much as $4 billion could be lost in agricultural exports due to EU labelling and traceability requirements. Organic and conventional farmers
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Until recently, that hasn't been successful. You really haven't been following this tragic, unreported story-line. See, their [Monsanto] lawyers are bigger than the farmers' lawyers and that's who has historically won. So on one hand, when they sue for their accidental contamination, they use various arguments such as "it can't be helped, it's nature and nature's function" or "these GM seeds had made your crops better and we counter-sue" or "no, you must have stolen it! and we counter-sue" and on and on.
It goes on to say that because of cross-contamination 'organic' crops often aren't organic any more.
You're probably both right: The EU treats unwanted GM-cross pollination as bio-terrorist rape, while the US considers anything that might reduce the profit of a paying supporter as an attempt to overthrow the best government money can buy.
Because they use them irresponsibly, if they made their GM crops sterile, that's fine. They don't though, so their patented GM genes end up in the crops of people who chose not to use their seeds. Since the genes are their property, they feel that they are entitled to money for them, and end up suing the farmers who used their products either unknowingly, or even unwillingly.
Being able to own a product that autoreproduces by design, uncontrollable by the patent owner, is bad. Sort of the viral infection that people always associate with GPL software, except in this case, it's really hard to not chose to use their products.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
Why do I feel the need to feed the trolls?
Because there's a chance that you're making a sincere argument? Yeah, probably...
If Monsanto's GM patented genes were "containable" then I would say there's good argument for your side of this. But the problem lies and always has lied in it being uncontainable. Accidents of all sorts have happened and worse. One of Monsanto's tests is to kill a section of a farmer's field. If it doesn't die, then it contains their GM patented genes. (If the witch floats...) There is pollination as a problem... the GM patented gene plants give even if they don't receive. And seeds ALSO have a way of blowing in the wind in the cases where the seed IS the product like wheat.
But ultimately, there are far too many innocent people being harmed by this one corporation. This one corporation, by itself, has managed to harm humanity in ways that are simply unprecedented. If you truly believe that the value of money is of higher importance than that of the future of humanity, you need to rethink your position on this since the odds are good that you are also human.
Just as patents on medicines are used to deprive people unable to pay for it from life, these patents on food are used to deprive people unable to defend themselves growing their own crops.
There's an entire planet out here that doesn't care about "the value of a stock" and the systems of nature do no ask permission from lawyers.
In all the cases that are cited in the PubPat press release [prnewswire.com] the acts are intentional. No one is claiming accidental contamination.
I do not understand why there is such opposition to biological patents.
Biological patents are awarded on strains of seeds that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Monsanto is unusual, in that they do some R&D prior to getting a patent.
Amber
Wind Beneath Thy Wings
In the wikipedia article you cited, the sequence of events in Schmeiser case is as follows:
1. Schmeiser field was contaminated by Roundup Ready gene.
2. Schmeiser discovered this and decided to harvest, save seeds and plant them next year.
3. He has not used Roundup at all, so his decision in 2 was not because he wanted a free benefit, but just because he did not want to burn contaminated crop.
4. Appelate courts split 5:4. 5 for "use" means "any use", 4 for "use" means "for profit use".
Should he have burnt his contaminated harvest? Why? He was not under contract with Monsanto.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It always bothers me when I see a patriotic rallying cry that points out the pain to "Americans". Are you saying it wouldn't be so bad/unethical if the companies were harming non-Americans?
I am not against patents on an innovate breed of crop manufactured through genetic engineering per se. But the way Monsanto is pursuing farmers right now would be like if the RIAA demanded you pay for a copy of a CD whenever someone listening to a song simply drove by you in his car with his windows open. If Monsanto wants the benefit of patent-backed monopoly pricing on their product, then the onus should be on them to insure that people wishing to opt out of that monopoly have a clear means to do so.
Having looked through some of the responses I can see that this debate has become one about GM as much as one about abuse of frivolous patents.
