The monster that is Monsanto

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 15:49
VIEWED: 6598
PAGE 3 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

FLETCH2

Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:50 PM

Sig, Kirkrules is right. This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.

If you don't want to have to deal with them use other seed sources and wait. I feel antitrust legislation on the way if it becomes difficult to source seed without the "contract."

KIRKULES

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

In addition, big business has a direct effect on the media, including the enforcement of "food disparagement laws" against Oprah - when she discussed the issue of mad cow disease in beef... and

One moment your telling us about how the big evil Monsanto is hurting the poor farmer, and then you're defending ill-informed reporters that can ruin an entire sector of US agriculture with a biased story that the pubic believes. Auraptor's example of Alar is a good one. This leads to other countries halting importation of US agricultural products until they study the facts further. This not only harms Monsanto and farmers, it does damage to the reputation of all US agricultural products for no legitimate scientific reason. If a legitimate concern exists the media would have no reason to fear Monsanto or the "food disparagement laws".

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:10 PM

Quote:
This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.

Perhaps you didn't read my post?

Monsanto has brought suit against people who have not planted their crops and against dairies who do not use their hormones. Its like Microsoft which reserves the right to break your home, business, or university apart on the suspicion that you might be using unlicensed software. By the time you get through proving you're innocence you're dead, economically-speaking.

The issue is that any big company can allege anything against anyone at any time. Unlike "the gummint" there is no "due process", no "innocent until proven guilty". There are far too many examples of businesses that have used their economic clout to drive families and individuals under, using the court system as a financial bludgeon. I'm surprised at your naivete.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:23 PM

Quote:
One moment your telling us about how the big evil Monsanto is hurting the poor farmer, and then you're defending ill-informed reporters that can ruin an entire sector of US agriculture with a biased story that the pubic believes

The why don't the companies come out and defend their practices in public on the grounds of the allegation, instead of trying to bludgeon people into silence financially? It's not as if they can't pay for airtime! They should be able to say- We don't feed diseased-cow by-products to our cows. We eliminate all downer cows from the food supply. We track our cows rigorously and test every single one for the prion protein before slaughter (as they do in Europe). IF they CAN stand on the basis of FACT, why don't they?

The reason why they don't is because they can't. Widespread practices which put the safety of our food supply at risk continue. So we get horror stories like:

Video Reveals Violations of Laws, Abuse of Cows at Slaughterhouse
Quote:

Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 30, 2008

Video footage being released today shows workers at a California slaughterhouse delivering repeated electric shocks to cows too sick or weak to stand on their own; drivers using forklifts to roll the "downer" cows on the ground in efforts to get them to stand up for inspection; and even a veterinary version of waterboarding in which high-intensity water sprays are shot up animals' noses -- all violations of state and federal laws designed to prevent animal cruelty and to keep unhealthy animals, such as those with mad cow disease, out of the food supply.

Moreover, the companies where these practices allegedly occurred are major suppliers of meat for the nation's school lunch programs, including in Maryland, according to a company official and federal documents.
If we're to have an effective democracy, then people need to be fully informed. People need to hear both sides of the story, and decide for truth for themselves. Instead, YOU want what people hear to be decided simply on the basis of who has the most money????

Tell me... why is is that you like Firefly?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:27 PM

I take it none of the Monsanto defenders has read either of the linked reports ?

* There was a long list of 'investigations' cited in the report which either were directed against the wrong party (the store owner), were directed against farmers who had planted the seeds one year but not the next, where the supposed crops that were planted were not even in the fields at the time, where genetic tests were falsified, or where agreement signatures were forged. In the interests of brevity I didn't reproduce them here. If you care to, you can always read the reports. But it is clear that widespread genetic contamination is a source of many of the lawsuits filed by Monsanto against family farmers.

Following investigations* Monsanto usually sends threatening letters via certified mail to farmers suspected of planting or selling saved patented seed. The letter typically requests that the farmer pay a specified sum of money to avoid legal proceedings. Under financial duress, many farmers who have been accused of patent infringement based on insubstantial evidence have decided to settle out of court rather than face an expensive and lengthy lawsuit.

In addition to sending threatening letters to farmers, Monsanto also distributes letters listing the names of farmers prohibited from purchasing its products to thousands of seed dealers each year. These letters often pressure farmers who wish to retain this purchasing right into settling out of court, regardless of the legitimacy of the company’s investigation. “It’s easier to give in to them than it is to fight them,” said one farmer who is still restricted from using Monsanto’s products as a result of challenging the company’s claims in court.53

Monsanto claims that since 2000, it has settled for millions of dollars in total damages.55

Some farmers agree to sign a settlement obligating them to purchase Monsanto’s products because the offered deal provides for a much smaller settlement fine. Clearly, this provision exemplifies Monsanto’s goal of binding farmers to its genetically engineered seeds and contracts. However, some farmers refuse to settle and subject themselves to paying both attorney fees and larger settlements in order to avoid making a commitment to Monsanto.58 Those not willing to acquiesce to Monsanto’s demands enter the most aggressive stage of these pursuits—the lawsuit.

