
Bayer to retire Monsanto name - fgeorgy
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-closing/bayer-to-close-monsanto-takeover-to-retire-targets-name-idUSKCN1J00IZ?il=0
======
mrleiter
This is a two-sided sword. Yes, Monsanto will disappear and that could be a
good thing. Like lastUsername said before: if they continue their work ethic,
then Bayer will become the new Monsanto.

Or as Shakespeare put it in Romeo and Juliet:

"’Tis but thy name that is my enemy: Thou art thyself, though not a Montague,
What’s Montague? It is not hand nor foot, Nor arm nor face. O be some other
name, belonging to a man! What’s in a name? That which we call a rose, By any
other word would smell as sweet."

~~~
nradov
Are you trying to imply that Monsanto is an "enemy"?

~~~
delingpole
No, the quote is saying that the name is irrelevant.

The OP is saying that Bayer will acquire the reputation of Monsanto because
the activities of Bayer will be the same as Monsanto.

~~~
Tobani
Oh the irony. The company that literally brought heroin to market, gets a bad
name from buying a company known for heavy-handed corporate litigation
practices.

To be clear I'm not trying to blame Bayer for the opioid epidemic. I just
think there's a joke in there

~~~
jowsie
Outside of the US heroin is still very much on the medical market. It's used
in hospitals mostly.

------
criley2
I'm not going to defend Monsanto's bad business practices, but I don't think
I've ever met someone who accurately articulated real problems with Monsanto
as opposed to hysteria and conspiracy theory, so this is probably the best
move over all.

~~~
doublescoop
Check the Monsanto Wikipedia page for more details, but the short version is
that Monsanto patented its genetically engineered seeds and then sued farmers
for patent infringement if they were found to be growing crops from that seed
without a license.

The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if your
neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that seed
manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent infringement.

Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013, that
additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed required new
licenses from the patent holder.

As might be expected, this rubs A LOT of people the wrong way.

~~~
Eridrus
> The problem with this is that seeds tended to blow between fields, so if
> your neighbor licensed Monsanto seed and then the next year a bunch of that
> seed manages to take hold in your field, you're liable for a patent
> infringement.

Do you know of a court case where this actually happened?

I've seen this defense thrown around in the few cases I've seen, but
investigators have usually had evidence that it wasn't accidental
contamination, but rather just being used as an opportunistic defense.

> Additionally, they argued, successfully before the Supreme Court in 2013,
> that additional generations of seed from the initially licensed seed
> required new licenses from the patent holder.

I found this court case:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co).

"sold the seed from which these soybeans were grown to farmers under a limited
use license that prohibited the farmer-buyer from using the seeds for more
than a single season or from saving any seed produced from the crop for
replanting"

I'm not totally sure what's objectionable about this ruling. The original
buyers explicitly agreed to the license.

I think there is an argument to be made against intellectual property in
general, but this doesn't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software
copyright, and most people are quite happy with those.

~~~
nitrogen
_this doesn 't seem any more egregious than, e.g. music or software copyright,
and most people are quite happy with those._

Many pro-copyright arguments are accompanied by "You don't need it, so if you
don't like the [price, terms, DRM] just don't consume it."

This is dealing with actual food, which we most definitely do need, so people
will understandably be a bit more motivated.

~~~
Digital-Citizen
I take it as sign of failing moderation that the parent comment was moderated
down and rendered harder to read by default. It's quite right--music copyright
licensing is not foreseeably an issue of life and death. Any music copyright
holder depending on that income can try and get another paying job, even a
non-musical job to earn money. I'm not a fan of that approach (for reasons
outside the scope of this discussion) but it is more practical than waiting
for a license check and starving. Planting seeds, harvesting plants for food,
and replanting the seeds that naturally grow was a process big agriculture had
to spend effort to stymie because the natural way got in the way of profits.
That's harmful to us all.

Also, the grandparent article is conflating copyright and patent laws in the
language of "intellectual property" and ought not be allowed to go without
comment. These laws work very differently, cost different amounts of money to
acquire and defend, and conflating them is a sign of ignorance or a sham.
These laws have far more separating them than they share (one sentence in the
US Constitution). [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-
avoid.html#Intellect...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-
avoid.html#IntellectualProperty) explains more in-depth.