GM first - the main problem I see with GM crops is not so much that "it is unnatural" and therefore harmful. Philosophically speaking, nothing we do is unnatural - it all follows the laws of nature, even if it isn't always good for us. That's an aside, though - the real problem is more one of genetic pollution. Never mind they say that it doesn't happen "very often", whatever that means; the basic idea with the gene modifications we see from the likes of Monsanto is to create a plant that has some sort of advantage, in a very narrow sense, over unmodified plants - once the modified gene escapes into the wild, which it will unless the modified plants are unable to reproduce sexually (and what is the point of corn that doesn't produce seeds?) - once the genes escape, we don't know what will happen. Perhaps the genes that were a moderate afvantage for a crop plant turns out to be a huge advantage for a wild species, and suddenly we have a big problem on our hands; we simply don't know, and we have no way of reliably assessing the risk. This however, is the least of the problems.
The real problem, as Monsanto shows us, is that these patents it will be used as a weapon by multinational corporations; it gives them power far beyond what is reasonable, and on a very dubious foundation. The likely truth is that no matter which genes any company "invents", they already exist somewhere in nature; in light of this I think the law should be changed, at least for genes - either it should rest on the company to prove that their invention is a real invention, or it should simply be impossible to patent genes.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/harvest/
Harvest of Fear is a documentary on GMOs as well, produced by PBS. If anyone watches Future of Food, they should watch Harvest of Fear. This is primarily because I thought Future of Food (as another reply to this parent pointed out) seems to have been designed to scare the viewer shitless. Harvest of Fear, on the other hand, provides arguments and counter arguments for nearly every topic brought up, without the dramatics and theatrics featured in the Future of Food. You might find yourself agreeing with one viewpoint, and another take on that viewpoint will be brought up, and it gets you thinking.
In any case, it's good to watch the 2 and compare/contrast the views.
The technology to make GM crops sterile exists, but is not used.
It's like the ultimate DRM, except instead of not being able to listen to music you starve to death. Smart, eh?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
I agree that the guy in all probability bred seeds from plants that surived in non-cultivated areas where he sprayed and he did this with full knowledge of what he was doing. However it seems to me that the judgement side-stepped intention as irrelevant. The way I read it (ok skim it) is that the undisputed fact the patented gene was found in the plants was enough to demonstrate infringement because he had "used" the gene. /IANAL
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
"...while the US considers anything that might reduce the profit of a paying supporter as an attempt to overthrow the best government money can buy."
Bingo!
"All of us who are concerned for peace and triumph of reason and justice must be keenly aware how small an influence reason and honest good will exert upon events in the political field." ~Albert Einstein
"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where they is no river." ~Nikita Khrushchev
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." ~P.J. O'Rourke
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act!" -- George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
>
d /43163/story.htm
Read more at:
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsi
(yes, this is off topic for the overall article... but I felt it was important enough to post this rather than use my moderation points)
-- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
>We evolved in the same biosphere as insects, so changes to a plant to prevent the insect from being able to eat them may also have effects on us
;) I've known a lot of scientists who've spent years and years developing crops with no commercial incentive (either crops that aren't grown in the industrialized world, or adding traits that are only of value to subsistance/small scale farmers). You can talk all you'd like about how starvation is a policy problem, but it's people who paint all genetic engineering with too broad a brush who're holding up the approval of crops like golden rice (4,000 children die of vitamin-A deficency every day) and virus resistant cassava. Its very easy to say there's no need for GMOs when you live in a country where most nutrition problems are caused by too much food rather than too little.
Great, sounds logical. Until you learn that the CRY proteins expressed by bt crops crystalize into their toxic form only under highly basic conditions. Because we took different evolutionary paths for millions of years, our stomachs are highly acidic while insects stomachs are highly basic. On top of that you've been eating the CRY proteins on organic food for decades, as spraying with bacteria producing those proteins has long been considered an organic form on pest control.
"GMOs are designed for one reason, to make money."
Monsanto's GMOs are designed for one reason, to make money. Fixed that for you.
