Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto Takes Home $23m From Small Farmers According To Report
An anonymous reader writes "Seed giant Monsanto has won more than $23 million from hundreds of small farmers accused of replanting the company's genetically engineered seeds. Now, another case is looming – and it could set a landmark precedent for the future of seed ownership. From the article: 'According to the report, Monsanto has alleged seed patent infringement in 144 lawsuits against 410 farmers and 56 small farm businesses in at least 27 U.S. states as of January of 2013. Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta together hold 53 percent of the global commercial seed market, which the report says has led to price increases for seeds -- between 1995 and 2011, the average cost of planting one acre of soybeans rose 325 percent and corn seed prices went up 259 percent.'"
And that's about all you have to say.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Why is it that today almost every story on Slashdot is about our frog-in-slowly-heated-water society.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Need I say more?
No, I'm not saying they're going to bring about the zombie apocalypse, but what I am saying is that they're as evil as the Umbrella Corporation, and perhaps more so.
Is their engineered seed so much better that it's worth the 300% price hikes?
I am sure most people are aware of and angry about monsanto's practices and products, but I am tired of just being angry and talking to my friends who all agree...what can we do about it? Even the progressive wonderland of Ca cant get a simple GMO labling law passed, is there anything anyone can DO to change it?
Letters to Congress - HAH, they are paid for already.
Stop buying their product - Cant, no way to tell what it is in...
Go Organic: and pay $15 / Lb for fruit at Whole Paycheck, er uh Foods? no thanks...
So what can we DO?
a revolution.
One word for this: disgusting.
Develop and patent gene. Release gene into wild. Sue hapless farmers who's crops are infected with Monsanto's patented jumping genes. Soon no one will be able to grow anything without a multinational giving consent and taking a big cut. That is a world I don't want to live in. It's needs to stop right now!
So God made a farmer to sue.
Monsanto is still evil. More on this and other stories after this commercial break.
Farmers should sue MONSANTO because their seed contaminate farmers seed, they should keep control of their modified seeds.
Oils companies have to pay when they contaminate water, sea, soil, etc.
MONSANTO must pay because their seeds contaminate farmer's farms.
PD. englihs is not my native language, I hope you understand the point.
When you buy GM seed from Monsanto and others you sign a contract agreeing not to hold over seed for replanting. That take care of the legal responsibilities of Monsanto's customers.
In the case currently heading for the Supreme Court the farmer in question never planted GM seed purchased under contract. He unwittingly acquired GM seeds for use as a second planting by buying leftovers from local silos. Because all the granaries in the country are contaminated with GM seed it is effectively impossible to avoid buying product that doesn't "infringe" on someone's patents. That leaves a well meaning farmer with fields ready to be planted in a bit of a pickle if he doesn't want to pay the Monsanto tax.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Saving seed for replanting is standard practice in most of the world.
Only in "developed" countries do we have farmers who have been sold on the idea that they need to buy special "seed".
In the latest case, the farmer bought grain from the elevator (knowing that it likely would be GMO) and planted it.
The issue here is that now Monsanto is claiming ownership of the grain after the original farmer sold his crop to the grain elevator then the grain was bought by another farmer and planted.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Saving seed for replanting is not standard farming practice.
I grew up on a farm and we always saved at least some portion of each year's crop to plant the following year; you're pissing your money away otherwise. I can introduce you to any number of grain, bean or vegetable farmers who will tell you they do the same. Granted, certain varieties from large scale breeders won't grow as well the second year for any number of reasons but seed saving is very much a standard practice.
They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
/. is smarter than the average pond?
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Yes, this will be an interesting case. Patent exhaustion usually makes this sort of thing outside patent coverage.
So, apparently the farmer has the right to whatever the seeds produce.
This is where you are wrong. Because when a farmer purchases Monsanto seeds they sign a contract and agree, in writing, not to save and replant seeds. So unless you are arguing that we should no longer have legally enforceable contracts, the rest of your statements make no sense.
