• @grue
      link
      English
      13
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      the defendant was trying to scam the company.

      No, that’s a lie. Monsanto may have characterized it as “scamming,” but I don’t give a fuck about monopolists’ opinions and neither should anybody else.

      Even intentionally preferentially gathering and replanting “Monsanto’s” “patented” seeds is not wrong, end of!

      • @IMongoose
        link
        English
        16 months ago

        These are public court cases, Monsanto isn’t characterizing anything. The ones I’ve seen are deliberate attempts to use the seeds without paying. Do you have examples of a farmers livelihood destroyed by Monsanto? Because it doesn’t seem good business to me for them to attack random farmers. I implore you to look at the link I posted or google it yourself.

        • @grue
          link
          English
          16 months ago

          The ones I’ve seen are deliberate attempts to use the seeds without paying.

          Yes, I know. Re-read my last sentence.

          • @IMongoose
            link
            English
            16 months ago

            Ok, again, no one is forcing these farmers to use the seeds. They have every opportunity to use their own heirloom seeds that they can replant forever, but they don’t because even when paying for seeds the GMO ones bring in more money. It’s a business, if they want to use them they need to pay. It’s ok to fundamentally disagree with seeds as a service but recognize (as the courts did) that this applies to all IP. Just owning a product doesn’t give you the right to duplicate and redistribute it.