
5 Million Farmers Sue Monsanto for $7.7 Billion - captainsinclair
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/312-16/11795-5-million-farmers-sue-monsanto-for-77-billion
======
wheaties
Good for them. I've never met a company that could sue you because a honey bee
or some other naturally event that has been occurring for hundreds of years
happened. To that I'm referring to Monsato's practice of suing farmers who
haven't used their seed variety having their fields cross pollinated with
another farmer's fields who is using Monato's seed products. Really?! Ugh.

~~~
skosuri
No not really. I think you are referring to this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser)

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.

~~~
jaysonelliot
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, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their
products from landing in our fields," David said.

"What Monsanto is doing across the country is often, and according to farmers,
trespassing even, on their land, examining their crops and trying to find some
of their patented crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, with the Center For Food
Safety. "And if they do, they sue those farmers for their entire crop."

In fact, in Feb. 2005 the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto, citing "an
agreement" with the Indiana Department of Agriculture giving it the right to
come on their land and test for seed contamination.

Only one problem: The Indiana Department of Agriculture didn't exist until two
months after that letter was sent. What does that say to you?_

~~~
skosuri
I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is
another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the
case (which I believe does not exist). You showed me a news article. Otherwise
this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies and is suing Monsanto,
and is not really an unbiased source (just like I don't link directly to
Monsanto's website on the Runyons.)

~~~
jaysonelliot
I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a
pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims.

Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given
Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to
the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence
points in favor of the farmer.

Statements like "I believe (any case) does not exist" and "this is just
someone who has been in a bunch of movies" show bias, and tell me that you're
unlikely to accept anything short of a full and frank confession from Monsanto
that they have aggressively sued innocent farmers.

What do you call a company that pursues cases like the one cited in the CBS
News article about Mo Parr?

 _74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate
debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was
"aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent.

"There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way
that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready."

The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found
his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped
talking to him.

"It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of
coffee that morning,"_

I won't make any further arguments about this, because I'm not trying to
change your mind if its already made up.

~~~
JPKab
It blows my mind that there are people on HN confusing opposition to the
horrific practices that Monsanto uses with opposition to GM crops in general.
I am a supporter of GM strains of crops, because I think they have proven
environmental benefits. However, what Monsanto did to the seed cleaner is no
different than blaming BitTorrent for piracy. The only difference is that
BitTorrent sites actually have a somewhat possible way to determine
copyrighted works from open works. The seed cleaner is being sued simply
because his services are utilized by people trying to cheat Monsanto as well
as those who are simply seeking to continue growing their heirloom strains.
This isn't justice. This is simply a huge corporation with vast legal
resources doing whatever is necessary to prevent theft of their IP rights,
even if that involves trampling people that committed no crimes. It is cheaper
for Monsanto to put every seed cleaner out of business than to go after the
actual IP infringers. But it is not really legal, and only holds up in court
because the seed cleaners can't afford to fight Monstanto's legal shield, and
too few judges bother to inform themselves on the topic.

~~~
andylei
this is not at all like blaming bittorrent sites for pirating

look, you don't understand what this seed cleaner was doing. monsanto does not
go around suing every seed cleaner in the midwest just because they could be
cleaning roundup ready seeds. they sued moe parr, and they did so because he
told other farmers that it was legal for them to clean their roundup ready
seeds (which it is not).

evidence: [http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-
Cor...](http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/publications/DSU-Medical-Corp-v-JMS-
Co-Ltd/Monsanto_v_Parr_NDIN_4-07-cv-00008_Apr_22_2008.pdf)

~~~
nitrogen
I'm curious why it would be illegal to remove debris from seeds (or does
"clean" mean something else in this context?). What is Monsanto mixing with
their Roundup-ready seeds that they so desperately want to get planted along
with the crop?

~~~
andylei
cleaning is how you transform this years crops into next year's seeds. one of
the agreements you sign when you buy roundup-ready seeds is that you don't
clean seeds.

basically, by seed cleaning, you don't have to buy more roundup ready seeds.

