In my case, I choose for the sake of amusement to deem its restriction to general statements itself not general enough to qualify to be affected by itself.
They're fine until the weeds build up resistance to the Roundup.
Besides that, even if Roundup doesn't kill the plants, I'm not really sure if I want indiscriminate spray on them getting absorbed into the meal part of the plant.
The problem is with political interference with the distribution mechanism.
And greed.
If you can make your enemy starve to death, so much the better for your own position depending on how much you hate them.
Also, cornering a market so you can dole out rationed quantities at inflated prices like OPEC does with oil. The goal isn't to make yourself rich, it's to make yourself richer than everyone else.
If you're talking about loser pays then I agree with you completely.
The US system is just using dollars and lawyers to replace bullets and guns. You fight with money, but in the end the US legal system is just a giant wrestling pad.
And for me the worst part is I'm just a pipsqueak peon stuck in the middle of it at the end of my supply chain praying that the ballot for voting with my wallet doesn't get short.
This is just Monsanto using patent infringement as an excuse to send lawyer goon squads after people they'd rather eliminate anyway.
They don't have to be right. They just have to look good enough not to get called on it. They do that and their superior legal budgets handle the rest.
They need to sue the farmers who let the seeds escape. Unless and until the contaminated farmers become complicit they should not be subject to anything beyond an injunction.
Monsanto's business model is using extortion to intimidate their competition into going away. If they shut down an innocent farmer simply because he is too broke to fight back, they still win.
The problem is that just like the MAFIAA Monsanto doesn't give a damn if the people they sue are actually guilty.
Shutting down farmers that don't buy from Monsanto is in their best interests whether or not the farmers are innocent, so they have no incentive to be reasonable when all they have to do is make a legal show of force to get the poor farmers to cave without a fight.
Slashdot Mirror
I see this as a valid reprisal against Iran's refusal to cooperate with UN weapon inspections or whatever.
You can't stay on the moral high ground either if you just sign a non proliferation agreement and then work with nuke stuff behind everyone's back.
They don't want to be rich.
They just want power, which requires that everyone else is poor.
It depends on what you mean by general.
In my case, I choose for the sake of amusement to deem its restriction to general statements itself not general enough to qualify to be affected by itself.
They're fine until the weeds build up resistance to the Roundup.
Besides that, even if Roundup doesn't kill the plants, I'm not really sure if I want indiscriminate spray on them getting absorbed into the meal part of the plant.
Because as a person I am *not* Roundup Ready.
Of course they didn't have to bring suit. Their lawyers extorted a settlement anyway.
Monsanto needs to simply send them a cease and desist and leave them alone.
It might not hurt if they amended their licensing agreement to require purchasers to keep their seeds contained.
Put simply, you are half right.
Victims of contamination did not get a license from Monsanto, so they don't owe any royalties in the ordinary course of business.
They are, however, still infringing Monsanto's patents and at the least subject to an injunction.
Anything beyond that depends on the farmer's knowledge and intent.
The farmer doesn't own them, he just has a license to grow them.
Sadly, because they have lawyers and you don't.
There is plenty of food for everyone.
The problem is with political interference with the distribution mechanism.
And greed.
If you can make your enemy starve to death, so much the better for your own position depending on how much you hate them.
Also, cornering a market so you can dole out rationed quantities at inflated prices like OPEC does with oil. The goal isn't to make yourself rich, it's to make yourself richer than everyone else.
I don't really want to share asswipes.
Even the whole idea of patents in the first place was a quid pro quo to encourage publication. The alternative being guilds with craft secrets.
Which means the framers of the constitution were well aware of humanity's inherently selfish nature.
So given that, why wouldn't you expect people to cheat for their own advantage?
If you're talking about loser pays then I agree with you completely.
The US system is just using dollars and lawyers to replace bullets and guns. You fight with money, but in the end the US legal system is just a giant wrestling pad.
And for me the worst part is I'm just a pipsqueak peon stuck in the middle of it at the end of my supply chain praying that the ballot for voting with my wallet doesn't get short.
This is just Monsanto using patent infringement as an excuse to send lawyer goon squads after people they'd rather eliminate anyway.
They don't have to be right. They just have to look good enough not to get called on it. They do that and their superior legal budgets handle the rest.
They need to sue the farmers who let the seeds escape. Unless and until the contaminated farmers become complicit they should not be subject to anything beyond an injunction.
Monsanto's business model is using extortion to intimidate their competition into going away. If they shut down an innocent farmer simply because he is too broke to fight back, they still win.
The problem is that just like the MAFIAA Monsanto doesn't give a damn if the people they sue are actually guilty.
Shutting down farmers that don't buy from Monsanto is in their best interests whether or not the farmers are innocent, so they have no incentive to be reasonable when all they have to do is make a legal show of force to get the poor farmers to cave without a fight.
I'd say that the potential for cross pollination alone makes Monsanto seeds an inherent nuisance, and by that I mean in the legal sense.
Cross pollination contamination is IMO a foreseeable consequence and I think that makes Monsanto negligent.
Oh they aren't blind.
They just prefer looking at barrels of money shoved in front of them by lobbyists.
Thing is ISPs shouldn't even NEED safe harbor to begin with.
Treating them any differently from Fedex or UPS is just a blatant power grab.
Capitalism doesn't induce competition.
Competition induces capitalism.
Isn't that sort of thing considered blackmail or barratry?
In that case one has to weigh the expense of complying with the request against possible court fines for being in contempt.
You're reaching pretty far yourself, yet you fail to grasp the concept.
And oddly enough if the RIAA started sending in goon squads I don't think it would count as capitalism anymore.