Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

readersupportednews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 225 posts

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#101

Post by sp332 »

pessimizer wrote: post #94
CWuestefeld wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes. If you knew someone was trying to bring a legal case against you, wouldn't you research them and keep an eye on them? It would be irresponsible not to.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#102

Post by omonra »

Maxious wrote: post #81
colanderman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm thick, but I don't see what Dow has to do with Monsanto or this story?

"[Agent Orange] was manufactured for the U.S. Department of Defense primarily by Monsanto Corporation and Dow Chemical."

And what does THAT have to do with THIS story?

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#103

Post by planetguy »

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.

Because if Monsanto wins then the farmer is guilty, and I'm not interested in condemning Monsanto for suing in cases where they've actually been legally wronged.

(If you wanna debate whether the law should be different then that's another argument.)

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#104

Post by cdcox »

[deleted] wrote: post #71

[deleted]

As to your first argument, I don't think it's quite the same. This is like saying that when I buy a song I can freely resell it. Farmers aren't buying the crops and using it for personal use and giving it to friends for personal use. They are buying it and selling it on the open market.

If I personally went and bought Monsanto seed and used it for my own plants the I ate/gave away and gave it to friends who all used it for personal use, Monsanto would be hard pressed to stop me/they probably wouldn't bother.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#105

Post by JPKab »

skosuri wrote: post #35
wheaties wrote: post #5

Good for them. I've never met a company that could sue you because a honey bee or some other naturally event that has been occurring for hundreds of years happened. To that I'm referring to Monsato's practice of suing farmers who haven't used their seed variety having their fields cross pollinated with another farmer's fields who is using Monato's seed products. Really?! Ugh.

No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Read the case. He knowingly planted Roundup Ready plants across his whole field. Alternatively, find a case for what you say happened happening before you assume it to be true.

Thanks to the work of an anonymous user researching who you work for at Harvard, you have been revealed to work at a lab which receives funding from Monsanto. I'm not saying this discredits you, but you should state this up front.

I have sympathy for geneticists who have to deal with the anti-GM knee jerk reactionaries, but Monsanto tramples on constitutional rights of small farmers who don't have the legal resources to defend themselves. The fact that many of these farmers are guilty of stealing IP doesn't change this fact.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#106

Post by Symmetry »

protomyth wrote: post #49
skosuri wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Read the case. He knowingly planted Roundup Ready plants across his whole field. Alternatively, find a case for what you say happened happening before you assume it to be true.

You might want to read the actual findings, they put patent law above rights of property holder. Not knowing might have mitigated the damages, but it would have not stopped the lawsuit.

Of course they did, the whole point of patent law is that it restricts what you can do with your own property. I think it would be nice if ignorance was an excuse in patent cases, but the fact that it isn't is a big part of why our current patent system is so toxic in general, especially in software.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#107

Post by planetguy »

jackalope wrote: post #79
skosuri wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is his claim. It doesn't make much sense. Why would he spray his entire crop with roundup? Even if it were true, he still knowingly was getting RoundUp Ready seeds to avoid paying Monsanto. That's somewhat like saying: "I found this copy of adobe photoshop on this used computer.. I copied it and sold it; since i didn't originally purchase it, I'm not responsible." A quote from the Canadian Supreme Court: "Mr. Sc…

If your bulls raid my pasture and attack and rape my cows, I might shoot them and even have a barbecue. There's no reason I can't raise the calves as my own. Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader?

Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader?

Analogy: someone accidentally drops a backpack containing DVDs in my front yard. Am I now licensed to make and sell copies of the content on those DVDs?

Anyway, your argument is with the Canadian Supreme Court, not with Monsanto.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#108

Post by DrJ »

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.

it sets a legal precedent. This is why companies love to settle out of court and to not admit any wrong doings. This is how finance companies are investigated by the SEC, pays a settlement, declares nothing wrong was done and continues on with the practice that got them investigated in the first place.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#109

Post by jlgreco »

peterwwillis wrote: post #97
CWuestefeld wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 funct…

I don't disagree with the intent of your comment, but I think you are arguing your point in a poor fashion. Even if guns were only ever used for target practice, you would still see excessively designed guns. Just like, and for the same reasons as, you see excessively designed cars; people find them fun.

I know a guy who hunts with an AR-15. Is that necessary in any way? No, I don't expect so. He seems to enjoy it though.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#110

Post by rokhayakebe »

peterwwillis wrote: post #84
ramchip wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like someone selling a case of bullets while knowing that the buyer will use it to kill someone . I can't say if it's legal or not, but it's certainly not very ethical.

This has got to be the most naive statement i've ever read on the internet. First of all, it's not illegal to sell arms to your own government's military, and the whole point of the military buying them is to kill people with. (Sorry, "defend our freedom") Second, products aren't manufactured just for fun. They're made so someone can buy them and use them. The market's demands are the reason the product exists. So if…

This has got to be the most naive statement i've ever read on the internet.

If so then you are certainly on a different internet. His statement is very valid or logical. He never said DOW was responsible, but they were acted unethically. Someone could write a computer virus that would wipe out the US government dataset for $1B then proceed to say "I was paid for it, I should not go to jail because I did not click START." They would be right, but they would also rank high on the list of most unethical individuals.

Post reply on HN