Monsanto's Harvest of Fear

Cognitive Dissident writes "Intellectual property thuggery is not restricted to the IT and entertainment industries. The May 2008 edition of Vanity Fair carries a major feature article on the mafiaa-like tactics of Monsanto in its pursuit of total domination of various facets of agribusiness. First in GM seeds with its 'Roundup Ready' crops designed to sell more of its Roundup herbicide, and more recently in milk production with rBGH designed to squeeze more milk out of individual cows, Monsanto has been resorting to increasingly over-the-top tactics to prevent what it sees as infringement or misrepresentation of its biotechnology. As with other forms of IP tyranny, the point is not really to help the public but to consolidate corporate power. Quotes: 'Some compare Monsanto's hard-line approach to Microsoft's zealous efforts to protect its software from pirates. At least with Microsoft the buyer of a program can use it over and over again. But farmers who buy Monsanto's seeds can't even do that.' and '"I don't know of a company that chooses to sue its own customer base," says Joseph Mendelson, of the Center for Food Safety. "It's a very bizarre business strategy." But it's one that Monsanto manages to get away with, because increasingly it's the dominant vendor in town.' Sound familiar?"

Comments

Re:Sigh

[UbuntuDupe]

A patent is a monopoly. By granting a patent the government is giving a limited monopoly on what was patented. A property right is a monopoly in that one person is given a monopoly on the use of some item or space. By logging and declaring intent to enforce, the government is giving a (use-)limited monopoly on that item.

Rationalization for how property rights aren't really monopolies because of some reason that basically amounts to "I like them" in 3...2...

Re:Sigh

[UbuntuDupe]

So your upset that Monsanto wants to lie about milk I'm upset that Monsanto wants others to stop making truthful statements about those others' products on the grounds that Monsanto deems such information irrelevant to wise decision-making.

but you think it's perfectly fine for them to force farmers who have spent their entire lives saving seed (we call this old school bio-engineering) to destroy their lives work because Monsanto's poison contaminated their fields I think it's perfectly fine to target farmers who deliberately save superior seed that came from Monsanto; accidentally grabbing it for the next run, I don't support suing them for, and Monsanto doesn't do that.

What on earth does Kosher food have to do with this? Precisely what I said it does. Again:

-Some people want to say their product [doesn't use Monsanto stuff/adheres to Jewish food handling protocols].
-That statement is truthful.
-Whether that statement is relevant to whether a given customer should buy it, is debatable.
-I believe making truthful statements about your product (whether that it doesn't use Monsanto stuff, or is kosher), should be legal, even if it's irrational to differentiate products based on that factor.

If you still can't see what kosher certification has to do with this, you lack the capacity for abstract thought, which is not my problem.