PDA

View Full Version : Legal Monsanto success with court


HonestChieffan
05-13-2013, 06:53 PM
http://m.usatoday.com/article/news/2116333

Reaper16
05-13-2013, 06:55 PM
I'm so surprised.

Shaid
05-13-2013, 08:17 PM
I despise Monsanto and I hate how they've gotten laws passed to favor them but I have to say that oddly enough, I agree with the court. If a company spent the amount of money they spent to genetically modify the seed to it's current state, they should be able to reap the benefits of that. Now, I also think they absolutely have a monopoly and I think we need to take a serious look at breaking them up to start to control some of that. They do however have a right to make a profit from their product. Damn, I hate that I even said that. It's true, I still hate it though.

HonestChieffan
05-13-2013, 08:20 PM
I despise Monsanto and I hate how they've gotten laws passed to favor them but I have to say that oddly enough, I agree with the court. If a company spent the amount of money they spent to genetically modify the seed to it's current state, they should be able to reap the benefits of that. Now, I also think they absolutely have a monopoly and I think we need to take a serious look at breaking them up to start to control some of that. They do however have a right to make a profit from their product. Damn, I hate that I even said that. It's true, I still hate it though.

Monopoly on what?

Bump
05-13-2013, 08:59 PM
Monopoly on what?

seeds

Shaid
05-13-2013, 09:30 PM
First result in a google search

http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p207220-the%20monsanto%20monopoly.html

Bump
05-13-2013, 09:34 PM
First result in a google search

http://www.gmeducation.org/latest-news/p207220-the%20monsanto%20monopoly.html

most republicans agree that monopolies are great for 'Murica.

HonestChieffan
05-13-2013, 09:45 PM
Ahhhh ok. New definitions are confusing.

DaveNull
05-13-2013, 10:14 PM
First result in a google search

http://lh3.ggpht.com/-kc51iu9-s8Y/USpVfYDzN-I/AAAAAAAADic/mkh2XtGquTo/State-Farm---State-of-Disbelief-Fren%255B2%255D.jpg

Shaid
05-13-2013, 10:46 PM
http://lh3.ggpht.com/-kc51iu9-s8Y/USpVfYDzN-I/AAAAAAAADic/mkh2XtGquTo/State-Farm---State-of-Disbelief-Fren%255B2%255D.jpg

Hey, I know that dude! He's a french model!


How about if you don't think they are a monopoly, you provide something substantial as proof? I bet if you do, it'll be something from the internet!

Xanathol
05-14-2013, 01:15 AM
I'm tired so maybe I didn't read that correctly... what I got was (1) farmer bought from Monsanto and grew a crop (2) then replanted his crops with some of the beans from his last year's crop and beans from another source and thusly, he got sued? Or did I not read that right? Need sleep....

Dave Lane
05-14-2013, 04:37 AM
Ahhhh ok. New definitions are confusing.

Damned seeds. Hard to keep up on that kinda stuff.

Dave Lane
05-14-2013, 04:38 AM
most republicans agree that monopolies are great for 'Murica.

Well I think Parker Brothers thinks it's better but the United States still benefits.

Loneiguana
05-14-2013, 07:12 AM
I'm so surprised.

Me too

http://xavdematoscom.ipage.com/wp/wp-content/themes/aspire/assets/colors/etrade-baby-shocked-face-picture-i15.jpg

I'm a little mad too.

King_Chief_Fan
05-14-2013, 07:13 AM
I despise Monsanto and I hate how they've gotten laws passed to favor them but I have to say that oddly enough, I agree with the court. If a company spent the amount of money they spent to genetically modify the seed to it's current state, they should be able to reap the benefits of that. Now, I also think they absolutely have a monopoly and I think we need to take a serious look at breaking them up to start to control some of that. They do however have a right to make a profit from their product. Damn, I hate that I even said that. It's true, I still hate it though.

Monsanto has plenty of competition....Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer and hundreds of independents. Not Monsanto's fault that their research, field results, yields etc., knock the competiton out.

HonestChieffan
05-14-2013, 08:19 AM
Monsanto has plenty of competition....Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer and hundreds of independents. Not Monsanto's fault that their research, field results, yields etc., knock the competiton out.

No. Google says its a monopoly.

