5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion • Hacker News Board

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#91

Post by jlgreco » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:42 PM UTC

vecinu wrote: post #87

jaysonelliot wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) d…

I don't necessarily agree with your stance because you still haven't materialized official court cases dealing with this issue. I would like to see a case where Monsanto was sued for seed contamination and the farmer won the case.

Why is them winning important?

EDIT: Sorry, read that as "where Monsanto sued and won the case" I expect you won't find many cases where Monsanto was sued and lost, since they would be extremely inclined to settle and it would be hard for a farmer to turn down the sort of money that Monsanto has available to it.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#92

Post by nsxwolf » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:44 PM UTC

peterwwillis wrote: post #86

colanderman wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guns aren't made or sold with specific intent to kill people. So handguns and machine guns are manufactured for deer hunters?

You know, i've always wondered why some targets for target practice show a humanoid form... y'know, if people aren't practicing to shoot other people. Maybe they were trying to paint a deer and got confused.

Avid shooter here. Yes, those humanoid targets are made for practicing the shooting of humans. That should not be controversial. Some humans are a threat and occasionally it is required that you shoot them.

Shooting innocent humans is bad.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#93

Post by cschmidt » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:46 PM UTC

Create wrote: post #31

"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement." Dow provide…

What on earth does this have to do with the original post? I don't think propaganda from Noam Chomsky has any place on HN. I don't agree with a single sentence. The original post seemed very biased in an anti-business way, and this is even worse.

Dow made Agent Orange at the request of the US military decades ago. Are they supposed to be considered evil because of that? Union Carbide clearly screwed up in a huge way over Bhopal, but they settled with the Indian government, and tied up all liability before they were acquired. If you disagree with me, take it somewhere besides HN.

Disclosure: I grew up in Midland, MI, headquarters of Dow, and much of my family worked there.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#94

Post by pessimizer » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:52 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #80

Create wrote: post #31

"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner sponsoring the Olympic Movement." Dow provide…

Wikileaks revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to monitor activists seeking compensation This is the kind of inflammatory reporting that creates divisiveness rather than informing people. I don't doubt that Dow hired Stratfor. But isn't that exactly what a responsible corporation ought to do? Knowing that they've got some potential exposure to huge legal losses, they owe it to their…

I don't understand your objection. Are you complaining that mentioning that Dow hired a private intelligence agency to monitor people expressing grievances makes Dow sound evil because most corporations would (or even should if they are "responsible") do the same, so it's not a particularly evil act amongst corporations?

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#95

Post by throwaway8675 » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:54 PM UTC

skosuri wrote: post #62

jaysonelliot wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's rather presumptive to assume that wheaties is talking about the case you just pulled from Wikipedia. It only took one Google search to find a case describing exactly what wheaties described: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html The Runyons say they signed no agreements, and if they were contaminated with the genetically modified seed, it blew over from a neighboring farm. "Pollination occurs, win…

I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the case (which I believe does not exist). You showed me a news article. Otherwise this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies and is suing Monsanto, and is not really an unbiased source (just like I don't link directly to Monsanto's website on the Runyons.)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to disclose that you work for George Church's lab, and that George Church is a Monsanto Life Sciences Research Fellow.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#96

Post by option_greek » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:55 PM UTC

latch wrote: post #8

This may be naive, but why isn't the market protecting farmers? Are subsidies involved? Why don't they just use normal seeds or other seeds? Weren't these limitations known ahead of time? Why did the farmers make a deal with the devil? Why can't they switch back?

It's a poisonous loop. Initially the yields will be high with seeds of Monsanto because what ever modification done will be effective. This results in depression of prices and farmers have to compete on volume to make decent profits. Since normal seeds can't do that, all farmers are forced to use GM seeds. Once majority of farmers shift to GM seeds, farmers go back to earning the same profit while paying extra for monsanto. And more importantly, if they lose the crop for any reason (very common in India due to droughts/floods), they will go underwater and might even lose their land on which they take loans every year. This leads to suicides. This is exactly what happened with BT cotton which is one of the reasons why Indian govt blocked BT brinjal.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#97

Post by peterwwillis » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:57 PM UTC

CWuestefeld wrote: post #89

colanderman wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

guns aren't made or sold with specific intent to kill people. So handguns and machine guns are manufactured for deer hunters?

