Michael White vs Monsanto

[mmonk]

&feature=youtu.be

[Major Nikon]

1. There is no right to save and replant patented seed and never has been

Farmers can save and replant non-patented seeds to their heart's content. But when they sign a document telling them what they can and can't do with patented seed, they are obligated to abide by the contract they signed. The idea that Monsanto, or more specifically the seed companies that are licensed to use Monsant's patents, are infringing on some kind of right that never existed is absurd.

Wayne White is the father and Monsanto dropped the case against him when they learned his son, Michael White was farming in his father's name. So while Wayne makes a clumsy appeal to emotion on behalf of his father, the reality is he admitted in court to stealing patented products from the seed companies and selling it to other farmers.

https://docs.rpxcorp.com/lits/674/8293/alndce-87759.pdf?Signature=kJrW1FEbp4kBYySQ2Qm4Xc1QW78%3D&Expires=1438192735&AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAI2UWKALIEYBVOKDA

[mmonk]

2. I was waiting.

He cleaned seeds not only for himself and the seeds he produced, but for others as well. That is how they set them up for a lawsuit.

[Major Nikon]

4. That makes him an even bigger crook

He was in collusion with other farmers that were giving him seed they and he knew couldn't legally be reused.

Nobody "set him up". He's a crook and he was undoubtedly involving his father who undoubtedly was too old to know his son was a crook. If anyone put his father in the grave it was him. Now he's simply participating with filmmakers to make a duplicitous film filled with non-facts, misrepresentations, and fallacious appeals to emotion.

[mmonk]

3. There is also fear of contamination. That fear prevents farmers from saving seeds or reselling them

In a statement on Thursday, Gerritsen added, “We believe we have the right to farm and grow good food the way we choose. We don’t think it’s fair that Monsanto can trespass onto our farm, contaminate and ruin our crops and then sue us for infringing on their patent rights. We don’t want one penny from Monsanto. American farmers deserve their day in Court so we can prove to the world Monsanto’s genetically engineered patents are invalid and that farmers deserve protection from Monsanto’s abuse.”

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/09/us-farmers-continue-david-vs-goliath-battle-against-monsanto/

[Major Nikon]

5. Which is just more utter nonsense

There was no "contamination". White was getting seed from other farmers they knew was patented, cleaning it, and reselling it at a profit. They were willfully and knowingly "contaminating" their farms so they could undercut other farmers who were following the law.

[mmonk]

6. The lawsuit protecting farms then is invalid?

Why not just pass a statute farmers cannot resell their seeds? Case is then closed. or would that infringe on their rights to engage in trade of a particular product? Whether recognition by Monsanto fields can be contaminated exits, it is a valid question.

[Major Nikon]

7. Such a law would be utterly ridiculous

Farmers can resell their seeds all they want. What they can't do is resell patented seed against the licensing agreement they signed and agreed with. There already is a law called the Plant Patent Act which also exists in various forms around the world which protects the intellectual property of people who develop plants.

So-called fear of "contamination" is complete and utter bullshit. Over-seeding of adjacent fields has been going on for thousands of years. Monsanto doesn't sue farmers for over-seeding, and please don't bring up the worn out example of
the self-admitted crook, Percy Schmeiser, who was also willingly and knowingly stealing patented seed because that is just too easy to debunk.

In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser

[mmonk]

9. Seeds do travel.

Even seeds you buy through agricultural supplies are not purely the seed you request.

http://www.slideshare.net/belleminjuan/how-seeds-travel


Have you ever sold a used car? Do you pay a royalty? Is there any such thing as restraint of trade?

[Major Nikon]

10. Used cars aren't replicable

Consider the example of music which can't be legally copied and distributed even for personal use, much less for profit.

Monsanto doesn't sue farmers for 1 patented seed. They don't even pursue cases which aren't over a certain percentage. If you want to talk traveling seeds and lawsuits, provide an example and we'll have something to talk about.

[mmonk]

11. You mean replicable as modified.

Except the modified reproduces.

[Major Nikon]

12. I mean your analogy is significantly flawed

[mmonk]

13. Until the buyer of the modification tried to sell.

[mmonk]

15. .

In a June 2013 ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC said it was inevitable, as the farmers’ argued, that contamination from Monsanto’s products would occur. Yet the appeals panel also said the plaintiffs do not have standing to prohibit Monsanto from suing them should the company’s genetic traits end up on their holdings "because Monsanto has made binding assurances that it will not 'take legal action against growers whose crops might inadvertently contain traces of Monsanto biotech genes (because, for example, some transgenic seed or pollen blew onto the grower's land).'"

The panel’s reference to “traces” of Monsanto’s patented genes means farms that are affected by less than 1 percent.

The plaintiffs asked Monsanto to pledge not to sue, but the company rebuffed the request, saying, "A blanket covenant not to sue any present or future member of petitioners' organizations would enable virtually anyone to commit intentional infringement."

[Major Nikon]

16. That case was from a group trying to proactively sue Monsanto for something they had never done

Not surprisingly, they lost.

[mmonk]

17. They were suing preemptively for protection.

The remedy if won would be determined by a court. The court said only Monsanto can decide and win.

[Major Nikon]

18. Protection from something that had never happened and there was no intent to ever happen

It's not that hard to figure out why they lost.

[roody]

20. It does not say that he signed a

contract with Monsanto.

[blackspade]

8. Monsanto and companies like it are despicable scum.

Another example of capitalism run amok and destroying both our family farms and the genetic diversity of our food system.

[Major Nikon]

14. Perhaps, but Michael White is no prince either

He was using his dad's good name to steal intellectual property and resell it at a profit to similarly crooked farmers who were trying to undercut competition that was doing business legally.

[Dont call me Shirley]

19. Monsanto's owners, executives, board of directors, scientists, salesmen, lawyers, politicians and

henchmen are what is wrong with this country.

The company monsanto is not a person but people make up the company and make the company's decisions; they are all criminals.