------
lastUsername
Good marketing move, Monsanto has a very bad doppelganger.

If they continue with Monsanto ethic it will not take too long to have that
doppelganger attached to Bayer.

~~~
sschueller
Bayer doesn't exactly have a good reputation either [1].

I don't think it is a good PR move at all.

There is some litigation going on against Monsanto and probably a lot more to
come. In the news you will read Bayer now instead of Monsanto which is going
to hurt the Bayer brand.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer)

~~~
Zhyl
Buying slave labour from the Nazis, massive stake in the company that made
Zyklon B, invented heroin, knowingly gave people AIDS with an anti-
haemophiliac drug when it was banned in US markets. Quite the rap sheet.

~~~
Shivetya
The danger as a society we have to day is the people who grew up during those
events are all passing away. We soon no longer will have people of any
influence who experienced the horrors of a true world war. Names then have
little connection to the past and companies "reinventing" themselves are only
further opening this knowledge gap.

~~~
dionidium
_The danger as a society we have to day is the people who grew up during those
events are all passing away._

This seems to say exactly the opposite of what you think it says. By your own
admission, you're describing the actions of _dead people_. What does any of
that have to do with the people running the company today?

~~~
saalweachter
I think at some point you might absolve the present-day organizations of the
sins of their predecessors - organizations, corporations, families, countries
are made of people, and the moral responsibility ultimately lies with the
individuals who choose to act, to not act, or to allow others to do so.

But it's also the case that an organizations future is based in its past; even
if the individual people who chose to act have long since died and there are
none alive who know their face or name, if a group of people (an organization,
a country, a corporation) has enriched itself through immoral acts in the
past, even if it acts morally today, is it right to leave them with the fruits
of its crimes? If a people has been impoverished by crimes committed against
them in the past, even if no one today is still wronging them, is it right to
leave them impoverished today?

------
dvfjsdhgfv
> Agriculture is too important to allow ideological differences to bring
> progress to a standstill,” Bayer Chief Executive Werner Baumann said in the
> statement.

On the one hand, they want "dialogue with the society", and at the same time
they clearly show what their priorities are, and that they're not likely to
listen. What they call "ideology" is - depending on the context - deep care
for our Earth, for the future of what we eat, how the seeds are controlled and
distributed and similar issues. Baumann contrasts progress with ideology,
which is a neat PR trick, but distorts complex reality.

~~~
Kalium
If there's one pattern I've noticed, it's that absolutely nobody who ever
calls for "dialogue" actually wants dialogue. Invariably, they imagine telling
a bunch of people what to think and an army of heads bobbing.

Monsanto is not an outlier here.

------
thisisit
Reminds me of the time when Andersen Consulting changed it's name to
Accenture:

[https://newsroom.accenture.com/subjects/accenture-
corporate/...](https://newsroom.accenture.com/subjects/accenture-
corporate/andersen-consulting-announces-new-name-accenture-
effective-010101.htm)

~~~
ndespres
Or when Blackwater, a private military company, rebranded to "Xe Services"
after murdering a dozen-plus Iraqi civillians.

~~~
jacobush
... after being held (somewhat) accountable for murdering a bunch of Iraqi
civilians. It's not like they came forward and confessed to wrong doing
immediately after. Who knows what they were involved in before that incident.

~~~
ndespres
It took me a minute to understand your implication here. Yes, it took them a
while to make that PR move of a name change. I'm sure it was all carefully
orchestrated, and was not in itself an admission of guilt or an apology. In
fact there was a prior rebranding which kept the Blackwater name but changed
the logo to look _more_ like the scope of a gun, which is not exactly the move
a company would make to distance themselves from the negative light of being
mercenary thugs.

------
saagarjha
It's easy to see why: anecdotally, most people I know see Monsanto in a
negative light. Bayer would love to be rid of that stigma.

~~~
cromulent
It's not as bad as the stigma of IG Farben, but yeah, the brand definitely has
some negative connotations.

~~~
llao
I am German and "IG Farben" means nothing to me. Monsanto on the other hand is
popular to hate and omnipresent on and off the web.