------
ChuckMcM
Another interesting batch of comments. Generally a lot of hating on Monsanto
(which is exploiting the fact that genes can be patented).

This "story" is part of a bigger conversation going on. The outcome of which
is very much up in the air.

The conversation we're having is "Should it be allowed for individuals, or
companies, to patent genetic sequences?"

On the 'for' side we have people like Monsanto who make the claim they invest
billions of dollars in creating 'products' that would not occur naturally in a
reasonable amount of time, and having made that investment they deserve the
limited monopoly granted by the patent system. We also have testing companies
who have invested billions in diagnostic tests to identify diseases which are
tied to certain genes and they too feel it is right and proper to give them
protection so that they might re-coup those costs. In both their cases their
argument is that it is for the greater good of the society that these
temporary monopolies are granted, to encourage the investment needed to come
up with these inventions which will permanently be a benefit going forward.

We also have groups of people who are arguing that this is an abuse of the
patent monopoly because the processes are not 'man made' they are simply
natural processes that have been tuned by man to create a desired result.
Generally folks recognize the benefit, but they don't wish to pay the fees.

Consistently, the courts have sided with the folks who did the investment
because, as the Canadian supreme court pointed out, the people see the benefit
too so the argument that its good for society is a well supported.

The monkey wrench of course is the question of innovation flexibility. In both
the patent and copyright systems there is an implied flexibility rule, which
is that if "you" the non-inventor/creator don't like it, you are free to
create your own version with your own resources. So if you don't like the
patent on the automobile you are free to construct your own vehicle that has
the same function of transportation, but doesn't infringe on the claims. This
breaks down when their is not flexibility and that was very clearly elucidated
by Judge Alsup in the Oracle vs Google case where he held that the APIs, which
were constrained to be written in a specific way (no flexibility), could not
be copyrighted, because doing so was contrary to copyright law, where he wrote
"copyright law does not confer ownership over any and all ways to implement a
function or specification." And there is a similar argument to be made against
genetic patents. One cannot simply create 'another' way to make plants
resistant to a particular herbicide, because that particular herbicide attacks
particular plant functions which are expressed by specific genes. So there is
no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the same capability
without infringing the patent.

I expect it is this questions, "What are the considerations of the economic
good or harm in locking out others from using a particular 'law of nature or
natural process'?" Clearly there is an economic good in being able to farm
efficiently, there is a harm in that even if you were a grade a geneticist you
couldn't get around using the same genes Monsanto did so there is no avenue to
compete. There are only alternatives, like weeding the old fashioned way.

If you're wondering, farmers have one of the strongest voices in our
government. This is because there are a lot of states that have farmers in
them (so there are a lot of representatives from farm districts). They have
literally changed the course of rivers to take water from urban users and
water their fields, they have been paid not to plant crops, their crop prices
have been subsidized to insure they make a living, and their excess product
has been bought up with the tax payer's money and distributed for free. So it
isn't like Monsanto is the gorilla here.

I don't think the original article added a lot to the conversation sadly. I
would love to see additional analysis and alternatives being discussed.

~~~
fleitz
"herbicide attacks particular plant functions which are expressed by specific
genes. So there is no 'wiggle' room around other people wanting to create the
same capability without infringing the patent."

I don't think that's true, immediately I'm thinking of enzymes that could
cleave the herbicide, or making plants resistant to a different herbicide.

Monsanto is primarily a maker of herbicides not GM crops, GM crops are a
compliment to it's business and Monsanto designs plants to work well with
their products. If you want to use a different herbicide and a different gene
sequence you're completely welcome to, what your not allowed to do is use a
specific genes that confer resistance to monsanto's own products.

I think the parallel development of eyes in many species proves that nature is
rather flexible in how solutions can be implemented.

It's completely possible to make herbicide resistant plants with out
infringing on Monsanto's IP. It just might be a little more difficult to make
one for RoundUp.

Also, the Roundup Ready soybeans patent is due to expire in 2014, so in 2
years farmers all around the world get Roundup Ready soybeans for free, just
as the patent system intended. By the time this gets infront of a judge the
farmers could go plant all the patented crop they want.

Monsanto makes a tidy profit on the development, farmers eventually get the
seed for free, Monsanto sells lots of roundup, which pollute the environment
less than other herbicides, win, win, win.