Let me just tell you about some problems in Brazil. There is a state, Parana that was trying to stay GM free. Federal justice said that a state can not rule on that and they had to open up to GM soy bean. Non GM grain has a higher value (europe doesn't buy GM grain). Taxes are paid when the grain arrives on the port. If you declare that you are producing GM grain, you will pay 2% taxes. If you don't declare that, the government will test your production for GM grain. If the government finds more than 1% of GM grain, your crop is considered GM and the taxes rise to 3% and you have to pay for the tests, which is quite expensive (I don't know how much). 1% GM limit is easily reached through cross-pollination. They still have to pay royalties to Monsanto.
Since these costs are fairly high, many producers are choosing to declare their crops GM. Overall effects: basically, you can not choose to grow non GM crops.
Um I have heard of ONE case where Monsanto was unsuccessful and that farmer still lost 50 years of selective breeding work since he was ordered to destroy all his own seed crop. (http://commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeise r.shtml) That means he was required to plant new seed which will probably be GM encumbered. Also his neighbors still grow Monsanto crop so he won't be able to save seeds then either. Essentially he has to now buy seed every year after 50 years of planting his own.
He also spent years in court losing lots of time and money.
Several people responded to you and your responders with no clue on this subject. Yes he was sued for have 90% contamination (numbers supplied by Monsanto testing) A round of testing by the University of Manitoba at the farmers request found that two of his fields had no contamination. Others had one percent, some had two percent and one had eight percent. In the ditch along the fields where we first noticed it, contamination was around 60 percent.
The GM crop is designed to resist being poisoned by roundup. He didn't use roundup so there was no benefit to him having the seeds. To the ignoramus that spouted "he had like 90% of course he was buying seed", well the RCIA says that disk you own is worth 150,000 they must be right, huh? It isn't in their interest to lie in their favor in the court is it?
Gah, I just re-read the judgment and it does sound like the the original court judge found him as having deliberately planted Monsanto seed. (He had a field he tested for resistance (usign roundup to kill all non-resistant plants), 60 percent survived. He kept this seed seperate, but he later had the seed treated and reseeded. I believe the seed from this field was what was tested and found to have the high levels of contamination. So at least one of the other links under you was well informed. There was more to the case than I remembered.
You cover 5.28 feet in a single step? If not, then it needs to be followed by three to four million more, depending on the length of your stride. If you shuffled, you could actually make it take ten million steps.
Start a happiness pandemic
As we all learned from Jurrasic Park, DNA is a hard thing to control.
No, I didn't learn my genetics form Jurassic Park. I learned it from my professors in the Biology Department. But that was mostly because even after watching all three films, Steven Spielberg refused to give me a diploma or a refund.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
That is an interesting take on it. In short, patents should be time specific to their domain. So, by this reasoning, software patents (if allowed at all) should have a maximum lifetime of about 2 years. That makes patenting software almost irrelevant, as the patenting time and costs exceed the value of the patent, since in 2 years the software has historically been obsoleted by the next version or 3.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
http://xkcd.com/87/
http://xkcd.com/135/
http://www.pitt.edu/~jrf27/cs1515/poster/jrf27.pd
"I drank what???" -Socrates
I'd take 5 steps to my car. :)
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
I'll try to make this as simple as possible:
Healthcare shouldn't be an "industry." It is and should always be a service. It's not a product and it shouldn't be a product. Health shouldn't be treated as a commodity to be bought or sold and certainly not the exclusive domain of the wealthy or the privileged. Technology and development of technology ultimately belongs to all of humanity. It is a "favor" that any given governmental body rewards those who develop things that benefit the world a temporary monopoly, but it is exactly when that monopoly is abused or used as a weapon to stifle other business, the rights of individuals, or otherwise adversely affect the world or mankind, then that monopolist should be stopped in some way.
