41–50 of 66 posts
The most ludicrous part of all of this is that you can patent biology.
This isn't natural biology... it's engineered biology. That's a big difference.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The court record strongly suggests that farmers can acquire Monsanto seeds and treat them like normal crops; I've looked for cases where Monsanto sued someone that hadn't allegedly sprayed Roundup on their crops and came up blank (but would welcome a counterexample).
Does the supreme court ruling care whether Roundup was used? All I saw was that "copying" the seeds was not allowed, because they are patented.
I am aware though not fully acquainted with the concerns about "food security" in developing nations that led to the moratorium, but at least in developed nations, why favor the legal tactic of signing contracts that forbid replanting over the technological solution? They seem to accomplish the same end, after all. It also seems prudent, from an ecological perspective, to ensure that genetically modified plants cannot accidentally spread into the wild.
I cannot help but suspect at some level that the widespread fear of this technology is the result of successful scaremongering based on its unfortunate moniker ("terminator" or "suicide" seeds); it would be reassuring to learn of better reasons for the ban.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_techno...
I'm concerned that one of the only companies working on the efficiency of food production has such bad PR. Is there anyone else inventing innovative crop technologies like Monsanto? For the future of the human species, I hope the anti-corporation types don't gather enough power to drive them into the ground before capable competitors pop up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Hi-Bred
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syngenta
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#Bayer_CropScience
(Call that a sampling, I didn't try to do an exhaustive search)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't natural biology... it's engineered biology. That's a big difference.
Then they should engineer it to be seedless too so they don't have this problem. I really can't believe we're living in a society where a corporation can successfully use the courts to make natural reproduction illegal.
These beans wouldn't naturally exist if it weren't for Monsanto. It would be extremely difficult to produce a soy bean that didn't produce seeds... since that's the bean part.
This is very different from the Myriad BRCA1 patent where they patented a naturally occurring mutation in humans. In Monsanto's case, they actually produced something that was novel - an herbicide resistant soy bean.
It seems to me that this whole legal struggle would have been unnecessary if Monsanto had not been pressured into abandoning genetic use restriction technology [1], aka "terminator genes". I am aware though not fully acquainted with the concerns about "food security" in developing nations that led to the moratorium, but at least in developed nations, why favor the legal tactic of signing contracts that forbid replant…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you kidding? There have been a number of studies on hive collapse, organ failure and other problems that appear to implicate Monsanto that have been widely discussed on HN. To be clear I'm not saying that any one of these studies absolutely conclusively points a finger of blame on Monsanto - I'm saying that there is enough suspicion of harm that saying we hate them just because they are incorporated is an even mo…
This is the very definition of FUD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the very definition of FUD.
And if they weren't such aggressive lobbyists, I would agree with you. My original point was that they are much more deserving of close scrutiny at this point than any YC-backed company. Do you dispute that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ruling punted the issue of blown seeds, it was specific to this case - that the farmer knew and exploited a loophole to get 2nd gen crops while still agreeing not to. Now, I disagree with the decision, but only on ideological grounds. From a rights standpoint, this ruling won't really answer the question of the canadian farmer and wind-blown Monsanto seeds.
Why would they comment on a case that not only is not in front of them, but in another country?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What "unprecedented harm" are you referring to here?
Are you kidding? There have been a number of studies on hive collapse, organ failure and other problems that appear to implicate Monsanto that have been widely discussed on HN. To be clear I'm not saying that any one of these studies absolutely conclusively points a finger of blame on Monsanto - I'm saying that there is enough suspicion of harm that saying we hate them just because they are incorporated is an even mo…