The monster that is Monsanto
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 15:49
VIEWED: 6598
PAGE 4 of 10
"Even with no patent you could still enforce the contract."
Not true if the common-law right of farmers is to save and plant seeds.
So, you have nothing to say about Monsanto's protection racket ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
It's the same problem with Frakenfoods or hormone-boosted milk production. There was a dairy in Maine- Oakhurst- which marketed its milk as being "hormone-free". Monsanto, which makes rGBH (the recombinant growth hormone) sued Oakhurst Dairy for labeling their milk with a PERFECTLY TRUTHFUL statement.
All those 'not from concentrate' orange juice makers better watch out!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
First there are no such things as common law rights. Second the common law is not statute. For example I can make you sign a none disclosure agreement as part of your condition of employment or as part of a contract and sue you if you break it even though you have a common law expectation of free speech.
So we are back to you inventing bogus stuff to deal with the fact that you have no real answer. The only way to deal with these people is to beat them in court, repeatedly and with penalties. Do it enough times to discredit their discovery process and the problem is solved. It is as far as I can see the only way to stop them. Bogus patents make their business practices easier but they don't actually need them to keep up this kind of intimidation. Unfortunately the cost of legal recourse in the US means that legal bullying is always an option when you know you have no real case to fall back on.
A few years ago a friend received an email from a guy that was cybersquating a stack of domain names saying that my friend was appropriating his domain because his blog had a similar title --- let's say the squatter had registered a domain called something like "getalife.com" and my friend had a blog called something like "get a life."
The squatter said he had legal right to the name Getalife and all variations and that my friend either had to change the name of his blog or buy the domain for $2000. It was completely bogus, he has no legal right to enforce it, in fact so few rights that even the letter could be considered fraud. My friend knew a well known IP attorney and a simple letter on the stationary of a nationally recognized law firm mad the squater go away.
The point is that people fire off injunctions, cease and desist letters and other legal junk that had very spurious legal backing in the hopes of intimidating people that cant afford to contest it. Those kinds of challenges need to be met in court, with publicity and hopefully some heavy costs for those that try it on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- You're "less inclined" to believe an article because it was in Vanity Fair?
Okay, DON'T believe it. You shouldn't. You should be a skeptic. Do some research. Find out for yourself. Give us a few solid, well-researched reasons why the linked article is wrong.
But I know you won't do that because you fear accidental contact with fact more than anything. You're afraid of what you might find it you actually rooted around that big wide world of facts out there.
BTW- how's that economy going?
You see 'Rap, you can try to avoid the truth. Run and hide. But sooner or later, it'll bite you anyway.
I agree with Rue, not surprisingly. Corporate-libertarians are so fucking focused on gummint they don't see the nasty big alligator behind them.
---------------------------------
.
Why don't you tell me why you're so eager to believe it , being from V.F. I'm reminded they did the puff piece on the duel liars, Joe Wilson and Val Plame. "Credible " isn't the first word I'd use on this magazine's take on - well, ANYTHING.
But let me ask you something. If a company spends MILLIONS in developing something which they think can benefit them and their customers, why is it so god damn awful for that company to want to protect its investment ? You think they should just give away their R&D to everyone ? Geee, where do I buy stock in that company ???
btw- MY economy is doing great. Best it's ever been. Why such interest ?
btw II, you're a coward, your feet stink and you dress funny. Now we're even .
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"First there are no such things as common law rights."
As a matter of fact, there are common law rights. Roe v Wade was decided to some extent on common law privacy rights - pregnancy 'before quickening' being considered a personal and private, not public, matter.
"Second the common law is not statute."
But when a contract violates common law the contract can be invalid. For example, no matter how many 'rights' you sign away to your employer they cannot put up a camera in a place where you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'. Now maybe personal rights vis a vis employers, corporations and the like are few and far between, but where they exist it is b/c of common law.
I think you need to bone up on US law.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Credible " isn't the first word I'd use on this magazine's take on - well, ANYTHING. But then your own lack of facts didn't stop YOU from posting. Despite, I might add, a complete lack of credibility on your part. So, now that you know different - that you were wrong - do you have anything to say ?