There was at least one case where the farmer did not sign a contract, and instead planted soybeans directly next to his neighbors field, and saved the cross-pollinated beans, planted them again the next year, sprayed them with glyphosate to isolate the GMO gene, saved the seed again, and used it to plant the rest of his acreage. The courts, obviously, found that to be willful patent infringement.
Better story at npr, please stop linking to RT.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/15/162949288/farmer-tackling-monsantos-seed-policy-gets-a-day-in-supreme-court
'He also took advantage of the gene. It allowed him to spray Roundup (or a generic version of the same weedkiller), which made controlling weeds relatively cheap and easy.'
If you are buying leftover seed and harvested seed it's one thing. If you spray it with Roundup, you are using it as Roundup-ready seed and you are thus utilizing the value of Monsanto's invention. Why should you not pay for the enhanced features of Monsanto's seed if you use them?
If you don't use them, the Monsanto doesn't sue. So you can buy and harvest seed, just use it as regular seed, not Roundup-ready seed.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Some corporations have a slightly different version of the Google motto...
socialism!
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
> Since fucking when is a farmer saving seeds not SOP?
Since the invention of hybridization about 100 years ago.
So this would actually have to be dealt with like someone who is handling stolen goods. Right?
Go tell that to the Amish. Or any number of other groups that eschew a reliance on some outside entity to enable them to continue their livelyhood.
Yes, your general big grain farmer isn't doing this, but a lot of the folks selling produce down at your farmers market do.
And the price of labor has remained approximately flat, and Compact Flash camera memory has fallen by 99.95%...
You're an idiot if you think gold is any more "real money" than any other commodity, especially given how strongly the price is driven by the whims of investor speculation.
The consumer price index (a common definition of inflation) rose by 45.75% total between 1995 and 2011. So for 325%, Monsanto was a greedy bastard to the tune of 279.25%. For 259%, Monsanto was a greedy bastard to the tune of 213.25%.
Monsanto produces seed that they cannot control. Cross-pollination contaminates even the most carefully selected organic crops. The plants produce a product that is essentially the sum of the egg and pollen, which means it contains Monsanto's infection. Monsanto then trespasses on the farmers' properties, stealing "samples", waits 2 years so the farmers have no way to prove their innocence, then sues them for every last penny they have. This is their MO and is essentially making a process (seed reuse) used for countless thousands of years, illegal.
In any civilized world, the farmers would be able to sue Monsanto over the infection and loss of a valuable crop. Instead, they're ruined.
Think any of this is made up? You need to read the lawsuits and not Monsanto's propaganda.
Think the goal of the genetic modifications is high yield? You need to read more on that too... Google "roundup-ready"... Its there for one purpose, so they can dump megadoses of roundup (poison) onto the crops without killing them.
Think my use of "infection" is out of line? Read up on the process. They took a gene they discovered in a bacteria and used a virus to insert it into the plant's genes.
Notice I used the word "discovered" and not "invented"... They did not invent the gene that they patented, but then that's true of many of their patents. They've patented many naturally occurring plants and animals. Yes, animals (google Germany Monsanto large hogs).
For those who don't believe the contamination is out of control, google "wild canola Monsanto percentage" (if you're too lazy, 86% of "wild" canola has at least one modified gene from Monsanto, and many have two (2nd from another company), which means multiple generations of contamination). This is complete and total loss of control of a contagion. It won't be long before wild canola is extinct.
The fact that this company has not been brought up on countless charges for the above actions is beyond comprehension.
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Liar, liar, pants on fire. If you were representing the farmer in question, you would be disbarrred, since the farmer has admitted to planting GM seed, intentionally replanting GM seed, and "unwittingly" treating his crop with glycophosphate, which would kill any non-GM soybean. Spefically, as reported by the Court of Appeals (thank Slashdot for the odd character mappings):
Well-meaning farmer? Hardly. He knowlingly adopted his replanting practices and has (so far) lost.
So this would actually have to be dealt with like someone who is handling stolen goods. Right?
no...
Monsanto is treating seed like software licenses, lets say you bought a 1 year licence to an application, and at the end of the 1 year the software wouldnt run anymore without a new licence. This is how Monsanto thinks of their seed, now imagine you just turned the clock back on your computer so the software could continue to work, that would be illegal because you dont own a valid licence. Thats basically what Monsanto thinks if you plant seed after 1 year.