~~~
stephen_g
That’s really interesting... I guess they’ve managed to repair their brand
domestically? But for me, I’m Australian, and the first thing I think of is
(of course) “gas chambers” when I see the name... I would assume many in the
US, UK etc. would do the same.

~~~
n4r9
I'm from the UK and don't recognise the name at all. If I was to associate an
existing corporation to the Nazis, the first name in my head would be Hugo
Boss.

~~~
actsasbuffoon
Also Volkswagen and Fanta.

And I suppose IBM warrants a mention for doing business with Nazis.

~~~
ndespres
I didn't know about the history of Fanta until just now looking it up on
wikipedia. Very weird that such a drink would still be marketed (even with a
"75th Anniversary Edition" special formulation). There really is no shame in
profiting from just about anything.

~~~
dEnigma
Why wouldn't or shouldn't they market it? Coca-Cola Germany improvised a new
soft drink during the war and called it Fanta, and later it was adopted by the
parent company. It's not like they helped build the gas chambers or anything.

------
gpvos
I didn't know before today that Monsanto was owned by Bayer. But now that I
know, I am not surprised.

~~~
Murdodc089
Recently acquired I believe.

~~~
claytonius
First sentence... “Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion
takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday”

~~~
gpvos
Oops, I should have read the article first...

------
linsomniac
I'm surprised the Monsanto name has lasted this long. It seems to nearly
universally be synonymous with "evil corporation".

------
sitkack
Bayer itself is associated with so much bad. From Neonics to thalidomide, to
the HIV infections (new to me).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder)

[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/14/-sp-
thalidom...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/nov/14/-sp-thalidomide-
pill-how-evaded-justice)

------
dionidium
Monsanto has always been unfairly hurt by their name. You can't have an
argument about GMOs on the internet without somebody mentioning Agent Orange
or some other completely irrelevant nonsense.

------
digitalzombie
Huh... Bayer I didn't know Bayer own Monsanto. Bayer the one that gave HIV
infected medicine to Japan and other markets after US blocked it.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997)

Geez... it make sense now.

------
nayuki
This reminds me of Macrovision, famous for its numerous data copy protection
schemes, especially for VHS, being renamed to Rovi Corporation, then absorbed
into TiVo.

------
pwned1
They should bring back the IG Farben name.

------
mtgx
Yeah, but will they retire Monsanto's _tactics_? That's what really matters.

~~~
baq
no, they're already using Bayer tactics, which are no better.

------
schiffern
I was looking into Monsanto's history with PCBs recently (now Bayer's
history), and was half-joking that they'd pull the old "Phillip-Morris into
Altria" trick. :-\

> _Bayer was expected to rid itself of the target’s name. Monsanto, the
> largest - though not the only - maker of genetically modified seeds, has
> been a lightning rod for environmentalists’ opposition to the technology._

> _The U.S. seed maker has also drawn criticism for pursuing its intellectual
> property rights with farmers, many of which depend on its seeds, more
> aggressively than its peers._

These are the only criticisms of Monsanto mentioned in the article. But there
are a _lot_ more.[1]

I guess they want us to forget that Monsanto knowingly[2][4] sold & dumped
toxic PBCs for literally decades? Especially since many of those municipal
lawsuits are just coming around[3], the documents proving they covered it up
leaked last year[4]?

Or that they manufactured Agent Orange, poisoning thousands of American
soldiers and millions of Vietnamese? And that the Vietnamese got nothing
because it wasn't "intended" to kill people[5], despite Monsanto knowing about
the toxic effects of dioxins in Agent Orange?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_legal_cases)

[2]
[https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm](https://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0101-02.htm)

> _In 1966, Monsanto managers discovered that fish submerged in that creek
> turned belly-up within 10 seconds, spurting blood and shedding skin as if
> dunked into boiling water. They told no one. In 1969, they found fish in
> another creek with 7,500 times the legal PCB levels. They decided "there is
> little object in going to expensive extremes in limiting discharges." In
> 1975, a company study found that PCBs caused tumors in rats. They ordered
> its conclusion changed from "slightly tumorigenic" to "does not appear to be
> carcinogenic."_

[3]
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/11/west-c...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2017/01/11/west-
coast-super-tort-against-monsanto-could-spread-to-other-states/)