~~~
brazzy
> Also, the Roundup Ready soybeans patent is due to expire in 2014, so in 2
> years farmers all around the world get Roundup Ready soybeans for free, just
> as the patent system intended.

Unless Monsanto suddenly stops selling Roundup and instead sells a different,
"new and improved" herbicide with a new set of recently-patented resistent
seeds. And lobbies for governments to ban Roundup because of a recently study
saying it's a threat to the environment after all.

At least that's how it tends to work in the pharmaceutics industry.

~~~
hexagonal
Glyphosate's ("Roundup") patent expired in 2000.

This isn't really like the software industry, where there's lock-in effects.
Unless you screw up, glyphosate still kills plants.

~~~
brazzy
Thus the "And lobbies for governments to ban Roundup because of a recently
study saying it's a threat to the environment after all." part.

------
Create
"On May 10, the Summer Olympics were inaugurated at the Greek birthplace of
the ancient games. A few days before, virtually unnoticed, the government of
Vietnam addressed a letter to the International Olympic Committee expressing
the "profound concerns of the Government and people of Viet Nam about the
decision of IOC to accept the Dow Chemical Company as a global partner
sponsoring the Olympic Movement."

Dow provided the chemicals that Washington used from 1961 onward to destroy
crops and forests in South Vietnam, drenching the country with Agent Orange.

These poisons contain dioxin, one of the most lethal carcinogens known,
affecting millions of Vietnamese and many U.S. soldiers. To this day in
Vietnam, aborted fetuses and deformed infants are very likely the effects of
these crimes - though, in light of Washington's refusal to investigate, we
have only the studies of Vietnamese scientists and independent analysts.

Joining the Vietnamese appeal against Dow are the government of India, the
Indian Olympic Association, and the survivors of the horrendous 1984 Bhopal
gas leak, one of history's worst industrial disasters, which killed thousands
and injured more than half a million.

Union Carbide, the corporation responsible for the disaster, was taken over by
Dow, for whom the matter is of no slight concern. In February, Wikileaks
revealed that Dow hired the U.S. private investigative agency Stratfor to
monitor activists seeking compensation for the victims and prosecution of
those responsible."

America's Rank Hypocrisy, By Noam Chomsky, AlterNet 05 June 12

~~~
peterwwillis
So Vietnam is opposed to a company sponsoring the Olympics because they made a
product that the USA used to deform and kill their people. How does that make
sense? Shouldn't they be angry at the country that actually dumped the
chemicals on them? If somebody gets a gun and shoots you, you sue the guy who
shot you, not the company that made the bullets. (Well, unless you just want
more money, which in our litigious society might actually work for you...)

~~~
freehunter
It might make a bit more sense when you add in that Agent Orange wasn't
supposed to cause these effects in humans. Dow and Monstanto were struggling
to keep up with the demand from the US military and quality control suffered.
This led to Agent Orange being contaminated with TCDD
(2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin). True Agent Orange should be 50/50 2,4,5-T
and 2,4-D. It was the contamination with the carcinogen that caused the
disaster.

With this in mind, you could blame Dow and Monsanto for lack of quality
control leading to human suffering. This would be a litigious offense in
almost every nation. Even if you want to believe malice put the poison there
rather than incompetence, guns aren't made or sold with specific intent to
kill _people_. If they were (outside of war), you would be able to sue for the
damage they caused.

~~~
colanderman
_guns aren't made or sold with specific intent to kill people._

So handguns and machine guns are manufactured for deer hunters?

~~~
peterwwillis
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.

~~~
nsxwolf
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.