Business that serves people in delivering things that people need for survival such as healthcare and food should be held outside of normal business in that their practices do not follow the normal supply and demand market paradigm. The demand doesn't vary based on supply or pricing. There will always be a need for healthy foods. There will always be a need for quality healthcare. And to allow profit-seeking business to adversely affect peoples lives so that they can "protect their property" (which is ultimately given to them "by the people") is not just an immoral act, but an act against the interests of humanity.
As the food industry goes, (the original topic here?) should Monsanto and companies like them be allowed to freely pursue their aims, it would remove healthy organic foods from the market place replaced by "patented foods" which can only be grown and produced with their permission and sold by their rules. All the while, they are completely escaping the collateral harm they are causing. There are links being made, for example, between GM foods and the decline in the bee population. (Bees are an indispensable and irreplaceable part of farming and the world's ecosystems such that the extinction of bees would mean the extinction of man quite literally.) There have been many other problems identified with the use of "disease resistant" and other durable forms of GM foods as well, many of which lead directly to health problems. But as choice for healthy food diminishes, (and the cost for healthy food goes higher) the quality of life diminishes as well... they are presently not being held accountable.
"fortunately, the bootleggers take care of that"? Are you kidding me? Profiteering and illegal acts are a "fortunate" byproduct of an already humanity-abusive system?! Are you thinking your own thoughts to conclusion?
I have failed in being brief, but only because I see this as a critical issue.
WHO is going to sue the biggest agro conglomerate on the planet?
WHO is going to shell out a minimum $5000 retainer to some lawyer just to get a consult?
WHO is going to continue to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at increments of $300 until the case is adjudicated in some lower court?
WHO is going to continue to spend even more money if the first round doesn't go to the "little guy"?
The family farmer is much like the garage inventor.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
off your field upon request. First they'll spray Round Up on every square inch and then come back when all the non-GM plants are dead and rip the ones that're still standing out of the ground. Sounds like a good deal doesn't it?
Why don't farmers have a legal edge by saying, "The plants all look the same, the seed all looks the same, how the hell are we supposed to be able to tell the difference simply by looking at it?? We don't have genetic engineering labs in our barns, how are we supposed to reasonably be able to figure out which is which?"
I've hated Monsanto with a passion ever since the first cross-contamination trials, yet more and more I see the signs in farmer's fields proudly displaying which strain of GM crop they're growing that year. My ex's uncle has a certified organic beef farm. It had to be tested and certified that no pesticides or herbicides were used anywhere on his land for the 7 years prior to his application. No idea whether they have to recheck every so often to keep the certification up. His land is mostly pasture for the cattle though.
Back to Monsanto though, how do they have the right to enter your fields and test your crops without consent? Isn't that trespassing, or even theft since they're taking seeds/plants for testing that may not actually be their "property"?
Speaking of the political donations and such, us Canucks have an excellent federal law (IMHO) that limits campaign contributions to $2000 per individual (be it person or corporation), period. Sure, the CEO, chairman of the board, managing directors etc etc can all individually donate $2000 out of their own pockets, as well as the company donating it's $2000, but it really curbs the massive multi-million dollar donations that political campaigns in the US get from all sorts of health insurance, oil, pharmaceutical, etc companies, and the thousands of lobby groups for various things. I'm sure we have all the same sorts of crap here in Canada, but their influence ($$$) is limited by law.
Maybe that's something the US government should look at... doubt it'd ever happen though.
I'm glad someone brought that up. When the patent expired, the efficiency of the steam engine shot up (see parent's link). And without patents, people still innovate because they need to make a buck. They just find other ways to get more value out of their invention. One way is old fashioned "trade secrets". As your product hits the market, the secret will eventually be reverse engineered but you have time to make your cash. More importantly, you have the time to produce something better than the other guys who have to play catch-up.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
I learned all the genetics I need from the Bible, just like any decent American. Oh, and my bowl of Sea Monkeys too.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I'm surprised a Trekker with mod points hasn't modded you 'Troll' yet. He never actually said those words!
Is this a rhetorical question?