The abuse of monopoly powers is a very GMO-specific issue: roundup-resistant strains are patented, so where farmers used to retain enough seed to re-plant the next season, they're now hooked on a subscription model and their "non-GMO" neighbors are in risk of crippling lawsuits because an illiterate bee thought it would be cool to pollinate two fields on the same day.
I've never seen any evidence of anyone ever being sued by an agro-chemical company for accidentally planting/growing patented seeds, and I've spent some time looking. So people have made the claim, and they were later discovered to have been using the seeds intentionally.
I actually think that farmers should be allowed to save those seeds and replanting them, as long as they don't sell them. So I'm in favor of changing the way patent law works there.
> risk of crippling lawsuits because an illiterate bee thought it would be cool to pollinate two fields on the same day
AFAIK, this has never happened. Monsanto states they have policy against it ever happening. The infringement lawsuits I'm aware of, including the ones the anti-GMO crowd like to trot out, sure seem like pretty clear cases of wilful infringement.
I acknowledge that all of the Monsanto Infringement lawsuits have involved farmers who a) Purchased Roundup-Resistant seed from Monsanto b) under contract with Monsanto c) that included a provision not to replant the seed derived from those crops.
It is my opinion, as a political stance, that that provision c is against natural law as well as the laws of man, and is therefore null and void. Farmers, even big corporate ones, should be allowed to replant the seed of their crops, and it's unconscionable to restrict that.
I thought there had been a lawsuit against a farmer who intentionally planted a crop near someone else's roundup-ready crop and then bred the resulting seeds for roundup resistance.
Like you, I take the view toward that (potentially hypothetical?) case that the farmer's evident intent to infringe Monsanto's intellectual property is irrelevant because he hasn't done anything wrong. In that case, he is not even party to an agreement, though note that violating a patent doesn't require you to be party to an agreement.
The “against natural law” is an interesting claim to me. Where is the comprehensive list of all natural laws? How can we prove that there is no yet undiscovered law guaranteeing Monsanto/GMO seed patent holder such rights? Didn’t the US founding fathers assert that Natural Rights included private property rights, including of natural things like land? It seems to be more of an assertion of intuitive feeling to assert a claim of “natural law” than any concrete proof.
And the “against the laws of man” seems to be false based on case law that I’ve read about in the news. Is your opinion/assertion that seeds / engineered plants should not be patentable? Should they be patentable, but sold at a loss or smaller profit?
Those seeds exist because they were engineered to solve a need. Is there a legal requirement for a farm to use engineered seeds? How much do you think the engineer would have to charge for unlimited license of those engineered seeds? I imagine it would be 20x - 1000x of a single harvest limited license for the same number of seeds. Do you agree?