Chiefspants
05-14-2013, 08:20 AM
Monsanto has plenty of competition....Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer and hundreds of independents. Not Monsanto's fault that their research, field results, yields etc., knock the competiton out.

Monsanto symbolizes everything that's right about America.

DaveNull
05-14-2013, 09:12 AM
How about if you don't think they are a monopoly, you provide something substantial as proof? I bet if you do, it'll be something from the internet!

Because I don't really have the energy to explain the legal and economic nuances of the issue here. Yes, by virtue of a patent they have a monopoly. That's by design.

And sure, I could point to citations that are from the Internet, but I wouldn't be giving them credence based on their search engine optimization.

jiveturkey
05-14-2013, 09:40 AM
I'm pretty anti-Monsanto (or any GMO company) but this case looked to be cut and dry. One farmer rolled the dice with a patented seed and he lost.

Bump
05-14-2013, 10:55 AM
nm

Xanathol
05-14-2013, 02:14 PM
Ok so after some sleep I read more into this and holy **** - the left can't help but find a way to **** everything up! So with this ruling, if a seed falls on the ground and a plant grows, you either pay for that "duplicate / genetic copy" or kill the plant?!?

Two words.... **** THAT!

If Monsanto wants to spend the money to make these genetically altered seeds, then they should do so for their own benefit alone - if they sell it, it is out of their hands. WTF is next? Someone will own the rights to "genetic copies" of your family dogs? Children?

Stupid shit is stupid - go figure Kagan ruled on this... Her short-sightedness ( or wanton destruction ) knows no bounds.

DaveNull
05-14-2013, 06:59 PM
Looks like you need some more sleep and some more reading time. Hell, HCF gave you an article from USA Today which is one step above Highlights for Kids. Luckily your ignorance coincides with my curiosity so I'll save you some time.

Here's what you ended up concluding:

So with this ruling, if a seed falls on the ground and a plant grows, you either pay for that "duplicate / genetic copy" or kill the plant?!?

Here's what the article says that this guy did:

After one year of going through Monsanto, he bought his second crop from a grain elevator. Then he used his own soybeans that resisted Roundup in future years -- in essence, the court said, making copies of a patented invention.

See the difference there? He bought Roundup Ready beans and then reused seed in violation of the agreement he signed when he bought them first from Monsanto and again when he bought Roundup Ready beans from the elevator.

Here's a better explanation from Cornell Law School which was written by law students instead of some hack at USA Today that doesn't even have the courtesy to link to the actual decision.

Vernon Hugh Bowman purchased seeds from Pioneer, a registered seed producer of Monsanto. As required by Monsanto, Pioneer had Bowman sign an agreement identical to Monsanto’s Technology Agreement, which limited the use of the seeds to a single season. Monsanto also sent Bowman a letter directly, which notified Bowman that he could not replant any form of Monsanto’s herbicide resistant seeds. Bowman regularly purchased seeds from Pioneer but one year, after harvesting the seeds purchased from Pioneer, Bowman also bought seeds from a local commodity seed provider and planted a second crop. Finding that the majority of seeds purchased from the local provider were herbicide resistant, Bowman also treated them with herbicide. Bowman continued to purchase Pioneer seeds for his first crop and harvested seeds from his second crops to use to replant his second crop the next year. In 2006, Monsanto became aware of Bowman’s planting practices and investigated his use of herbicide resistant seeds. Upon confirmation that Bowman’s second crops, grown from second-generation and commodity seeds, displayed herbicide resistance, Monsanto sued him for patent infringement.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that Monsanto’s patent rights in the seeds were not exhausted once sold to a commodity dealer. The Federal Circuit further reasoned that although Monsanto’s patented technology can replicate itself, a buyer cannot use the product of replication because it would eliminate Monsanto’s patent rights. The court concluded that Bowman retained the right to sell second-generation seeds as feed or for any other number of uses, but he was prohibited from replanting them in any form. The court deemed that Monsanto was entitled to damages for patent infringement. - Here's the source and some additional analysis. (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-796)

If Monsanto wants to spend the money to make these genetically altered seeds, then they should do so for their own benefit alone - if they sell it, it is out of their hands.