The problem is, seed isnt software. As wiredlogic points out grain elevators and land/weather arent like computers where everything is cut and dry. Even if an elevator is emptied at the end of the season, there is always bound to be a few kernels of seed left behind, now making the new seasons seed contaminated with a very small percentage of illegally licensed product. Now in this case the elevator wasnt emptied and the leftovers were sold to farmers and they unknowingly planted this unlicensed seed. Monsanto found out and instead of going after the elevator they went after the farmers. Same has happened to farmers that dont use Monsanto seed, but their neighbour does, and the wind has carried the seen onto their land. Monsanto has sued those farmers for having unlicensed product on their land.
Monsanto has quite a history with unethical behaviour like this. But then again I guess you cant make aprox $1.3 billion in profit every three months without being a little unethical can you?
UDL
I don't really like Monsanto but it seems to me from a legal standpoint they are suing the wrong person. It sounds like a flaw in their licensing. They don't just need to get signatures from farmers but also from those they sell to such that they will not sell the product for replanting. This obviously needs to go all the way down to even customers in supermarkets. A good thing for customers that GMO labeling.
It is possible that the court could even allow continued generations of crops for future seeds so long as whomever sells the seeds in the future does not use genetic testing for seed selection. Should end up with at least 95 percent equivalent seed for farmers using roundup.
And 23 million? Seems like an awfully small number. But I really don't expect them to collect very much money as most of the farmers will likely go bankrupt just like the guy getting sued in the article. Given the solution that Monsanto just needs to get everyone in the supply chain to agree not to replant I think the US Supreme Court will let it go.
And it's wrong that if there were no genetic patents that GMO's would not be developed. I think farmer organizations as a group would invest in research and development. And McDonald's and other large commercial chains would also likely invest as it would reduce the costs of their suppliers.
But he then separated the seed, and planted only the GMO seed and then used Roundup on it, showing intent to defraud. Monsanto claims they wouldn't go after a farmer that used their seed unwittingly and didn't use Roundup on it (not that I believe them because they are pure evil in my mind).
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
All I can say is ... those greedy bastards... they OWN the patent to Roundup, right? So why do they need to charge coming and going??? why can't they just let the gene get into whatever seeds it can and then just make a killing selling Roundup since everyones crops will already be "Roundup Ready"?
Noooooo! that's not the greediest possible stance... they have to get you coming and going and then sue folks who end up with their seeds on their farms due to ... contamination?
Seriously, this is everything that is wrong with our patent laws and our wholesale selling of our government to big business. /GAH!
The Digital Sorceress
What crop? You didn't save corn seed, unless you were growing up on a farm during World War II. Soy beans, yes you probably saved that before the GMO days.
No, nothing was stolen. You cant help it that plans pollinate on their own.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
It does not matter. If he was not party to the contract then he is not held to it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
This is IF he bought it under contract. If he did not then he is not party to that contract. In addition the courts shout NOT have found that in the later case, otherwise they are patenting nature.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Dorner could have had a better target than the LAPD. Like Monsanto.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
There are lots of non GM soybeans around and they are cheap.
Why do famers buy expensive GM seeds then?
Because they are better. You make more money when you plant GM seed.
Farmers are not dumb.
You're talking about about gardening, not farming.
I grew up on a farm and we always saved at least some portion of each year's crop to plant the following year; you're pissing your money away otherwise. I can introduce you to any number of grain, bean or vegetable farmers who will tell you they do the same
Reading comprehension fail?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
http://nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm
I would go through the trouble of going down the list, but Google already exists.
is not standard practice for people cajoled into buying Monsanto products. Traditionally however that is what farmers do. You seem like a shill of some kind to say just garbage....wow.
'Bill Gates dumps another $10 million into researching new GM crops for agricultural takeover of Africa '
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18845282
http://www.naturalnews.com/036561_Bill_Gates_GM_crops_Africa.html
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Hypothetical: I've got my plants on my property. I use them for seeds. I've used them for seeds for years. Now, the wind brings Monsanto crap onto my property and because of that Monsanto crap my crops are generating seeds that are patented by Monsanto. I don't want Monsanto crap on my property, but I need the seeds for next year.