***************************************************************
This is neither more nor less than a protection racket. Farmers pay up just because they don't have the time or money to fight. Whether Monsanto's claims are legitimate or not is the smallest part of the picture.

FLETCH2

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
This is a contracts issue. Monsanto is trying to make seed like software, you don't "own" it you effectively "license" it for a growing season. Any seed company could in theory make you agree to not replant next years crop, the problem would be proving it if you did. GM crops can be recognised as such and so it's easier to prove.
Perhaps you didn't read my post?

Monsanto has brought suit against people who have not planted their crops and against dairies who do not use their hormones. Its like Microsoft which reserves the right to break your home, business, or university apart on the suspicion that you might be using unlicensed software.

Perhaps you have not read my post, I said exactly the same thing. But we are not discussing your links -- or at least I wasn't-- I was discussing the original article. The article deals with basically two issues.

1) the harassment of a man who did not plant Monsantos crop because of poor information that he did -- seed piracy if you will and a very similar corporate response to the way record companies try to deal with file sharers,

2) farmers who sign the Monsanto contract not knowing, not understanding or not caring that they are not supposed to hold back seed until next year. That's the one I'm talking about. Rue thinks that the invalidation of Monsantos patents somehow deals with this --- it doesnt. If you sign a contract saying you will not plant last years seed that's enforceable if the crop is GM or not. However it would be impossible to prove you broke the contract with normal varieties. Even if tomorrow every Monsanto patent was reversed it would do nothing to change their business practices, in these cases they are using the GM to prove that you are breaking the CONTRACT not to claim you are breaking the patent.

In theory I can write up a contract between us that agrees almost anything. The only exception is that you cant make a contract to "legalise" something which has been made illegal by statute. So I can't contract you to kill me because murder is illegal. Likewise at least in the UK a contract can be contested if both parties are not given all the facts or if one party is considered to have acted fraudulently. Other than that anything goes.

So what has happened here is that Monsanto has a contract that basically says "a condition of buying seed from us is that you don't get to plant it again next year." If you sign it, and they can prove you did plant again they can sue you under the contract. That's it end of story.

RUE

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:36 PM

Fletch

Actually you missed some parts of the linked reports which DO show that the patents themselves are invalid. Now if the patent is invalid, enforcing said patent is also invalid - no matter what the contract says.

But more than that, farmers are coming under legal threat even when they haven't signed a contract OR planted seeds. The mere threat of having to spend hundreds of thousands to defend against a deep pockets lawsuit is enough to make people 'settle'.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

SIGNYM

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:44 PM

FLETCH2-

Quote:
Iwas discussing the original article.

So was I.

And regardless of the legality of the patents, there is something terribly wrong with a system that allows big business to snoop into a person's life and financially ruin - maliciously or otherwise - people who have NOT EVEN signed a contract. There seems to be a pattern in fact that Monsanto goes after people who have NOT purchased their products.

Quote:
Like many others in rural America, Rinehart knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them. But Rinehart wasn’t a farmer. He wasn’t a seed dealer. He hadn’t planted any seeds or sold any seeds. He owned a small—a really small—country store in a town of 350 people. He was angry that somebody could just barge into the store and embarrass him in front of everyone. “It made me and my business look bad,” he says. Rinehart says he told the intruder, “You got the wrong guy.”

When the stranger persisted, Rinehart showed him the door. On the way out the man kept making threats. Rinehart says he can’t remember the exact words, but they were to the effect of: “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” Scenes like this are playing out in many parts of rural America these days as Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers—anyone it suspects

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

RUE

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:45 PM

Hey RAP - care to join the conversation ?

***************************************************************
Your contributions went somethg like this:

"If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.

I'm just reminded of the 'chicken little' crusades ...

What's to believe ?"

Do you have anything to add to your little gems of wisdom ? Anything based on facts ?

FLETCH2

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch

Actually you missed some parts of the linked reports which DO show that the patents themselves are invalid. Now if the patent is invalid, enforcing said patent is also invalid - no matter what the contract says.

But more than that, farmers are coming under legal threat even when they haven't signed a contract OR planted seeds. The mere threat of having to spend hundreds of thousands to defend against a deep pockets lawsuit is enough to make people 'settle'.

Even with no patent you could still enforce the contract. I could right now sign a contract with you that says I will sell you corn seed but in exchange you can't plant corn next year. I don't own the patent on any corn I'm just making it a (weird) condition of a sales contract. If next year I spy fields of corn at your place I can sue you under the contract. The IP portion has nothing to do with that.

What is needed is something like the alliance now taking on the record industry (who as you know use similar practices.) There is nothing illegal in what they are doing but they are gaming the system and using the threat of litigation as a hammer to force compliance from people who they would be unable to beat in court. Unfortunately the techniques they use are not in themselves illegal and in fact have too many legitimate uses for it to be banned outright. What needs to happen is for them to lose enough cases that the courts no longer consider them a legitimate complainant, and for at least one of their "evidence gathering techniques" to be found actually illegal and subject to penalty and class action status. When money starts leaving their coffers as a result of bogus lawsuits they will stop.

So, legal defense fund... anyone run one?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE