@cornfed40: I would think anybody who has to deal with any aspects of patents as a whole would realize that the patent system, copyrights, and trademarks in their current incarnations are a broken system. As you said, the patent is essentially indefinite. One shouldn't blame Monsanto for doing the best thing for their own well being nor should anyone blame plants for having different DNA strands. If a system is in place that doesn't properly define the rules necessary to follow the goal of the system, then the system is broken and needs fixed. One could argue that it's the patent systems as much as anything tangible that are the root of a lot of the world's problems. Like you said, Monsanto shouldn't still have a patent on those soybeans but because of loopholes they still do. Because Big Pharma has all these different patents that essentially work the same way that Monsanto does, we see astronomical problems in the health industry because of it. I mean two of the world's biggest problems are food and medicine and when those are essentially monopolized through patents, to me it's one of the biggest issues even possible. That's not even getting into the positive changes that would have across the board in the healthcare system and honestly would make a huge step toward fixing a lot of the US' problems and most nations facing this issue.
I disagree that the patent system as a whole is broken. The plant variety patent system, however, I agree very clearly is. Copyrights are basically useless. Ive got no problem whatsoever with the trademark system. If people really believe that the pharmaceutical industry would be better off without patents at all though, they are barking loudly up the wrong tree. Fact of the matter is, people are not going to put in the effort/ money required to develop life changing medicines and treatment methods if there is no way to make money off of it. Not saying profit is EVERYones ultimate goal, but without it, there is no innovation
By that manner of thinking, protection rackets are also "just good business". "Nice farm you got there, would be bad if something happened to it..., like a bunch of highly aggressive weedkiller that happens to be blown over it. Also do you need bees to pollinate your crops? We've noticed all the bees are dead since we've started using our pesticides. Luckily we don't require bees!"
Kind of apples to oranges comparison there. Comparing what a business does fully in line with the laws of the country they operate in to mafia strong arm tactics? Are you actually implying that Monsanto sprays random fields of crops with Roundup to force them to buy their products?
Imo, if a company defends its actions with 'what we do is fully in line with the law', that usually means they are being scumbags exploiting loopholes in the laws and going against the spirit of those laws. From an ethical point of view, I don't really see the difference between threatening someone with lawsuits they can't afford or with straight up violence.
And it wouldn't surprise me if Monsanto-owned use Roundup quite liberally when there are other farms in the area that don't buy from them. Wind will take care of the rest. Killing of insect life in the area is definitely a nice side effect, since bees don't tend to stop at fences.
In some cases, yes. But Monsanto has spent millions (billions in some cases) to develop their technology, and they have (and should) pursued patents to protect that technology. When people try to take advantage of their innovations, they are going to get threatened. Don't rip someone off, and you don't get sued. There's no loophole there to exploit. The problem with the system as I see it isn't the patent system as a whole, but the existence of plant variety patents. You should be able to patent your invention of a gene which makes your seeds resistant to a certain pesticide. The problem is, they can also patent each and every variety of seed they develop, which may contain that same gene. In Monsanto's case, their original patent for the Roundup resistant soybean expired recently. That doesn't matter though, because though the gene that provides this may no longer be under patent, the actually seed itself still is. This is a system that can be exploited, and basically prolong a patent's lifespan indefinitely, which is certainly against the spirit of the laws and exploitative. Also, its easy for people to paint Monsanto as the "big bad" because they are the name that's out there, but the smaller seed companies (who are the ones actually selling the Monsanto seeds to farmers) share a large portion of the blame too. Many of these variety patents aren't solely owned by Monsanto at all, but by the seed companies who have been given permission to use Monsanto genetic innovations by way of a license. Because the seed companies are afraid to cross Monsanto and lose their ability to do this, they are the ones that make farmer's lives hell for saving or replanting seeds and attempting to profit from the harvest after the one-time use license that buying the seeds provides has expired following the first planting.
Also, Monsanto isn't the ones spraying fields with roundup, the farmers who have purchased the chemicals are. Operator error isn't the fault of the manufacturer. I'm sure there are people out there who would claim Monsanto is providing incentives to overspray their chemicals or some such shit, but I don't have time for conspiracies without any kind of evidence whatsoever.
Look, I'm not trying to defend every single one of a hated company's practices here. Monsanto are selfish assholes, plain and simple. Just backing up Jeff's point that a lot of the "I hate all GMOs and the people who make them are evil," crap is in many cases nonsense propagated by those that are going to be mad at anyone who is good at making money. It can seem unfair and one sided, but it isn't evil. My point is that the system is there, the processes are easy to understand, and with the right people involved and the right money, someone or something can overtake Monsanto. But they are good at what they do, and I certainly wouldn't accuse them of "trying to make a monopoly," just by being better than everyone else at what they do.
@tomba_be: Oh, they sue the SHIT out of people (or at least threaten too). I can speak from the pile of Cease and Desist letters sitting on my desk to vouch for that.
Monsanto is indeed the largest company selling genetically modified seeds. Farmers are only allowed to use them once per season. So if they buy those seeds once, they are pretty much stuck with it because the usual workflow of saving some seeds for next year is no longer possible. Monsanto also tends to buy farms in areas that don't buy their seeds, so after a few years other farms also have some of the modified plants through normal pollination. Then they sue the other farms for infringing on Monsanto's copyrighted seeds, giving them the choice between bankruptcy by lawyer fees or becoming a customer. They also make the weedkiller Round Up that is thought to be responsible for the decay of the honey bee population. Monsanto is pretty much the largest reason people hate GM crops. Even if you don't have an issue with modifying the DNA of plants for better growth, disease resistance,... there is a huge issue with one company trying to monopolize the availability of crop seeds.
The seed varieties are patented, not copyrighted. I wouldn't say that Monsanto isnt necessarily trying to monopolize anything, they are just a well run business within the capitalist system. At a certain time, its less "screw them they are evil" and more "well, why don't we do what they do but better?" Monsanto makes Roundup, which is an incredibly effective pesticide. Then, they patent seed varieties that are resistance to the damage that Roundup could cause to the plants. So they make the poison, and also the things which can resist the poison. Just good business. The makers of the best thing are going to control the market, so why should they stop? Sure they are pretty huge assholes when it comes to litigation, but they really need to be. Have to protect your investment
By that manner of thinking, protection rackets are also "just good business". "Nice farm you got there, would be bad if something happened to it..., like a bunch of highly aggressive weedkiller that happens to be blown over it. Also do you need bees to pollinate your crops? We've noticed all the bees are dead since we've started using our pesticides. Luckily we don't require bees!"
Kind of apples to oranges comparison there. Comparing what a business does fully in line with the laws of the country they operate in to mafia strong arm tactics? Are you actually implying that Monsanto sprays random fields of crops with Roundup to force them to buy their products?
@dstopia: Couldn't agree more with any of what you said. Sorry, I work at a patent law firm, so when the subject comes up it kind of triggers me hahaha. And also, the past two months I've had to be on the phone almost daily with either Monsanto representatives of seed companies that license their varieties so its a topic that pisses me off at work enough that it bleeds into normal life (is a videogames website normal life now?!?!?! what have I become?)
@dstopia: I think in any other field than farming (i.e. food production), Monsanto wouldn't get nearly as much shit as they do. Its a very well run business. But because food production is such a vital need for literally every single human being alive, it does come off as "evil businessman hates everyone." I'm no scientist, but people are going to look for the cheapest possible way to do everything possible. If Monsanto didn't enforce their trait and variety patents so strictly, they would sell one load of seeds one season to every farmer, and then never make a dime off of it again. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of the existence of plant variety patents for the exact reason that food IS such a crucial need for the entire world, but they exist, and someone else other than Monsanto needs to get off their asses and come up with another solution or nothings going to change. Even when that better solution is found, whoever comes up with it will just cover it with the same patents Monsanto has used and its going to be exactly the same.
Monsanto is indeed the largest company selling genetically modified seeds. Farmers are only allowed to use them once per season. So if they buy those seeds once, they are pretty much stuck with it because the usual workflow of saving some seeds for next year is no longer possible. Monsanto also tends to buy farms in areas that don't buy their seeds, so after a few years other farms also have some of the modified plants through normal pollination. Then they sue the other farms for infringing on Monsanto's copyrighted seeds, giving them the choice between bankruptcy by lawyer fees or becoming a customer. They also make the weedkiller Round Up that is thought to be responsible for the decay of the honey bee population. Monsanto is pretty much the largest reason people hate GM crops. Even if you don't have an issue with modifying the DNA of plants for better growth, disease resistance,... there is a huge issue with one company trying to monopolize the availability of crop seeds.
The seed varieties are patented, not copyrighted. I wouldn't say that Monsanto isnt necessarily trying to monopolize anything, they are just a well run business within the capitalist system. At a certain time, its less "screw them they are evil" and more "well, why don't we do what they do but better?" Monsanto makes Roundup, which is an incredibly effective pesticide. Then, they patent seed varieties that are resistance to the damage that Roundup could cause to the plants. So they make the poison, and also the things which can resist the poison. Just good business. The makers of the best thing are going to control the market, so why should they stop? Sure they are pretty huge assholes when it comes to litigation, but they really need to be. Have to protect your investment
cornfed40's comments