I own a handgun, given to me as a hand-me-down, that was originally used for small game hunting.

This is reeeeeeeally missing the point. The conversation was about (apparently) the ethics of selling a product which is known to be used a majority of the time for the aim of killing a thing (whether that be deer or human, is up to the owner of the gun/bullet). This should not be a controversial statement.

Before someone says "oh but you can use it for target shooting and/or sport!", there is nothing about the function of a gun and bullet which suggests it is intended for (for example) target shooting, since you don't need something as incredibly powerful as your average gun or bullet to shoot a target. Not to mention the wide variety and increase of both power and rate of fire of different weapons... these things are designed for war, basically. An AK-47 is an incredibly reliable and impressive weapon, and unless you are the worst hunter in the entire world, would never need such a weapon for hunting. It's like a bow and arrow with a grenade on the end.

And let me go even further: bows and arrows are intended to kill things as well. It's harder to kill something with it, but that's what they were invented for, and that's what you're practicing for on the range. But I don't hear many people screaming about boycotting bow and arrow manufacturers/salespeople. The fact that it takes skill to kill with one killing instrument while a child can kill with another, does not take away from their intended purpose, nor the fact that the market for the thing is why they exist to begin with.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#98

Post by planetguy » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:58 PM UTC

huxley wrote: post #32

stevoski wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If their seeds blow from a customer's farm to a non customer's farm and the non customer doesn't actively try to remove the Monsanto seeds, they sue" Got a source for that claim? There's an article on huffington post which conflicts with the claim: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/monsanto-lawsuit-or...

Not sure about the US but it's possible he's referring to Monsanto vs Schmeiser, a Canadian case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... In that case, Schmeiser's field was contaminated by his neighbour's field which was planted with Roundup resistant Canola seed. "... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number…

Right, so it's not that they'll sue you if their seeds blow onto your property, it's that they'll sue you if their seeds blow onto your property, you harvest, separate and and save the seeds from the plants that grow, then you plant 'em.

I'm still not sure that counts as infringement, but hey, who am I to disagree with a Canadian court's interpretation of Canadian law?

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#99

Post by chc » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:58 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #91

vecinu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't necessarily agree with your stance because you still haven't materialized official court cases dealing with this issue. I would like to see a case where Monsanto was sued for seed contamination and the farmer won the case.

Why is them winning important? EDIT: Sorry, read that as "where Monsanto sued and won the case" I expect you won't find many cases where Monsanto was sued and lost, since they would be extremely inclined to settle and it would be hard for a farmer to turn down the sort of money that Monsanto has available to it.

Well, it makes sense. A suit just means you claimed something; winning means you were right in somebody's eyes.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#100

Post by JPKab » Thu, Jun 07, 2012, 2:58 PM UTC

jaysonelliot wrote: post #69

skosuri wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the case (which I believe does not exist). You showed me a news article. Otherwise this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies and is suing Monsanto, and is not really an unbiased source (just like I don't link directly to Monsanto's website on the Runyons.)

I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) d…

It blows my mind that there are people on HN confusing opposition to the horrific practices that Monsanto uses with opposition to GM crops in general. I am a supporter of GM strains of crops, because I think they have proven environmental benefits. However, what Monsanto did to the seed cleaner is no different than blaming BitTorrent for piracy. The only difference is that BitTorrent sites actually have a somewhat possible way to determine copyrighted works from open works. The seed cleaner is being sued simply because his services are utilized by people trying to cheat Monsanto as well as those who are simply seeking to continue growing their heirloom strains. This isn't justice. This is simply a huge corporation with vast legal resources doing whatever is necessary to prevent theft of their IP rights, even if that involves trampling people that committed no crimes. It is cheaper for Monsanto to put every seed cleaner out of business than to go after the actual IP infringers. But it is not really legal, and only holds up in court because the seed cleaners can't afford to fight Monstanto's legal shield, and too few judges bother to inform themselves on the topic.