The ACLU has defended a lot of doucebags in their time, but one can't argue against their impartiality; they generally fall on the side of rights, regardless of how loony the person or group they are representing. Gotta give them credit for that.
like them or not the ACLU will defend freedom of speech at any cost...this reminds me of when the ACLU took the case of a Neo-Nazi group who had been denied to right to assemble in the Chicago suburb of Skokie at a time when 1 out of 6 residents in that town was a Holocaust survivor. The ACLU took the Nazi's case, and with a Jewish lead attorney, successfully defended the Nazi's in court. The Nazi's never did march and the ACLU lost like 30,000 members because of their defense, but in hindsight you really have to respect standing firm on the grounds of i don't have to like what you say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it
When Monsanto can successfully sue you for patent infringement when a neighbor's seeds blow onto your land, then yes, Monsanto needs to die. If "Roundup Ready" weeds are part of it, bring them on.
He wasn't sued because some seeds blew onto his land. He was sued because he harvested the product of those seeds and replanted 95% of his field with them the following year.
By your bizarre logic, the dude that found the iPhone prototype should have gained the right to duplicate and sell it.
i hope to god you're trolling, in that particular case the farmer had been saving seed for his entire farming career, as many do (and a practice that monsatno is fighting tooth and nail with their so called terminator seeds, which are only viable for one generation) monsanto's seed blew into his field from passing farmers who used it, and against his desire his field was polluted with their product. Monsanto demanded he destroy his entire seed store, which he had been developing his entire life, because their product contaminated his field against his wishes. Not to mention, you iphone example is comically irrelevant, as there are many inherent differences between a living thing that spreads by itself and reproduces ITSELF and a goddamn cell phone, which, unlike canola, wouldn't exist if not constructed by humans. Your logic is flawed beyond defense perhaps you should have at least read up a little about the case before commenting. Maybe then you would have noticed that in 2008 monsanto settled with mr. schmeiser and agreed to pay the clean up cost of removing their product, which he never wanted in the first place, from his fields. He also was not forced to sign the standard monsanto gag order, and the window was left open for him to sue again, should their GM seed contaminate his fields again. This is also a nice precedent for those of us who don't much care for the GM agricultural business. Also who modded this comment interesting? it isn't.