Monsanto normally handles this in one of two ways:
1) Sometimes they enter into something like a licensing agreement, where the farmer has to pay them a fee every year to account for reused seeds.
2) With more recent strains, Monsanto has been modifying them so the plants don't produce fertile seeds at all.
#2 is their preferred method.
Hmm, I'd think the right to own and operate communications media would be far more important for protection of rights than the right to keep and bear guns. That appears to be about equally protected under the US and Canadian constitutions (i.e. - not at all). However, one significant difference is that Canadian policy is to reserve part of the public airwaves for non-profit use and aid groups in accessing other media, whereas the US is more inclined to go with the "money talks" paradigm. Both limit various peoples' ability to get their message out, but the dynamic of who gets limited is interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Monsanto normally handles this in one of two ways: 1) Sometimes they enter into something like a licensing agreement, where the farmer has to pay them a fee every year to account for reused seeds. 2) With more recent strains, Monsanto has been modifying them so the plants don't produce fertile seeds at all. #2 is their preferred method.
Hmm, I'd think the right to own and operate communications media would be far more important for protection of rights than the right to keep and bear guns. That appears to be about equally protected under the US and Canadian constitutions (i.e. - not at all). However, one significant difference is that Canadian policy is to reserve part of the public airwaves for non-profit use and aid groups in accessing other media, whereas the US is more inclined to go with the "money talks" paradigm. Both limit various peoples' ability to get their message out, but the dynamic of who gets limited is interesting.