I suspect that this was unintentionally insightful and pertinent to the other comment about Monsanto having a monopoly. To the insightful point, this is the question that was presented to the court and they ruled that their genetic traits are not completely out of their hands once they license it to a purchaser who reuses seeds. This is pertenant to the comment about monopolies because if Monsanto did what you are suggesting (owning the operation from engineering of the seeds through sale to the end user) then they're closer to a vertical monopoly. Think "owning the mining company, steel company and the railroad" kind of monopoly instead of the "we've got the market cornered on this product so we'll jack prices beyond predatory levels" monopoly.

But I digress...back to your small minded and uninformed comments.

the left can't help but find a way to **** everything up!

and this

go figure Kagan ruled on this...

You do know that there are nine justices on the supreme court...all of whom contribute to the way the case ends up...right? You do know that one justice writes the majority opinion..right? That means that all nine of the justices including Thomas and Scalia agreed with this outcome...right? For that matter, not a single justice took enough issue with Kagen's opinion that they wanted to write a concurrence.

A 9-0 ruling in any direction is a complete bipartisan smackdown of whatever argument was put forth by the loser. Plain and simple.

Is this a ringing endorsement by myself or the court of the general practices of targeting farmers for lawsuits when they unintentionally end up with GMO plants because of the trait being transferred via pollination or when they buy from a seed supplier who isn't properly separating GMO from non-GMO seed? Hell no.

This is merely the first case to hit the supreme court on this issue which has been discussed in agricultural and legal circles since the mid-90's. The more contentious cases will be those that filter their way up through the process in years to come.

GloucesterChief
05-14-2013, 07:41 PM
I have to agree with the court here. This isn't a case of cross pollination or the seeds drifting on to Bowman's land. If that were the case, Monsanto wouldn't have any standing since the farmer didn't know or intentionally try to reuse their product.

What Bowman did was buy seeds from a grain elevator betting that most of them were roundup ready, sprayed roundup to eliminate the ones that weren't and then replanting the surviving plants seeds. He intentionally was selecting plants that had the roundup ready genetic engineering.

Pawnmower
05-14-2013, 08:14 PM
can a farmer explain to me why they couldn't get heirloom or non-monsanto seeds and do what this guy wanted to do without ripping off monsanto?

I'm a layman, and just curious why more people dont cut them out of the picture, considering the amount of whining

Xanathol
05-14-2013, 09:11 PM
Look everyone, I'm a stupid motherfucker who has no reading comprehension!
It's called setting a precedence, dumbass. And a really fucked up one at that, like the example I lead off with - that's the possible consequence of this ruling, that Kagan had to be wetting herself to get to deliver / write. Does that spell everything out enough for you, or do you need an adult to hold your hand while explaining it to you with crayon drawn pictures?

DaveNull
05-14-2013, 09:48 PM
It's called setting a precedence, dumbass. And a really ****ed up one at that, like the example I lead off with - that's the possible consequence of this ruling, that Kagan had to be wetting herself to get to deliver / write. Does that spell everything out enough for you, or do you need an adult to hold your hand while explaining it to you with crayon drawn pictures?

Would you mind picking up the dictionary while you're up?

prec·e·dent
/ˈpresid(ə)nt/
Noun
An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.


prec·e·dence
/ˈpresədəns/
Noun
The condition of being considered more important than someone or something else; priority in rank.

The order to be observed by people of different rank, according to an acknowledged or legally determined system.


But please. Go on.

Loneiguana
05-15-2013, 06:33 AM
Food, Inc. (short clip)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2P1CJ7IEt0c

HonestChieffan
05-15-2013, 07:19 AM
can a farmer explain to me why they couldn't get heirloom or non-monsanto seeds and do what this guy wanted to do without ripping off monsanto?

I'm a layman, and just curious why more people dont cut them out of the picture, considering the amount of whining

They can. Many do. The Non roundup ready beans are grown like all were prior to the technology becoming available.

Xanathol
05-15-2013, 09:41 AM
Would you mind picking up the dictionary while you're up?

But please. Go on.So the best you've got is the wrong word from autocomplete... got ya....

alnorth
05-15-2013, 12:36 PM
It's called setting a precedence, dumbass. And a really ****ed up one at that, like the example I lead off with - that's the possible consequence of this ruling, that Kagan had to be wetting herself to get to deliver / write. Does that spell everything out enough for you, or do you need an adult to hold your hand while explaining it to you with crayon drawn pictures?

It was a unanimous decision, dumbass. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, etc all agreed with her opinion 100% and signed on in full.

King_Chief_Fan
05-16-2013, 06:13 AM
can a farmer explain to me why they couldn't get heirloom or non-monsanto seeds and do what this guy wanted to do without ripping off monsanto?

I'm a layman, and just curious why more people dont cut them out of the picture, considering the amount of whining

They can and do....but their performance is well below the performance of the Monsanto brands.

Other companies cannot keep up with Monsanto technologies which is why you see so many "agreements" with other companies these days.

You would be surprised at the number of companies using Monsanto technology.

on the most positive side........I sold lots of options yesterday and made a great deal of money.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-17-2013, 06:38 AM
Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant: Our Critics Are Fueled By 'Elitism'

It's not controversial pesticide-resistent crops that fuel Monsanto's critics, according to the company's CEO; it's their own desire to keep poor people from cheap food.

Hugh Grant, CEO of Monsanto, told Bloomberg News in an interview that opponents of genetically-engineered crops, who can afford to choose what kind of food they buy, aren’t concerned with the needs of the rest of the world. And their opposition is preventing those in need from getting access to cheaper food.

“There is this strange kind of reverse elitism: If I’m going to do this, then everything else shouldn’t exist,” Grant told Bloomberg. “There is space in the supermarket shelf for all of us.”

Monsanto, the world’s largest seed-maker, according to Bloomberg, has been a frequent target of criticism by activists who say its genetically-modified crops can pose a danger to both consumers and the environment by leading to increased pesticide use and the rise of pesticide-resistent "superweeds."

The Department of Agriculture announced last week that they’ve ordered more investigations into the environmental impact of a new technology developed by Monsanto and Dow Chemical that makes herbicide-resistant crops. The announcement came after the Environmental Protection Agency refused a petition to ban the sale of the technology.

Monsanto didn't immediately respond to voicemail and email messages from The Huffington Post seeking comment.

The company has long argued it's fighting world hunger by helping farmers produce crops more cheaply and in un-ideal conditions, like in areas prone to draught. More than 1 billion globally are already affected by hunger and malnutrition, according to the United Nations, and the problem will only get worse without innovative ways to create more food.

Still, the company's control over the agribusiness industry -- and therefore the production of our food -- has sparked concern among many. More than 90 percent of soybean farms in America use Monsanto seeds. And Congress recently passed a provision dubbed by critics as the "Monsanto Protection Act," which allows companies like Monsanto to continue selling USDA-approved seeds that are facing court challenges over safety and other factors.

The Supreme Court also ruled in favor of a challenge to Monsanto's patent earlier this week. As a result, farmers who use the company's pesticide-resistent seeds will be required to purchase new ones from the company every year instead reusing the seeds once the crop grows.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/hugh-grant-monsanto-elitism_n_3285378.html

KILLER_CLOWN
05-17-2013, 06:39 AM
Memo to Monsanto's CEO Grant: GMO crops have proven, by sound scientific study, to be highly dangerous to those who consume them, in a huge number of ways, and I am just going to remind our readers as to why:

Pesticide Genes Three varieties of Monsanto's GMO corn that were genetically modified to contain insecticide- and herbicide-absorbing genes were the subject of a report by the International Journal of Biological Sciences. The report states that Monsanto had used crude data from insufficient 90-day studies in its claim that the corn was safe for human consumption. Researchers in the IJBS study found that all three GMO corn varieties were toxic and affected liver and kidney function. Effects differed between the three corn varieties, and between male and female rats in the lab studies. Problems outside the laboratory also exist. Iowa farmers have reported problems with livestock sterility, and have traced the cause back to the genetically modified corn used in the livestock feed. Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/228433-the-toxic-dangers-of-gmo-foods/#ixzz2TTUAj4tt

Genetically modified foods… Are they safe? The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) doesn’t think so. The Academy reported that “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM asked physicians to advise patients to avoid GM foods. Before the FDA decided to allow GMOs into food without labeling, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored. gmo danger2 Since then, findings include: Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants Mice eating GM corn for the long term had fewer, and smaller, babies More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, and were smaller Testicle cells of mice and rats on a GM soy change significantly By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies Rodents fed GM corn and soy showed immune system responses and signs of toxicity Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer. Studies showed organ lesions, altered liver and pancreas cells, changed enzyme levels, etc.