"btw- MY economy is doing great. Best it's ever been. Why such interest ?" And uh, I hope you're not talking about the US economy. B/c then, I'd have to believe you're just plain nuts. So, how's that roaring US economy going there, Rap ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Credible " isn't the first word I'd use on this magazine's take on - well, ANYTHING. But then your own lack of facts didn't stop YOU from posting. Despite, I might add, a complete lack of credibility on your part. So, now that you know different - that you were wrong - do you have anything to say ?
"btw- MY economy is doing great. Best it's ever been. Why such interest ?" And uh, I hope you're not talking about the US economy. B/c then, I'd have to believe you're just plain nuts. So, how's that roaring US economy going there, Rap ?
So, being skeptical about something equates to being WRONG in your world ? Sorry, I'm just not as gullible as you, it seems. I don't know that I'm wrong, so what was your point again? Or did you even have one in the 1st place?
And yes, MY economy is the best it's ever been. But since the Dems have gained control of the Congress and the Senate, the US economy has gone in the crapper. Funny, that.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Tell me... why is is that you like Firefly?
Well, there's lots of guns.
I love the episode where they smuggled the cattle fed with Monsanto growth hormone and sold them to unsuspecting settlers. And there's the one where they sold the Monsanto stamped foodstuffs to the settlers. Turns out the stuff with the Monsanto stamp can feed a family of 4 for a week.
The Alliance isn't all bad, just like our own government it's the size of the Alliance that makes it evil. I think we'll be lucky to have as much freedom as those in the Alliance when there's 30 billion people on earth. By the way, the only why the Earth will support the population numbers that are inevitable at current growth rates is to hope Monsanto continues to develop products that safely increase the food supply.
Did I mention that Firefly has lots of guns.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"First there are no such things as common law rights."
As a matter of fact, there are common law rights. Roe v Wade was decided to some extent on common law privacy rights - pregnancy 'before quickening' being considered a personal and private, not public, matter.
"Second the common law is not statute."
But when a contract violates common law the contract can be invalid. For example, no matter how many 'rights' you sign away to your employer they cannot put up a camera in a place where you have a 'reasonable expectation of privacy'.
I repeat there are no common law rights. In the US the right to privacy is constitutional and granted by the Fourth amendment protection against "unreasonable search and seizure"
http://www.acm.org/ubiquity/views/v5i9_salveggio.html
and for good measure related directly to the example you gave
Quote:
One issue in this case is whether the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights protect a state employee, while in her cubicle, from covert and secret video surveillance, and whether that right was clearly established in this situation. A second issue is whether a state agency’s failure to train and supervise its employees in the proper use of covert surveillance was a “discretionary function” of the agency so as to make the agency immune from liability for that failure.
After the trial court dismissed Ms. Nelson’s claims, she appealed to the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Before the court reached a decision, the Supreme Judicial Court decided to take the case. The court held in April 2006 that the college's surveillance did not violate Ms. Nelson's constitutional rights.
http://epic.org/privacy/nelson/
Your right to privacy comes from the forth amendment and is enforced through statute and not the common law.
Show me your "common law right to hold seed" if you are so sure you can find it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
"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 ?"
Quote:So you never said it was chicken little ? You know, not real, not happening ? That it was about belief and not about facts ? So, now that you KNOW it's based on facts and NOT just a chicken-little story - ie - you were wrong - do you have anything to say about the facts ?
So, being skeptical about something equates to being WRONG in your world ?
Quote:Well, ahem, as usual you're wrong. The democrats are not in control of the senate. Despite the fact that the media keeps calling them the majority their numbers are exactly on par with the repubicans. They simply are neither the majority nor in control. And which laws did they pass that affected the economy, again ? Oh THAT'S right - it's not about FACTS ! It's about innuendo ! So, Rap got any FACTS about how those nasty (not)-in-control democrats ruined the economy, exactly ? What did they DO ? Any history you care to share ?
But since the Dems have gained control of the Congress and the Senate, the US economy has gone in the crapper.
***************************************************************
I'll be waiting for that list of laws those not-in-control democrats passed that were signed by Bush or whose vetoes were over-ridden that put the economy in the crapper. However long it takes, Rap.
I'll be watching for your reply.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME