Look dude, I explained it perfectly. Both the reason monsanto can get away with suing people, and the reason the courts agree with their cases. I don't know what you want. You just sound like you're rambling now. Think about what I said before replying.

You're splitting hairs. Microsoft spends years and millions (if not billions) developing software, just like Monsanto does for seeds. Both the software and the seeds can be copied with easy, well known techniques that have existed since the dawn of their respective technologies. They are essentially the same idea. The courts are only ruling as such because there is already history of software patents being upheld, and so to rule against Monsanto in this case would set precedence and encourage lawsuits against software companies.

I don't know where you live but I don't know of a single country that doesn't have patent laws.

Except that's never happened. Monsanto has stated numerous times that they will not sue for genetic drift. If you can find a case where the farmer didn't willingly breed the seeds that grew on his property and got sued, then you might have a point. Until you can do that, you're just using baseless fearmongering to try to prove your point. Show me an example.

And seeds aren't data? You don't seem to be grasping this. Maybe I'm just not explaining it right. Basically monsanto owns a copyright on the seeds, because they invested billions making them. In order to use the seeds (legally) you have to sign an agreement saying you'll only use x amount. They will know if you use more/less because the amount of seeds you have will directly relate to the amount of roundup you need to buy from monsanto. That's how they caught Percy Shmeiser (or however you spell his name), the numbers didn't add up. So just like microsoft owns a patent on windows, and has the complete legal right to sue you and your buisiness if they catch you copying their software, monsanto has a similar right to sue you if they catch you copying your (their?) seeds.

They said that, and actually didn't sue anyone either. Can you find a single example otherwise? I know you can't.

how is this +4 insightful?

http://www.osgata.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-MTD-Decision.pdf "defendants reiterated that it is not their policy to exercise their patent rights against farmers whose fields inadvertently contain trace amounts of patented seeds or traits. In particular, the reply letter referenced plaintiffs’ claim that they do not have any intention of using any transgenic seed and noted that, “[t]aking [that] representation as true, any fear of suit or other action is unreasonable, and any decision not to grow certain crops unjustified.”

why is your first response, "he must be a paid shill". How much do the organic companies pay you in weed to ignore science?

that's not really 'lying'. That's advertising your product. They never said it wouldn't leech into groundwater. They never said it was 'good for the soil'. They said it has 'favorable environmental characteristics'. Which it does. Lying requires knowledge and then intentionally misinform people on that knowledge. Don't blame monsanto when you're the one who didn't read it correctly.

right, but when you breed the seeds for the specific purpose of attaining more seeds, you are, in fact, COPYING THE SEEDS. You can argue farmers have been doing this for time immemorial but it doesn't change the fact you willingly signed and later violated an agreement. If nothing more its breach of contract. Monsanto has every right to sue you.

In what universe can you call suing software developers for copying software licenses and installing them on all their computers a sustainable buisiness practice? Oh right, this one. You act like that all monsanto does is sue sue sue but in reality they've only sue the people who willingly violate the license they signed when they did buisiness with monsanto. Or is it okay to violate user agreements in your world?

I'd like proof that they lie. I looked into corn blight and there are none 'decimating the corn supply' like you say (and thus, makes you a liar). A link would be helpful (and not from one of those bullshit news blogs like naturalnews that quote themselves and act like that's ok). Monsanto may have made agent orange but they didn't decide to throw it all over the vietnamese, so don't try to blame them for what their customers did. I am far more inclined to believe a corporation like monsanto opposed to a bunch of rabid hippies who believe they're more in tune with nature because they haven't worn shoes in 7 years. You need to look up the current orange blight, the one that no 'natural' oranges have an immunity to, and the GM oranges that do have an immunity to it. In ten years there won't be a non-GM orange alive. Of course knowing you retards you're going to say monsanto probably caused that disease too, as you like to accuse without evidence.

because they use resources when transporting them across that ocean thing that could otherwise be saved or spent on something more worthwhile. Just because you can buy them cheaper from china does not mean they were cheaper to produce. It just means someone or something else is getting the short end of the stick

But you need what they did with solyndra, or otherwise you end up buying all your panels from china, and losing out on the economic benefits. We need a domestic supplier of solar panels if we hope to encourage adoption. It just seems more and more clear to me that we just jumped the gun on solyndra, not that the choice itself was a bad one.

I'm sure those kids in that horrific car accident will get to choose which operating room they get to have their surgery in.

This is not what happened at all. There are no 'flaws in the plants', other than the shortsighted decision to leave the backup generators in a flood plain. What has kept the remaining plants offline is public sentiment and anger. None of the other plants were damaged in the least.