Widespread Crop Failure Genetic diversity is key for immunity in living things. Crops that have not been genetically modified have the benefit of a variety of genes available in the pool to provide them with protection from diseases and pests. Genetically modified crops, in contrast, have identical genetic structure. This means that if a single disease, virus or parasite mutates so that it can easily attack that plant, the entire crop could be lost. On a large scale this could be devastating not only to the farmer but to the regional economy and worse. Not only does this threaten the GMO crops, but it also poses a threat to non-GMO foods in that they could be cross-polinated with vulnerable GMO genes by birds, bees, or butterflies, making the resulting offspring plants susceptible to the same diseases and pests. Sponsored Links Visio Network Diagrams Easily discover and map networks with a free trial of WhatsupGold. WhatsupGold.com/Diagram Increased Use of Herbicides and Pesticides Many genetically modified crops are engineered to be resistant to conventional herbicides and pesticides. This is because farmers want the ability to spray their fields with these chemicals, killing the bugs and weeds without the plants being affected. This system is heavily reliant on chemicals which are unhealthy to both the environment and humans. Recently, stories have been published by Reuters describing studies which link children with high concentrations of agricultural pesticides in their urine with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Ecological Dangers Another danger of using genetically modified organisms in agriculture is that it is impossible to contain them in one place, and once they are introduced into the local flora they have the chance to out-compete them and choke out many local plant varieties. Considering that we know little about the uses and applications of many botanicals around us, this is a potential ecological disaster. Along the same lines, any genetically modified cultivar we release or any virus or bacteria results from their use will be impossible to recall or combat. Read more: What are the Dangers of GMOs? | eHow http://www.ehow.com/list_6598320_dangers-gmos_.html#ixzz2TTV6aQfQ

And lastly, Mr. Grant, let's talk about the presence of the epicyte gene, which sterilizes the people who eat plants which include it:

FLASHBACK – Scientists Create GM Corn Which Prevents Human Conception Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the world from overpopulation. The pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the San Diego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers have discovered a rare class of human antibodies that attack sperm. By isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture of these antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, the company has created tiny horticultural factories that make contraceptives. "We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that make anti-sperm antibodies," said Epicyte president Mitch Hein. Still unknown is who funded this original research (UPDATE, major funding was from the USDA) . But once the Epicyte gene, which irreversibly sterilizes humans who eat it, was patented, Monsanto and DuPont bought the company in order to "commercially exploit" the Epicyte gene. That means they had a customer for this product! Who is buying this gene and where is it being used? After ten years, how many GMO products have included this human-sterilization gene? One of the last of Tom Clancy's books that he authored alone was called "Rainbow Six", and the villain of the book was a group of money-junkies who decided that Earth was too "polluted" with the poor and wanted the Earth to go back to nature (except of course for their own personal palaces). Art mirrors life? We know that ultra-rich like Melinda Gates openly support forced population reduction in the apparent belief that having a lot of money gives them the right to play God with the rest of humanity. Personally I think that if the population is to be reduced, that we start with such self-declared deities, to be followed by those who would condemn millions to death in wars to make a fast buck. But of greater concern is this. The Epicyte gene was in corn down in San Diego more than ten years ago. And we know know that modified genes can jump species through pollination, which is why the weeds once killed by Glyphosate are now as "Roundup Ready" as the GMO crops themselves. And we know that these modified genes can also jump from the original GMO frankenfood onto the natural varieties. Many people are already familiar with the case of Percy Schmeiser, who did not want GMO crops on his farm but discovered to his horror that pollen blowing from a neighboring field had contaminated his crops. When he complained, Monsanto sued him for "Patent Infringement" and demanded Schmeiser pay a technology fee to use his own saved seeds, since they included Monsanto's patented genes, and Schmeiser knowingly was replanting them. Schmeiser eventually persuaded the courts that he had never wanted Monsanto's products and the courts ruled against Monsanto, who eventually agreed to pay the costs to decontaminate Schmeiser's farm. Other farmers were not so lucky in the courts, and lost their farms to Monsanto in patent infringement lawsuits. The point is that for ten years, pollen from corn containing the Epicyte gene has been blowing around Southern California farms (along with everywhere else the Epicyte gene was "commercialized"). How far it has spread is impossible to determine without an extensive genetic survey of the food supply. That it may already be global cannot be ruled out. But there is no question that birth rates are in decline. While the corporate media may blame this birth rate drop solely on the economic problems (and there is no question this is a factor) there is also no question that doctors were noticing a sudden uptick in fertility problems back in 2008 before the economic explosion even happened. And the sudden reverse in US birth rates actually occurred in 2007, again before the economic crash took hold. Were economics the only factor, one would expect a smoother transition in birth rates as birth rate slowed, then plateaued, then went into decline, accelerating as the economy worsened. But in the above graph we see a sudden and dramatic reversal, suggesting some other cause. Note the drop is especially heavy in the Hispanic population, whose traditional diet relies very heavily on corn. Forced covert sterilization?

