REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The monster that is Monsanto

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Friday, May 9, 2008 05:49
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3597
PAGE 1 of 2

Sunday, April 13, 2008 6:51 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805?cur
rentPage=1


And a thumbs up to Vanity Fair for a rare case of actual dirt-diggin journalism, instead of the unvetted corporate press releases everyone else seems intent on handing us.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 7:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:05 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Wow, these guys are worse than I thought.


I bet they even throw some of their seeds out the window as they pass farms so they can "get" them later (not kidding here).

The fact that a life-form can be patented is just more proof that greed rules.

They live; we sleep Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:12 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.


Your post sounds less fact-based than prejudice-based there AU, but then your fierce, desperate devotion to the status-quo is well known in these parts.

You just don't get it Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 8:30 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:

Originally posted by AURaptor:
If Vanity Fair writes about it, I'm less inclined to believe it.


Your post sounds less fact-based than prejudice-based there AU, but then your fierce, desperate devotion to the status-quo is well known in these parts.

You just don't get it Chrisisall





I'm just reminded of the 'chicken little' crusades that some well intentioned do-gooders went on, like when we had the Alar scare with apples , or how BIG ( insert business field ) does nothing but evil and gives nothing back to humanity. Some folks simply can't exist w/ out the notion that somebody else is doing something evil and making lots of $$ while doing it. Hey , here's a news flash.....just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's evil or wrong.



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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:13 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Chris, Rap never actually reads the posted links, cause they might interfere with his carefully constructed bubble.

Might wanna take that into account, since he's likely unaware of the articles content.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:23 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I see another issue here - the fact that the US citizen doesn't have the constitutional right to privacy. The Bill of Rights - sadly shredded of late - ONLY protects you from the federal government and possibly (though not certainly) other levels of government.

Employers, businesses, patent-holders - they are legal forces unto themselves and you have no constitutional protection against them.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:39 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Chris, Rap never actually reads the posted links, cause they might interfere with his carefully constructed bubble.

Might wanna take that into account, since he's likely unaware of the articles content.

-F




Quick, come up w/ another excuse for me not possibly buying into the hate Monsato club!

From the 2nd line of the article -
Quote:

Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.


This is reporting ? NO, This is fear mongering and opinionated bias on the highest level. What's to believe ?


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:20 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:24 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Hey RAP

It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.
05.pdf


2005 report documents Monsanto's lawsuits against American farmers, revealing thousands of investigations, nearly 100 lawsuits and numerous bankruptcies.

... AND this.

http://www.pubpat.org/monsantorejections.htm

NEW YORK – July 24, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year's crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.

One study of the matter found that, "Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed." The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:25 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So, Rap

Now that you know this HAS happened - anything to say about these FACTS ?

***************************************************************
Or will you just slink away, as usual ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:40 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
So, Rap

Now that you know this HAS happened - anything to say about these FACTS ?


Rue, get ready for a ride through Egypt, 'cause here comes denial....

You can respond now, AU.

Fact-based Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:53 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed."




This is not the issue in these lawsuits. The issue is simple breach of contract. Monsanto requires all farmers using their patented seeds to sign a contract agreeing not to use seeds from the previous years crops. There is no reason the farmer can't choose not to use Monsanto seeds. The farmers want to get the benefit of the Monsanto seed, but not pay for it. I know that some farmers are claiming that the seeds are "blowing" over from nearby farms, but if this is the case the burden would be on Monsato to prove otherwise and they are protected by existing law if it's the truth.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 10:55 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And yet the patent office diagrees with your expert legal opinion.