[4] [https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-
pcbs-2470957270.html](https://www.ecowatch.com/monsanto-pcbs-2470957270.html)

[5] [https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/nyregion/civil-lawsuit-
on...](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/11/nyregion/civil-lawsuit-on-defoliant-
in-vietnam-is-dismissed.html)

Previous settlements:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/business/700-million-
sett...](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/21/business/700-million-settlement-
in-alabama-pcb-lawsuit.html), [http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-
louis-jury-order...](http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/st-louis-jury-
orders-monsanto-to-pay-million-in-
latest/article_08e25795-0d36-5155-999c-c6bd954a6c2e.html)

~~~
mohaine
Monsanto has been bought/split up a few times since then. It really isn't even
close to the same company any more.

The name has been tainted so bad I'm really surprised they aren't going to
spin off something with the name, just so they can be fully rid of the name.

~~~
schiffern
I see someone's already been fooled. That's why this trick persists of course.
Ala-kazam, no more accountability!

> _Monsanto has been bought /split up a few times since then. It really isn't
> even close to the same company any more._

And they'll reorganize in the future too, so should the public stop caring
about corporate crimes altogether? After all, companies will just re-arrange
themselves back into Dr. Jekyll and all will be well... /eyeroll

Welcome to the biggest loophole in liability-based or reputation-based
enforcement of so-called "corporate ethics."

"Don't fret Virginia! The cancer's incurable, but the company that caused it
has a foolproof plan to fix things..."

------
joshdance
I hope this is not just an attempt to side step the bad name.

------
cm2012
Monsanto hate is one of the objectively stupid memes of the web, so good for
them.

~~~
kylnew
Why is hating Monsanto stupid? Or are you just saying people bandwagon on
hating them? I’ve seen a few too many documentaries on the terrible things
they do in the farm industry that put consumers’ and farmers’ wellbeing at
risk. Monsanto milk isn’t even allowed in Canada because of the hormones they
(are/were?) putting in cows. They’ve basically cornered the soybean market
through litigation. Let the hate live on, IMO.

~~~
cm2012
One example: The main thing they're hated for is patenting GMO seed varieties
in support of their roundup pesticide product line.

Roundup works by making seed varieties that work just like normal plants but
are immune to the roundup pesticides. So a farmer can place pesticide on a
field, and it will only kill weeds, not their crops.

The "hate evil Monsanto for destroying nature" bandwagon ignores that:

1) 99% of anti-gmo stuff is anti-science fear mongering. There are very few
good general anti-GMO arguments.

2) Farmers _love_ roundup because it increases crop productivity per acre
sustainably.

3) Using roundup greatly decreases the amount of pesticide needed per acre of
crops, since it can be targeted so much more precisely. So it makes the
world's water supplies and crops cleaner overall.

4) Because round-up seeds are so great, farmers sometimes try to grow it
without paying licensing fees (because why would you if you can get away with
it?).

5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why
would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto
spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds.

6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds
(cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits
specifically because they only target cut and dry cases.

7) But the bandwagon is against the evil Monsanto, so people are overly
credulous on the farmer side.

The vast majority of things Monsanto is criticized for play out just like the
above.

As a separate example, check out this Quora answer for, "Is Monsanto evil?":
[https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-evil](https://www.quora.com/Is-Monsanto-
evil). And let me know which side seems more reasonable to you.

Documentaries are an awful way to disseminate accurate knowledge. It's 90%
emotion driven, and almost always has a narrative to tell that they're not
going to want pesky facts to get in the way of.

~~~
flyinghamster
> 5) Monsanto is very legally aggressive defending its seed patents, since why
> would anyone pay to license their seeds if you can just steal it? Monsanto
> spent a lot of money developing the science for roundup seeds.

Or, alternatively: Farmer Joe plants heirloom seeds that are quite rightfully
his. Farmer Bob plants patented GMO seeds, which then cross-pollinate with
Farmer Joe's heirloom crop. Next year, Monsanto sues Farmer Joe into oblivion
(or otherwise forces him into pay-pay-paying them forevermore) for "stealing
their technology."

~~~
cm2012
"6) Monsanto has never sued someone for accidentally having round-up seeds
(cross contamination). They have an amazing win rates on their lawsuits
specifically because they only target cut and dry cases."

