Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

rt.com

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#61
post #60
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking up someone's phone that they left at a bar and doing a teardown on it is theft. Not in a "I think this is equivalent to theft" sense; it is theft in the legal "you can be charged with theft for doing it" sense. I know this because I know this is what happened to Gawker. It is illegal to take things that other people use and appropriate them for yourself. If someone finds your phone on the street, they need to…

You can find similar laws in many states. Here is Florida's: 705.102 Reporting lost or abandoned property.— (1) Whenever any person finds any lost or abandoned property, such person shall report the description and location of the property to a law enforcement officer. ... (3) It is unlawful for any person who finds any lost or abandoned property to appropriate the same to his or her own use or to refuse to deliver t…

Thank you, that's interesting and leads to this from the wiki (corresponding to English common law, I think.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost,_mislaid,_and_abandoned_pr...

"The rights of a finder of such property are determined in part by the status in which it is found. Because these classifications have developed under the ancient and often archaic common law of England, they turn on nuanced distinctions. The general rule attaching to the three types of property may be summarized as: A finder of property acquires no rights in mislaid property, is entitled to possession of lost property against everyone except the true owner, and is entitled to keep abandoned property.[1] This rule varies by jurisdiction"

At any rate, it basically seems to boil down to what I've said, which is that unless there is a specific law in your area stating otherwise, if you lose property, you lost it, and while it may be unethical to not report it, it's generally not illegal.

Should it be? In general I'd say no, because off the top of my head, it seems the costs outweigh the benefits. And then we come to how that impacts Monsanto.

I'd say if Monsanto can't keep it's seeds out of a silo, that's Monsanto's problem and not one that needs government intervention, which is likely to be massive and onerous to other interests. It's the nature of seeds.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#62
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look I'm no proponent of Monsanto, but they do have a point here. Roundup will kill all non-monsanto plants; they change the formula every year to make sure that you have to keep buying seeds. In this case, the farmer grabbed a ton of seeds, sprayed everything with roundup and kept only the seeds which survived; the seeds he knew to be from Monsanto. I don't like the idea that Monsanto can go to your farm and throw s…

Oh I'm sure I am probably in the legal wrong. I think that if cable companies broadcast encrypted signals in through my house, I should legally be able to decrypt them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.) I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is cu…

I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.)

No, I don't think that should be legal. Many places have data protection & privacy laws. If you get access to private information, you can't do what you want with it. I'm fine with that being the law and ethics.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#63
More background on Monsanto:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...

Those who concentrate on questions of narrow legality with respect to this organization are missing the forest for the trees. We have observed this system long enough to know what it does. The reason this system employs an army of lawyers and private investigators against the town of Pilot Grove (literally, the henchmen outnumber the population of the town!) is not because it seeks justice in fair proceedings. They kill the chicken to frighten the monkeys. It doesn't actually matter what a particular farmer has done when the Monsanto Man starts snooping around. The Beast must be fed, and until all American farmland is under the control of a single corporate operator that transfers all profits directly to Monsanto, the Beast will be on the hunt.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#64
post #62
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I'm sure I am probably in the legal wrong. I think that if cable companies broadcast encrypted signals in through my house, I should legally be able to decrypt them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.) I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is cu…

I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.) No, I don't think that should be legal. Many places have data protection & privacy laws. If you get access to private information, you can't do what you want with it. I'm fine with that being the law…

I think the airwaves are the public's airwaves. If you broadcast unencrypted information through them, Joe Average Public should not get in trouble for listening to them. But I'll go further to. I think my living room is mine. If you send your encrypted information through it, I should be able to listen to it.

I was born. I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. Things that I can witness and observe in the privacy of my own home should be none of yours or anyone else's business.

If that makes it hard for certain business models, I'm okay with that because the country is intended for the use of its citizens, not its corporations.

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#65
post #64
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that if I find a scanner for cell phone conversations and find cell phone conversations that are unencrypted, I should legally be able to listen to them. (But I am pretty sure it is currently illegal to do that.) No, I don't think that should be legal. Many places have data protection & privacy laws. If you get access to private information, you can't do what you want with it. I'm fine with that being the law…

I think the airwaves are the public's airwaves. If you broadcast unencrypted information through them, Joe Average Public should not get in trouble for listening to them. But I'll go further to. I think my living room is mine. If you send your encrypted information through it, I should be able to listen to it. I was born. I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. Things that I can witness and observe…

I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement.

That is not how laws work. You consent is not required.

(Fun fact: There is some people who think that consent is required (and can be withdrawn) for laws to apply to them. It's called "freemen-on-the-land". It's like homeopathy but for laws. It's quite funny)

Re: Monsanto wins landmark patent case in Supreme Court

#66
post #65
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the airwaves are the public's airwaves. If you broadcast unencrypted information through them, Joe Average Public should not get in trouble for listening to them. But I'll go further to. I think my living room is mine. If you send your encrypted information through it, I should be able to listen to it. I was born. I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. Things that I can witness and observe…

I didn't sign any data protection & privacy law agreement. That is not how laws work. You consent is not required. (Fun fact: There is some people who think that consent is required (and can be withdrawn) for laws to apply to them. It's called "freemen-on-the-land". It's like homeopathy but for laws. It's quite funny)

I think you're missing the point.

Broadcasting your radio signals unencrypted means there is no privacy. Making a law saying that it is private is like making a law the sun should come up at 5am. The sun will do what it wants and the communication will be overheard.

If you broadcast signals that are encrypted, but that I can intercept without any kind of physical tampering or alteration or destruction of the signal, again laws are of no help to anyone. The communication will be decrypted and overheard.

It's better to make laws that conform to reality than to make laws that tilt at windmills and are used arbitrarily against citizens.

Post reply on HN