~~~
bostonpete
Zombies are roughly the same form too.

~~~
nsxwolf
And with all the face-eating "bath salts" zombie stories in the news,
practicing your marksmanship has never been more important.

------
crikli
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 than my iPad as I know
I need to provide more than this here on HN. :)

~~~
Spooky23
Nobody is killing themselves because you're being subsidized by the American
taxpayer to grow lots of corn.

Monsanto is a nasty corporation, but their nastiness is fueled by government
policy that allows them to leverage patents and practices to make a commodity
product like corn as profitable to them as pharmaceuticals are to Genentech or
AstraZenica.

It's great for you now, and results in cheap food prices for the consumer. But
there are dangerous long-term social (ie. lots of obese people fattened up by
artificially cheap and ubiquitous corn-derived sugar), biological and economic
consequences

~~~
crikli
We don't accept subsidies and would absolutely love to see them go away
completely. They're doing nothing but sustaining inefficient farming practices
and keeping afloat farmers that are quite simply bad at what they do.

I don't want to get too off into the HCFC rabbit trail, but I have yet to see
any research that indicates anything other than correlative evidence between
the ingestion of C6H1206 derived from corn. If you have access to research
that proves causality I'd love to see it.

~~~
Spooky23
I don't know that HFCS is "bad" vs. cane sugar. My only dig here is that
generally speaking, eating alot of calories makes you gain weight.

The US government decided at one time that lowering the cost of food
proportionally would increase overall prosperity by giving consumers more
buying power. The unintended side effect of that policy is that heavily
sweetened prepared foods are now cheap and ingrained into culture.

~~~
crikli
Agree 100%. Refined sugars, regardless of the source, are bad for the human
organism.

------
conanite
Monsanto: the MAFIAA and patent trolls of agriculture. May the farmers win.
And may your amaranth grow and prosper. [0]

[0]
[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_defeated_by_herbicide_resis...](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Monsanto_defeated_by_herbicide_resistant_superweeds.php)

------
stevoski
This article makes some rather terrible claims. I've never heard of
readersupportednews.org before. Are there similar articles in well-known,
respectable publications?

(Note: I'm not claiming the site is disreputable, I've just never heard of the
site and want to read more on sites (on in publications) I know.)

~~~
AgentConundrum
Here's a link from RT.com (Russia Today): <https://rt.com/news/monsanto-
brazil-seed-soy-908/>

I have no idea if they're trustworthy either, but Wikipedia[1] had this to say
about them:

> RT is the second most-watched foreign news channel in the United States,
> after BBC News and the first most-watched news channel worldwide.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29>

~~~
omonra
Please don't quote anything from RT - it's as useful as quoting Gobbles.

While there is a chance it could be true, the association itself makes
anything quoted extremely suspect.

~~~
AgentConundrum
Good to know. I had no idea what it was, but it looked more legit than the OP.
Wikipedia seemed to back up the idea that it was a proper source, so I linked
it.

~~~
omonra
I don't think you read far enough in the article :)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today#Allegations_of_pro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_Today#Allegations_of_pro-
Kremlin_bias)

It's pretty much a Putin propaganda piece. Don't be mislead by their use of
western journalists - they can only parrot the party line or put forward own
fringe conspiracy theories.

------
nwenzel
Does hating on Monsanto mean you can jump directly to Monsanto as the cause of
the farmer suicides? Does a farmer suicide every 30 minutes sound a little
high to anyone else? That would be 48 / day or over 17k / year.

As for the lawsuit, Monsanto sues a farmer because a farmer's land contains
some of Monsanto's product. Fine, their product is essentially DNA, but
they're allowed to call it their product. Fighting the patent is a losing
fight. Right or wrong, it's a battle that won't be won until Kucinich is in
the White House.

I've wondered why farmers don't file a counter-claim of trespassing since
Monsanto allowed or caused their agents (both the patented DNA and whomever
discovered the Monsanto plant) to enter a farmer's property. Additionally, it
seems like there would be a case for destruction of property since the
genetically modified seeds and plants crowd out the farmer's seeds and plants.
Lastly, if the farmers really wanted to hit Monsanto with some irony, they
should sue to have Monsanto pay for the removal of the modified seeds and
plants. The farmer would have to argue that it is Monsanto's responsibility to
prevent the outward spread of their crop. I'm sure the right judge could be
found who would draw the comparison to breaking and entering someone's home.

But I'm reminded of a couple simple facts. You don't have to be right to sue
someone. You don't have to be in the wrong to get sued. Win or loose, it's not
cheap to go to court.

------
kevinpet
This isn't journalism, it's a piece of agitprop. I'm not just saying this
because I think their claims are bullshit, but because the article quotes the
lawyer for the farmers, but does not quote a Monsanto spokesman or contain the
usual "could not be reached for comment".

Anyone writing an article who thinks they need to only talk to one of the
parties in a lawsuit isn't practicing journalism.

I'd rather not see this on HN. Maybe the topic is appropriate (patents), but
the article doesn't give any information about that aspect of things.

------
dangoldin
If anyone's seen "Food, Inc" they also mention the abusive practices of
Monsanto of suing anyone that poses a threat to their business model. I don't
know much about the space but there may be some interesting patent
implications from the lawsuit.

------
captainsinclair
From the article, "The reason? As with many other cases, such as the ones that
led certain farming regions to be known as the ‘suicide belt’, Monsanto has
been reportedly taxing the farmers to financial shambles with ridiculous
royalty charges."

------
joseflavio
Am I the only one getting this error: "Database Error: Unable to connect to
the database:Could not connect to MySQL" ?

I think the traffic from HN crashed their server.

------
latch
This may be naive, but why isn't the market protecting farmers? Are subsidies
involved?

Why don't they just use normal seeds or other seeds? Weren't these limitations
known ahead of time? Why did the farmers make a deal with the devil? Why can't
they switch back?

~~~
va_coder
It's my understanding Monsanto isn't a company that relies on free markets.
They use lawyers heavily. If their seeds blow from a customer's farm to a non
customer's farm and the non customer doesn't actively try to remove the
Monsanto seeds, they sue. They are like the seed mafia.

~~~
stevoski
"If their seeds blow from a customer's farm to a non customer's farm and the
non customer doesn't actively try to remove the Monsanto seeds, they sue"

Got a source for that claim?

There's an article on huffington post which conflicts with the claim:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/monsanto-lawsuit-
or...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/monsanto-lawsuit-organic-
farmers-appeal_n_1385693.html)

~~~
huxley
Not sure about the US but it's possible he's referring to Monsanto vs
Schmeiser, a Canadian case.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser)

In that case, Schmeiser's field was contaminated by his neighbour's field
which was planted with Roundup resistant Canola seed.