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:04 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
the burden would be on Monsato

No...the burden is on the one least able to afford the sharks...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:16 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Hey RAP It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...
AW RUE!!! DAMNIT! You did Rap's homework for him! And now, instead of either (a) being shown for the gutless no-nothing coward that he is or (b) actually have to come to the facts himself (c) you gave him an easy out! Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:30 AM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:


Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits



A few dozen lawsuits is hardly a "assault" on the American farmer. Many American farmers are wealthy enough to fight Monsanto. Those not wealthy enough are probably members of organizations that pool resources to protect farmers rights. I would think that if Monsanto only pursues a few dozen lawsuits they would expend their resources on larger farms where the patent infringement is actually costing them a lot of money.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:32 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


KIRKULES
Quote:

This is not the issue in these lawsuits. The issue is simple breach of contract. Monsanto requires all farmers using their patented seeds to sign a contract agreeing not to use seeds from the previous years crops. There is no reason the farmer can't choose not to use Monsanto seeds.
Bullshit. The issue is that Monsanto can use its muscle to intimidate people who haven't even used their seeds, or force them into bankruptcy without "due process".


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.
Quote:

The landmark lawsuit centers on whether ... a producer has the right to make truthful statements about what a product does not contain, right along with what it does contain. Oakhurst's label tells the truth. But Monsanto contends that, although truthful, the label is misleading and prompts consumer skepticism that undermines the company's lucrative markets.

Monsanto sued Oakhurst on July 3, claiming that a label on Oakhurst milk jugs that states "Our farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones" is hurting the multinational chemical company's relationship with dairy farmers and misleads consumers into thinking that there is something wrong with milk produced with artificial hormones. Stanley Bennett II, president of Oakhurst, on Thursday reasserted his stand against changing the label. "We don't feel we have any obligation, nor will we be required or bullied into somehow qualifying our standards," he said.

"Our customers have told us in no uncertain terms that they don't want artificial growth hormones in their milk. Our label is an accurate and
honest attempt to communicate to consumers what we are trying to do. It is our obligation to our customers." This is the third such suit filed by Monsanto against dairy processors
regarding labeling issues. The two other suits, one in Texas and the other in Chicago, were settled out of court.

www.veganrepresent.com/forums/archive/index.php?t-2626.html

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
Quote:

"Two veteran news reporters for Fox TV in Tampa, Florida have been fired for refusing to water down an investigative report on Monsanto's controversial milk hormone, rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone).
www.rense.com/health3/milkhormone_h.htm
Quote:

Many American farmers are wealthy enough to fight Monsanto.
OMG man! You have GOT to be joking! The only farms "big enough" to "fight Monsanto" are the agribusiness farms. The family farms are overwhelemd.

It just boggles my mind how much people (YOU) are willing to bend over and be thankful for the oppty to get fucked. But hell, I don't know about your sex life so maybe this is the only fucking you get!
Quote:

I would think that...
Do you? Think, that is? Microsoft doesn't go after big companies like IBM. They go after universities and city governments and small organizations. Wal-mart doesn't go after Lowes or Home Depot. They kill the mom&pop shop. And Monsanto doesn't take on agribusiness. They go after mid-sized dairies and family farms and hang their heads on a pike at the corporate gates.

Let's not forget ... and this has already been brought up in lawsuits... that about 10% of the seeds from a non-GM filed wind up containing GM material because of cross-pollination from other fields. So even non-GM farmers will have SOME GM material in their seeds. So is Monsanto going to go after them too? Mostly likely yes.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:43 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:

Hey RAP It took me less than 20 seconds to find this (and I'm a bad typist) ...
AW RUE!!! DAMNIT! You did Rap's homework for him! And now, instead of either (a) being shown for the gutless no-nothing coward that he is or (b) actually have to come to the facts himself (c) you gave him an easy out! Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.

Let's party like it's 1929.



Ehhhh - sorry about that. I was curious to see how easy it would be to actually find some facts (ridiculously easy - and fast - it took me longer to type my message than to search. It really did only take about 20 seconds). I sorta cross-posted with you b/c of the time it took me to type ...

***************************************************************
So RAP - got anything to say ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:49 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Now he can once again cover his eyes, plug his ears, and put his brain thru the spin cycle.




BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

lolisall

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 11:50 AM

FLETCH2


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."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:08 PM

KIRKULES


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".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:10 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:30 PM

FLETCH2


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:36 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:44 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:45 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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 ?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:51 PM

FLETCH2


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?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 12:54 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 1:23 PM

ERIC


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 1:28 PM

FLETCH2


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 1:39 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:06 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:40 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:45 PM

KIRKULES


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 2:57 PM

FLETCH2


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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:05 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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, being skeptical about something equates to being WRONG in your world ?
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 ?
Quote:

But since the Dems have gained control of the Congress and the Senate, the US economy has gone in the crapper.
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 ?


***************************************************************
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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:26 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


And exactly what laws signed by Bush that has made our economy " tank " ? Oh yeah, none. Now I remember. So how's about you stop w/ the childish "how's the economy " game unless you want to start your own damn thread on the issue ? I'm done with that topic until then.


As for VF, they're off painting Monsanto as being this evil corporation, when very little I've seen is anything one wouldn't expect a corporation to do in order to protect its own property, and thus the interest of its investors.


Both GOP and DNC have 49 LISTED members, but Bernie Sanders ( Jr Senator from Vermont ) and Joe Lieberman caucus with the DNC, making their numbers effectively 51 to the GOP's 49, giving the DNC control.

Harry Reid is the Senate MAJORITY Leader. A title the US press, as free as it claims to be, still lacks the power to grant. Nice try.

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  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:32 PM

KIRKULES


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:

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"




I wonder if the common misconception about "common law" is a result of so many laws in the US having a "grandfather clause". For example, in some States if a piece of land is improperly surveyed and a certain amount of time passes, that parcel of land becomes the legal property of the "squater" even if they originally occupied the land in error. There may appear to be "common law" rights but they are actually just regular statutory law.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:33 PM

FLETCH2


There is a second issue which has to be mentioned also. The law of Torts (contract law) has various provisions to ensure equitability of a contract, things like full disclosure of relevant facts in the making of a contract, the inability of one party to reword the contract without the others approval (may be UK only.) If the Monsanto contract violates US commercial law in some way, you could work to overturn it but as I said, for any of this to work people HAVE to take them to court.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:43 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"And exactly what laws signed by Bush that has made our economy " tank " ?"

Oh, just a little running tab Bush uses to keep the Iraq war off the books, though not out of our pockets, called the emergency supplemental appropriations bill.

"Both GOP and DNC have 49 LISTED members, but Bernie Sanders ( Jr Senator from Vermont ) and Joe Lieberman caucus with the DNC, making their numbers effectively 51 to the GOP's 49, giving the DNC control."

Really. You know, since you are the one making this claim, I leave it to you to back it up. Otherwise, I'll just presume that, as usual, you're wrong yet again.


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 3:44 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:

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"




I wonder if the common misconception about "common law" is a result of so many laws in the US having a "grandfather clause". For example, in some States if a piece of land is improperly surveyed and a certain amount of time passes, that parcel of land becomes the legal property of the "squater" even if they originally occupied the land in error. There may appear to be "common law" rights but they are actually just regular statutory law.




There are torts for invasion of privacy. Ie if you invade someone's privacy then they can sue you. In order for that to be applicable there is an implication that you have an expectation of privacy --- otherwise how could you sue someone for an act if what they are doing is not in itself illegal?

Apparently in the US at various times it's been argued that this implies a common law right. The problem is that those are opinions that don't seem to form the basis of any rulings except in the state of Minnesota and that is not US wide and theoretically reversible (while in theory common law principles should be upheld going forward not all courts feel bound by even their own president, and reversals are common.)

In any case this is one of Rue's red herrings. What we need is the common law right to hold and plant last years seed crop, or a statute to that effect.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:16 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Kirkules - just google: "reasonable expectation of privacy" workplace "supreme court".

