So the seed thing is like slavery, you buy slaves, then due to that ownership, you also own all the children, grandchildren, etc they ever have?
Or a dog/cat and it's offspring?
Nope, not like slavery. The analogy doesn't match up in many ways. Forget the analogy, it's this: Monsanto put in research to develop something that is of value. They own that technology.
PS on analogies & comparisons: I'm a person that used to use analogies often in discussions to make my point. I found though that they almost always add more confusion than clarity. The reason is the example almost never has all the same factors. I finally figured out that analogies can be very useful when you are simply trying to explain something to someone -- if there is nothing in dispute. Like if I try to explain computer processing power to a mechanic using car engine RPMs. But as a way of making or defending a point they almost always suck.
Patenting of an organism should be illegal. you want to invest in GMO research, find a different business model for return on your investment other than patent laws.
reverse their patents and as the old saying goes, "tough shit".
I know it will never happen but I have no leniency or compassion for Monsanto or the "fruits of their labor"
I have made the argument on here many times that GMO crops save lives by increasing crop output by up to 60%. Perhaps not so much here in the US but in other countries where food is scarce, GMO saves lives. there is good and bad to them.
Again, I hear you and agree. We agree that GMOs have some benefits. We agree that patenting of organisms is a dicey situation and we'ld rather not have it. We agree that finding a different business model would be better. And (I think) we agree that companies aren't going to invenst millions in research unless they have some hope of getting a return. So what is the solution? What business model will work that doesn't involve patents?? ~ I am NOT asking as if an answer doesn't exist. I just don't know what it is....
point 1) BS...companies innovate because they want to, not because there is some external incentive. A good innovation is helpful to them and their customers, not in need of a monopoly
2) They ARE entitled to profit from their tampering with our world...so they do. Just keep their pollen out of the rest of the world (try innovating plants that will only pollenate other GMO plants...then you can protect your patent (as screwed up as it is)
Point 1 is NOT BS. Companies will only spend the money to innovate if there is a chance to reap rewards (profit). Their innovations are not "helpful" to the company if they can't sell them and the people using the innovation are only "customers" if they are paying for the product.
Point 2: I totally agree that when their modified product pollinates a non GMO crop, that's Monsanto's problem. In fact, they should be able to be sued (and lose) cases where they messed up someone else's crops. BUT, that is not the issue here. It's the issue in other law suits...but THIS is not a case of Monsanto seed pollinating non-Monsanto seed.
Did not read all of this but if it's about farmers reusing a patented seed without permission or compensation to the patent owner, then they are in the wrong.
Souls have been sold to the devil - now they're paying the price.
There has got to be an agricultural revolution--a rebellion to reclaim natural seed
problem started with Diamond vs Chackrabarty.
It is about a farmer using patented seed without permission. I'm unclear when you say "then they are in the wrong" do you mean the farmer or Monsanto? If Monsanto...why are they in the wrong?