"... on the balance of probabilities, the defendants infringed a number of the
claims under the plaintiffs’ Canadian patent number 1,313,830 by planting, in
1998, without leave or licence by the plaintiffs, canola fields with seed
saved from the 1997 crop which seed was known, or ought to have been known by
the defendants to be Roundup tolerant and when tested was found to contain the
gene and cells claimed under the plaintiffs’ patent. By selling the seed
harvested in 1998 the defendants further infringed the plaintiffs’ patent."

~~~
planetguy
Right, so it's not that they'll sue you if their seeds blow onto your
property, it's that they'll sue you if their seeds blow onto your property,
you harvest, separate and and save the seeds from the plants that grow, then
you plant 'em.

I'm still not sure that counts as infringement, but hey, who am I to disagree
with a Canadian court's interpretation of Canadian law?

------
DigitalSea
I'm not going to enter the Monsanto sues innocent farmers debate like everyone
else here, but those who are educated in the subject have known for a very
long time that Monsanto are quite protective of their seed patents. People
only know of a handful of cases where Monsanto sued, in reality they sued a
lot of farmers in the 90's, not just the few high-profile cases people have
heard of, most settle and don't fight.

We're talking about a company who basically got where they are today by
manufacturing chemical laden plastics, acids and more knowingly Agent Orange
which was used in the Vietnam war as a chemical weapon and the artificial
sweetener aspartame under the brand name Nutrasweet. I can only think of one
good thing Monsanto have done for the public: they were the first company to
start mass manufacturing light emitting diodes in the 70s which are now used
in everything. But if it weren't Monsanto, someone else would've eventually
done the same thing anyway.

I hope these farmers succeed. You shouldn't be able to own a patent on mother
nature just because you modified a few cells. What's next: parents having to
pay royalty fee's for children born via IVF? When nanotechnology starts being
commonly used in vaccinations and medicines are we going to have to pay a
licencing fee to keep the vaccine/medicine working? What happens if and when
human cloning takes place, is that clone the property of the creator and
licensed out to the original the person was cloned from?

------
vollmarj
This article is wildly emotional and certainly doesn't reflect the situation
here in the US. Sure Monsanto and the other seed companies have been driving
up the prices of seed. Farmers of course don't like that, but farmers do like
the higher yields they get by using those GMO seeds. There are lots of things
Monsanto does that might seem "evil", but this article is just ridiculous.
Please don't use it as a basis to form your own opinions. You will just sound
silly.

------
mcarvin
I'm going to take Monsanto's side here. The farmers are upset because they are
being charged royalties over use of renewal seeds produced from the original
'store bought' seeds.

The argument is over whether the purchase of seeds implies the farmer is
financing the 'use' (like a car lease) or the 'ownership' of the seed (like a
car purchase).

Monsanto will argue that as the seed's utility is not entirely consumed by
it's use (planting) that the most suitable pricing model is to finance the
'use' of the seed, not its ownership. Ergo royalties.

They have an enormously strong point to make here - which is that if ownership
were implied by purchase the price would be much higher (as they would need to
factor in both the value that future generations of seed provides and
cannibalization of future seed demand from renewals).

Which is why the outcome of this case is somewhat moot. If Monsanto is
prevented from charging a royalty because of some technicality they would
simply charge a much higher upfront price, which they would then allow you to
finance (and the farmer will end up being economically indifferent to whether
it is called a royalty or not).

------
rbanffy
Shouldn't Monsanto collect royalties from the plants themselves, which are the
ones doing the copyright infringement when they pass their genes along to
their offspring?

------
jcgillespie
I don't understand why Monsanto is vilified for enforcing the licensing
agreements that farmers willingly enter into when they buy the seed?

When you buy the seed, they tell you straight up that you can't replant. And
I'm not a farmer (grew up in farming community), but I don't think this is
unique to GMO crops either. I believe the same thing happens for
"conventional" hybrid crops from breeding.

------
Retreads
Really? We're talking about an article that claims Monsanto is, "responsible
for a farmer suicide every 30 minutes?" In the very first sentence!

Sorry, I don't care how relevant or accurate the other information is, but
it's not valid after that. Monsanto may or may not be evil, and the farmers
may or may not be good, but you certainly can't (shouldn't) form any opinion
based on this junk.

------
deepGem
One of the farmers around Portland had complained that Monsanto had dispersed
a few GM seeds in his farm and later sued him claiming royalties. Of course,
he couldn't prove that Monsanto deliberately polluted his field with their
seeds and lost the case. If there's a company that I'd like to see burned to
the ground, it's Monsanto. Fucking dictators.

------
sigzero
About freaking time! Monsanto is EVIL.

------
daaif
<http://readersupportednews.org> is down

------
s4ndb
5 - million - farmers. I live in Belgium. In Belgium that would mean almost
all working people - in all sectors - coming together for a lawsuit targeted
at one single company. I'm baffled by the size of this. Or should I not?

------
firefox
Monsanto needs to stop killing people and farms, it's about time that these
farmers get their fair share of the injustice they've been put through by
Monsanto. Too bad some are already out of business and long gone.

------
tintin
Since the site is down, another link: [http://naturalsociety.com/5-million-
farmers-sue-monsanto-for...](http://naturalsociety.com/5-million-farmers-sue-
monsanto-for-7-billion/)

------
vtail
What I don't understand is why these farmers wouldn't switch back to using old
crops/seeds if Monsanto is so prohibitively expensive and using old plants is
more economical in long term?