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Because employers compensate employees to perform their jobs, courts traditionally have granted employers a wide latitude to monitor their employees' work performance and productivity provided that such monitoring does not violate an employee's reasonable expectation of privacy.
Office Searches
While employees may have an increased expectation of privacy to their office, cabinets and personal belongings, an employer may search through those areas and items provided that they possess a work-related reason.
These cases are limited to employer searches, as opposed to law enforcement searches. They show, in essence, that while your expectation of privacy in the workplace is not nonexistent, it is extremely limited.

But - it does exist, despite not being in the consitution.

Also:

In addition while 'employers are frequently advised to have employees sign written policies for computer usage. (and) Having such a policy may diminish privacy expectations ...'

The Supreme Court’s holding in Flanagan reaffirms (that) ... Employees who surreptitiously record or eavesdrop on workplace conversations will now find themselves more vulnerable to Privacy Act claims ...


In other words, the concept of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' is well established in the law and in part applies to private parties despite the fact that there is no such constitutional protection. BTW it derives from common law.

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Come on folks, lets call a spade a spade here, it's an extortion-protection racket under a thin legal fiction, and I suspect that soon the Grangers are gonna file counter claims under RICO.

Given that some of us with far more legal expertise than this cabbie have begun researching and encouraging exactly that.

Most of my agri-buddies around here are too small to be worth the trouble, not to mention the very real risk of the enforcers winding up planted somewhere in the back forty - they're an awful paraniod, suspicious lot, which started after one of them tried to save on fuel costs by making his own Bio-D, and got slammed with fuel taxes on his whole damn crop at the express behest and encouragement of a certain oil company...


These guys are a substantial portion of my food supply, and like any mammal, I tend to get annoyed when anything threatens it.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:34 PM

FLETCH2


It doesn't and for the reasons stated.

Now show me the seed law or deal with the core issue.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 4:49 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Now show me the seed law or deal with the core issue."

And there you are, like Rap, wrong yet again. Common law does have an effect on statutory law, as I've proved twice already. This despite that fact that it's not written into the statutes. This will have to play out in the courts to arrive at the written decision you so frantically demand. But I'm right and you're wrong, so deal with it.

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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, April 13, 2008 5:11 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


And just to cap it off before I sign off for (probably) a week or more -

To provide information anyone can access I suggest to those with an interest to Google: "common law" agriculture (or some variation of that theme such as "common law" farm -"statefarm"). There were many interesting sites that referred to the common law basis of agriculture. Here are some quotes from two.


For most of the nations history, agriculture has been governed by principles of common law.

-----------------------------------------------

Agricultural law is a unique blend of traditional fields of law- this includes the law of contracts, bailments, torts, criminal, environmental (both state and federal), property, nuisance, wills and estates, and the mind-numbing tax law.

As such, agricultural law is not entirely "new" law; rather it is a gathering and harvesting of provisions of statutory and common law.

***************************************************************
In other words, since Fletch won't tell you this - common law actually governs areas of agricultural practice, rights, and restrictions. As such, the common practice of saving seed for planting next year falls under common law rights.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
China
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:10 - 447 posts
Biden
Thu, March 28, 2024 22:03 - 853 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:07 - 2072 posts
Russia says 60 dead, 145 injured in concert hall raid; Islamic State group claims responsibility
Thu, March 28, 2024 21:02 - 54 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:24 - 3413 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, March 28, 2024 17:20 - 6155 posts
BUILD BACK BETTER!
Thu, March 28, 2024 16:32 - 9 posts
Well... He was no longer useful to the DNC or the Ukraine Money Laundering Scheme... So justice was served
Thu, March 28, 2024 12:44 - 1 posts
Salon: NBC's Ronna blunder: A failed attempt to appeal to MAGA voters — except they hate her too
Thu, March 28, 2024 07:04 - 1 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Wed, March 27, 2024 23:21 - 987 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Wed, March 27, 2024 15:03 - 824 posts
NBC News: Behind the scenes, Biden has grown angry and anxious about re-election effort
Wed, March 27, 2024 14:58 - 2 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL