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

131–140 of 225 posts

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#131

Post by goostavos »

jlgreco wrote: post #76
crikli wrote: post #29

The claims made in this article, Food Inc., and other pieces of agitprop are not based in reality. I'm part of a fifth generation farm family. We've been working the same ground for over 100 years (that's sustainability in practice) and I'm here to tell you that nobody is killing themselves. Especially with $6 corn. Monsanto is not the enemy of the family farm. I'll elaborate when I have more time and a device other…

Why do everyone keep on insisting that people who hate Monsanto must have watched some movie? Monsanto has bugged the hell out of me for years and I've never even heard of that movie.

Well, the movie was fairly popular, and did raise a lot of awareness for people not directly involved in the farming or GM production dialogues.

That, or because it's easier to dismiss someone's argument by discrediting their words.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#133

Post by tptacek »

jaysonelliot wrote: post #57
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.

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…

He didn't just plant Roundup-ready seeds. He took advantage of the fact that they were Roundup-ready.

The way Roundup works is, the seeds confer resistance in crops to an herbicide. The herbicide is easily obtainable and cheap; the only thing interesting about it is that if you plant special Roundup-ready seeds, you can easily use it to kill weeds without killing crops.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#134

Post by protomyth »

Symmetry wrote: post #106
protomyth wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think the idea that someone can pollute your property and then charge you for it is a grievous violation of property rights. It is not the patent I object to, it is the idea that a polluter can "corrupt" my crop and then charge me for it.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#135

Post by tptacek »

JamisonM wrote: post #113
jlgreco wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think winning is considered important because of the mistaken presumption that this has some bearing on how Monsanto is conducting itself or the guilt or innocence of the farmers involved. The unfortunate truth is that Monsanto will probably never lose such a case, they will settle or drop a case that they think they have any chance of losing. The legal system in most of the world is such that just threats and inti…

Ok, then a good starting point would be citations of cases that Monsanto brought against farmers and then dropped. You'd think farmers would make a lot of noise about those, but either way, those cases should be discoverable.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#136

Post by Create »

JPKab wrote: post #126
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…

Krugman's science is economics. Economics is pretty much the pinnacle of politics intersecting with science. His view on the science is that the Keynesian model is correct, and he sees an entire political party which has embraced the Austrian model which most economists disagree with. This is why he writes passionately in support of government spending during times of recession/depression. He argues, correctly in my…

You being are mislead. It is pseudoscience.

http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks...

http://www.youtu.be/HtMX_0jDsrw

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#137

Post by CWuestefeld »

JPKab wrote: post #126
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…

Krugman's science is economics. Economics is pretty much the pinnacle of politics intersecting with science. His view on the science is that the Keynesian model is correct, and he sees an entire political party which has embraced the Austrian model which most economists disagree with. This is why he writes passionately in support of government spending during times of recession/depression. He argues, correctly in my…

I don't disagree with the essentials of what you said, and in fact Krugman himself sits pretty near the peak of economics, but...

1. Krugman-cum-commentator occasionally contradicts Krugman-cum-economist. For example, [1]

2. Krugman falls into the same trap as most economic commentators, in assuming that one side of the Keynes/Hayek divide has been proven right (which side depends on the commentator in question), refusing to acknowledge the lack of predictive success that the entire spectrum of macroeconomics suffers from. The truth of the matter is that neither side should consider the debate won, since both haven't achieved the scientific holy grail: to be able to reliably predict what will happen, given the inputs. And since this is the case, they ought to be a little more humble in their assertions.

3. The role of economics is to help us understand choices. It cannot tell us what choices are correct, only how they compare. Making policy requires that we overlay some value system to weigh those choices. Yet Krugman (and others) continue to overlook this part of it, and simply assuming the values, acting as if policy follows directly.

4. It's false that the GOP has embraced the Austrian model. Both the GOP and DEM are corporatist, and love regulation -- just of somewhat different sorts. Despite their rhetoric, except at the fringes, the GOP does not actually follow Austrian, Chicago, or any free-market ideology.

[1] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/01/kru...

EDIT: full disclosure: I'm frequently guilty of #2 myself.

EDIT 2: change "frequently" to "occasionally"; don't want to be too hyperbolic.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#138

Post by bostonpete »

nsxwolf wrote: post #92
peterwwillis wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Zombies are roughly the same form too.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#139

Post by neutronicus »

darkarmani wrote: post #120
brazzy wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good argument against the patentability of genetically modified plants, but not against the validity of the case given that GM plants currently ARE patentable.

And here is the problem. If i dust your crops with my patented pollen, you are now in violation of my IP rights. How does that make any sense?

Their argument seems to be that I have to make an effort to isolate the descendants of your strain to be in violation of your IP rights. They're not talking about the situation where I let your strain mingle with mine and take no other action.

Re: 5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion

#140

Post by jlgreco »

planetguy wrote: post #107
jackalope wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not so sure why people are trying to make analogies between copyright law pertaining to software and patent law pertaining to genetic material. All of these analogies seem so strained that they lose all their power.
Post reply on HN