~~~
ivarv
Monsanto has highly dubious business practices and a history of very
aggressively protecting their intellectual property. For a picture of what's
at stake and what has transpired read up on the story of Percy Schmeiser - a
farmer who tried to stand up to Monsanto's bullying tactics. There are many
articles on his story, but I found
<http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0401150/percy_schmeiser.shtml> to be
particularly informative)

------
Tooluka
I strongly suggest reading "Windup Girl" by Paolo Bacigalupi - I think it
pretty accurately describes our near future.

------
kondro
And the real winners? The lawyers. Can you imagine making a 40%+ success fee
from a $7.7B class action suit?

------
kushagrawal
They tried to patent neem :|

------
t4nkd
Tried to read this article, hit some kind of NPR style donation paywall...
0/10, wouldn't click.

~~~
ElliotH
Nice easy skip button in the top corner.

------
windexh8er
This is definitely an interesting thread, but there seems to be too much focus
on Runyon as the bad actor in this case. While I can't say I agree with what
Monsanto is doing (the suing and the GM component) I don't think the
circumstance is reasonably accounted for...

Using Runyon as an example - even if evidence shows that he took advantage of
the situation he was inadvertently involved. The root cause was not of his
initiation. Ultimately, in my eyes, it should be the responsibility of
Monsanto and it's customers to enforce containment. If that's not possible,
then they have a flawed product. Monsanto is well aware of the risk involved
in IP within a seed. It's main objective in it's lifecycle is to self-sustain,
so unless they can turn that off without a doubt they have to accept the risk.

What I mean: If Monsanto and it's customers can't contain the product they buy
and use then there should be no implications for anyone around them to take on
that responsibility.

Example (and I know these haven't been going well, so my stab): BP comes
knocking on Runyon's neighbor's door. They want to drill in his (the
neighbor's) fields, but there is high risk that they may contaminate a shared
water table Runyon and the neighbor's land is sitting on. The neighbor decides
to go forth - and the inevitable happens. Now - who's fault is it? Runyon's -
for being where he is and not instigating (at all) the actions that the
neighbor chose to execute? In an argument where the outcome is bad - it's easy
to identify the bad actor. In an argument where the outcome is indirectly good
there is no incentive for Runyon to sue his neighbor for giving him something
that normally should be paid for.

Solution?: Monsanto must place all risk of seed carryover on to it's
_customers_. It is not the anonymous farmers responsibility to fight Monsanto
when their competition (the neighbor) has instigated the problem. BUT...
Monsanto would never sue their own customers because that is counter-
productive; nobody would buy seed from them.

I agree with suing Monsanto. But on the basis that Monsanto and it's customers
are operating under a negligent business model which enables them to sue
innocent farmers. It almost seems to me that Monsanto is under the assumption
that emminent domain applies to it's intellectual property - of which I do not
agree.

If the BP spill would have leaked $20 bills instead of oil - you really think
there would have been any lawsuits or complaints?

Bottom line: if Runyon didn't intentionally set out to steal Monsanto seeds
then he has no responsibility to Monsanto. If you argue that he took advantage
of the situation I would argue that is his right and luck. Now if he turns
around and directly competes with Monsanto - there may be a case. Otherwise in
the land of my personal morals I don't believe Runyon can be held accountable.

Carpe diem.

EDIT: Formatting. And thought... If Monsanto has the genetic research
capability to create a product that is resistant to something like RoundUp -
why can't it modify the lifecycle of the plant to only grow if some simple
additive is sprayed on the newly planted field to "activate" it? Something
along the lines of a license key for seeds. That way - if Runyon was caught
with plants in an entire field it would showcase theft. It's easier for
Monsanto to sue innocent bystanders than put money into R&D of a protection
mechanism I would guess... And, yes, I've oversimplified genetic engineering,
but again - it's a flawed product if you can't protect it.

------
hastur
B R A V O !!!