Mr. Grant, Monsanto has been exceedingly reckless with its genetically modified organism technology. People and animals have already suffered greatly from its use. Yes, the food Monsanto technology produces is cheap; but it is also highly dangerous. And until that last part gets sorted, there should be no GMO crops grown anywhere in the world, period, end of discussion.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/228433-the-toxic-dangers-of-gmo-foods/

http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers

http://www.ehow.com/list_6598320_dangers-gmos_.html

http://www.morningliberty.com/2012/10/09/top-10-monsanto-epicyte-sterilization-crimes/

gblowfish
05-17-2013, 02:33 PM
My college girlfriend just took a job in the PR Dept of Monsanto. Guess she sold her soul to the devil. I'm sure it pays well.

Buehler445
05-17-2013, 03:18 PM
Monsanto has plenty of competition....Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer and hundreds of independents. Not Monsanto's fault that their research, field results, yields etc., knock the competiton out.

This. The reason that 90% of seed is attributable to Monsanto is that they sold their RR technology. Just like all computing is attributable to IBM doesn't mean IBM has a monopoly. The ag sector is as competitive as it can be and still achieve the level of technology and production needed for production ag. The seed and chemical business is fucking competitive. The reps all pretty much play nice when you get them all in a room, but each one of the companies that you listed in addition to a plethora of generics are all seeking to steal each others business.

Ok so after some sleep I read more into this and holy **** - the left can't help but find a way to **** everything up! So with this ruling, if a seed falls on the ground and a plant grows, you either pay for that "duplicate / genetic copy" or kill the plant?!?

Two words.... **** THAT!

If Monsanto wants to spend the money to make these genetically altered seeds, then they should do so for their own benefit alone - if they sell it, it is out of their hands. WTF is next? Someone will own the rights to "genetic copies" of your family dogs? Children?

Stupid shit is stupid - go figure Kagan ruled on this... Her short-sightedness ( or wanton destruction ) knows no bounds.

That's not what happened. He went the elevator, knowing most guys plant RR seed. He then planted the seed. He signed a contract with whomever he bought the first seed from saying he wouldn't do exactly this. He planted heavy to account for any loss from seed that wasn't RR. Then after spraying roundup and weeding out any non-RR seed had his seed stock for the next 8 MOTHERFUCKING YEARS.

This isn't some accident. He purposely illegally sought, grew, and kept seedstock. That's illegal as fuck. And it shouldn't be just Monsanto. This cocksucker should pay any seed company that sold RR seed in the county, their genetics could have possibly be in what he kept back.

And yes, BTW, if you spill seed at harvest and it germs, you should kill it. It isn't being a prick, it's being a good farmer. The point at which it is volunteer germination it's a weed.

Brock
05-17-2013, 03:39 PM
It's called setting a precedence, dumbass. And a really fucked up one at that, like the example I lead off with - that's the possible consequence of this ruling, that Kagan had to be wetting herself to get to deliver / write. Does that spell everything out enough for you, or do you need an adult to hold your hand while explaining it to you with crayon drawn pictures?

ROFL dumbass

Xanathol
05-17-2013, 05:06 PM
ROFL dumbass
If a dumbass calls someone a dumbass, isn't that a double negative?