> Legally speaking, this just sounds like a breach-of-contract > case. If the contract had the provision that the farmer could > save seed for replanting the next year, then there would be > no problems. But I doubt that's the case. > But I'm interested in hearing what your "on the other > hand..." argument is... > Damon.
You are absolutely right, legally it is a breach of contract, assuming that the farmer knew exactly what he was agreeing to, and was very clear on the limitations. Assuming that the seed dealer even gave the farmer the agreement, let alone made him understand it. I am not unsympathetic with the fact that Monsanto spent millions of dollars in research and development, I just think that fines in the millions of dollars and jail time might be an overreaction. Honestly, in this case, I am having a difficult time articulating what it is that bothers me here, let alone make a solid argument against what they have done. It's just not sitting well with me. > This doesn't mean Monsanto is in the right at large, however: > suing farmers whose crops were contaminated by Monsanto > products for royalties is just plain evil (which they have done). > ~Maru I am wondering what exactly they would (or could) do in cases of cross pollination? Granted it is difficult to do this by accident, but it does happen in adjoining fields occasionally. Suppose Field A is next to Field B and cross pollination occurs and contaminates the non genetically altered crops giving the non altered crops characteristics of the altered crops. Would (or could) the seed manufacturer then demand payment? Slippery slope. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