Why isn't this a nuisance at law? They're fucking polluting my land with their patent crap.
Can anybody explain the theory how Monsanto gets away with this? This is more fucking bullshit than my poor brain can stand.
If I buy a video camera from a pawn shop which turns out to be broken, what does that mean for the blockbuster movie I made with that camera?
Argh. STOLEN, not BROKEN.
Food, Inc. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/
It isn't that simple. If someone sells me a copy of a piece of software they bought off someone else under a license that forbids resale etc I can't then make 10,000 copies of it and put it on every users pc at work; then when the company who made the software turn up say "I'm not party to the contract there's nothing you can do". It would be even harder to feel sorry for me, if you knew that I was fully aware that the software I was buying shouldn't be re-sold but did it anyway.
There need to be some protections in place otherwise anyone who could get hold of a handful of Monsanto seeds without being party to a sales contract could use them to produce masses of seeds and sell them without Monsanto's permission. If that is what we want then fine but don't expect anyone to invest in GM food.
"These farmers knew full well that they were planting GMO seed .. and they took full advantage of the GMO by spraying their crops with glyphosatea".
A farmer replants seeds from his own crop and is sued in court by the 'owners' of the genes. There are also cases of farmers who never bought Monsanto seeds getting sued because of cross contamination.
AccountKiller
Monsanto GM infecting farms in Germany:
2010: Monsanto's GM corn was discovered across 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) in seven German states. Since Germany doesn't allow GM corn to be planted, the farmers had to destroy their crops. These farmers had to "eat" their losses, as the seed companies refused to accept liability for the contamination.
Monsanto GM infecting farms in Spain:
2007: Pollen drift from GM maize (MON810) fields were found to have contaminated hundreds of conventional and organic farmers in Spain, the only country in the EU that allows GM maize to be cultivated.
Most if not all of the EU doesn't want Monsanto GM but it somehow manages to infect EU farms anyway.
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I don't have any trouble getting seeds for my ten acre organic farm, probably different for the guy that grows your food.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
I live in the suburbs, near a big city. I have a small lawn. I want to grow grass, and vegetables. I don't mind the weeds. I love weeds. Farming is not a mainstay in my state. It is not big business. Plenty of people here want to do organic, and biodynamic. We want to keep Monsanto completely OUT (yes, shouted) of our state. I don't want anything from Monsato growing on my property. I won't buy anything from them. Their suicide seeds blow in from somewhere, and grow in my yard. I wouldn't put it past them to show up at my place, say I stole their crop, sue me for $5,000,000, and take my house and all my worldly possessions, and leave me homeless. This is what they do. Anyone who thinks otherwise, has fallen for their bullshit. They are out to make food serfs out of everyone. That is reality. Somewhere in their corporate HQ, is a business plans, to make it impossible to avoid buying food that they have patented. You will owe them someday, for your fruit, your veggies, your eggs, your meat, everything. Their gene tech will be in everything, most people don't know, this is exactly what they want.
Anti competitive business practices are felonious crimes and ruin innocent peoples lives. Some of us care. YMMV
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Monsanto didn't put a kill switch in their seeds. They could have done.
They tried that one before, and it was actually rejected by the marketplace.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
It's fucking egregious. Monsanto creates a way to put the average farmer out of business through litigation. Privatized Megafarms then buy out the land from the out-of-business farms for a pretty cheap price. Megafarm then moves in it's own production on a scale 10x that of the previous owner. Chemicals and Bioengineering produce yields far superior to what that land was producing previously. Stock prices soar. Investors are happy. The company grows and cycle continues. Megafarm then monopolizes on both grown product as well as dictating "who holds the seeds". One company now controls the food supply and can basically set any price it wants regardless of quality.
In another 50 years, you won't even be able to plant Pansies without needing a license from Monsanto, Bill Gates, or the Rockefeller foundation. Yeah, Reddit. Tell me more about your hero Bill again.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Patent law does not apply to anything homemade by end users themselves, it only applies to commercial products.
"Life itself" is rather poorly defined at the molecular level.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
/Off Topic but you touched a sore spot.
"You're an idiot if you think gold is any more "real money" than any other commodity,"
It's more "real money" than FRN, Euros, Yen or any other fancy paper with printed symbols. Unlike other commodities such as food and petroleum it also has the advantage of being portable, non-perishable and a highly liquid asset..
One function of money SHOULD BE as a store of value. Fake (fiat) money, does not serve that purpose because governments and central banks always steal that value over time. Holding your money in the form of any bulky (e.g. copper or steel) or perishable(e.g. food or fuel) commodity makes no sense.
For the entire history of agriculture from the neolithic to the contemporary. Yes a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of the planet's farmers still do it today.
Monsanto is greedy, therefore we can throw science out the window and irrationally run around terrified of GMOs because somehow greed = unsafe food?
Bad example. If you made all those copies of the software, the vendor would sue you for copyright infringement, not contract violation.
Place nail here >+
@sFurbo [Sorry, I'd reply directly but the new Slashdot update does not work with IE9, and I have no alternative at the moment.]
Sorry the above twit has pissed me off by repeating the exact same thing. Why did the farmers use glyphosate on their fields?
The same reason they've been using RoundUp since the 1970s. When GMO grains really first came on the scene in the mid/late-90's. So 25 years of farmers using RoundUp before GMOs.
And a &*@#$% shrill like you keeps asking "Why did they spray glyphosate on their fields?" I'll answer you when you tell me why farmers used the stuff on their fields 25 years prior to GMO products?
*******
Glyphosate (Roundup) introduced in the 1970s
"Called by experts in herbicides "virtually ideal" due to its broad spectrum and low toxicity compared with other herbicides,[4] glyphosate was quickly adopted by farmers. Use increased even more when Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant crops, enabling farmers to kill weeds without killing their crops."
Wait, why would farmers use Roundup before GMO roundup-resistant crops even existed? Unless you're a lying shrill for Mosanto.
The truth is, Roundup was used. Not at as high of levels. But guess what....ever heard of genetics/evolution/survival of the fittest?
Even before the advent of GMO corn. Farmers were essentially breeding their corn to be more resistant to glyphosate. So the idea to save each year that lot which showed itself to be most resistant is not an indicator of deliberate use of Mosanto seed.
It's sort of like me saving the seeds of those garden plants that survived drought conditions. As they're more drought hardy. Gee, farmers have been doing this since oh....give or take a few thousand years.
"[Round-up Ready GMO] crops allow farmers to use glyphosate as a post-emergence herbicide against both broadleaf and cereal weeds, but the development of similar resistance in some weed species is emerging as a costly problem."
So there you have it, Mosanto wants you to believe that only the weeds are building resistance to Round-up. And that a farmer is insidious if they're trying to save their corn seed which shows the best glyphosate resistance.
Really, so weeds can naturally build resistance but a farmer should not expect his corn to do likewise?
If Mosanto's shrills can't understand basic natural selection. Mosanto should revoke their paychecks.
***
So lets go beyond corn?
85% of wild canola tested by a study was infected by GMO genes. Note, that this wasn't just self-propagation, but cross pollination. As GMO genes by two competing companies were discovered in a single plant specimen. And there is NO WAY that is possible outside of pollination infection.
How about sugar beets, organic beet farmers found their beets were infected by GMO. Harmed their business since they're organic and no way WANTED such. And sued, and yes a stay on GMO was enacted.
Yeah sure, MS does bad things. But in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really compare to the things Bill Gates is actually throwing money at. I'd much rather the money go to bigger problems than just crushing a silly software company.
Also... whose life has been ruined by Microsoft? This smells like hyperbole. Yes, they have some rather nasty business practices, but saying that someone life has been actually "ruined" is a bit much. I wasn't aware that Balmer had death squads.
Perspective. Nerds don't have it.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
And you've hit a sore spot of mine, which is: indefinite hoarding of wealth is not the keystone of a functional society.
The world's a lot bigger now than it was a century ago --- lots more people, lots more property. Only slightly more gold. That's why making gold a primary monetary standard (i.e. getting rid of fiat currency, using only gold-backed securities) is an absolutely horrible idea --- supply doesn't expand to keep pace with the size of the economy and number of people who need money. I don't think anyone *deserves* to be handed an unending cut in the entire growth of the economy for doing nothing more than hoarding shiny metal in the basement --- if you want your personal wealth to grow with the economy, then get a job (or at the minimum lend your money out to start up other people's jobs). Tying the supply of money to a fixed quantity just results in horrendous stagnation-deflation: why would anyone with money go through the risk/bother of growing the economy, when they could capture all the gains of others just by sitting on their gold?
Do I think the Fed is the best and most trustworthy steward of national finances? No. Does it destroy my life that my $$ lose 3%/year? Also, no --- and for any that I'll keep around past the end of the month, I have plenty of other options than stacks of paper bills for storing wealth that will more or less keep up with inflation. This includes gold, or I can even hand my $$ back to the government and they'll compensate me for inflation (I-series bonds), or I could buy stocks, or hire a worker in a business, etc. Some of these things contribute to a functioning economy; the gold-hoarding option doesn't.
A slow, steady, predictable rate of inflation is, basically, a good thing (encouraging spending/growth over indefinite hoarding) --- and far preferable to the massive deflationary spiral of non-fiat-backed currencies. If you don't like how your government is managing the money supply, then work on changing the government (or establishing alternate fiat money supplies) rather than pushing for the quack cure of gold-backed economics.
Some cities and neighborhoods have been banning victory gardens under zoning and nuisance ordinances.
GreenBean http://www.greenbeandelivery.com/ is very affordable and allows consumers to connect with local farmers and to select organic produce. I actually spend LESS than my friends who shop at Kroger or Marsh.
Whole Foods is to food as Urban Outfitter is to clothes... to separate hipsters from mommy and daddy's money.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
You don't know how cheap family farmers can be. The farmer I buy beef from has another plot (440 acres) where here grows field corn and he always keeps a couple of years worth of seed on hand in case of crop failure. He isn't subjected to the fluctuation in price that other farmers are when purchasing seed and doesn't have to pay for the privilege of having someone else store seed for him (the price difference for what he gets for his crop and what other pay at the elevator for seed) since he has space on his cattle farm for that.
Time to offend someone
Okay, busted. It's all hype.
Anti competitive business practices are felonious crimes and ruin innocent peoples lives.
The law wasn't actually written because of Microsoft's felonious activities, and there may very well not be a causative link between tax-subsidized American maize and the global demise of family farms.
You got me.
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Support PUBPAT. In regards to Monsanto...here are details of a case filed by PUBPAT....Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto
This could be a very large case for US law. Oral arguments were on January 10, 2013. You can download recording from US Court of Appeals (Federal).
The issue here is that now Monsanto is claiming ownership of the grain after the original farmer sold his crop to the grain elevator...
And this goes back to my original point. Monsanto is trying to dictate what is done with the corn. If I buy and eat the corn, I'm OK, but if I plant that same corn, suddenly it belongs to Monsanto? Bullshit.
If someone sells me a copy of a piece of software they bought off someone else under a license that forbids resale etc I can't then make 10,000 copies of it...
But the duplication of the software is not part of the software itself. With the corn, the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the seeds is to produce more corn (which the farmer is legally entitled to). Monsanto is a stupid company for creating a product that automatically creates more of itself.
So unless you are arguing that we should no longer have legally enforceable contracts, the rest of your statements make no sense.
Yeah, I sort of covered that in my post:
...or written up some type of contract with the farmers for future crop plantings...
Sorry to break this to you but the majority of Amish farmers use hybrid seeds for at least some of their crops,
http://accad.osu.edu/~midori/Game/intro_farm.html
In fact one of the earliest hybrid seed companies (Yoders) was Amish.
Controlling the world's food supply through GMO seed patents? Where's Daniel Craig when we need him?
Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com