Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover

Re:Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover by jMyles on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:02AM (#12496396)

The competition angle isn't what scares me, it's the incentives created by the appearance that Monsanto, an entity whose primary income streams come from utilizing, manipulation, and corrupting the common-sense understanding of IP laws (even unto victimizing farmers who experience pollen drift from nearby farms which use Monsanto products [0]) has generated an exit at over 20% bump in share price.

IMO, the IP legal structure surrounding Monsanto's activities is no different than a direct government subsidy to that company, and given its downright evil actions, I don't think most voters want to subsidize it.

0: https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.displa...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover by akvadrako on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:28AM (#12496626)

Your source is very biased. Do you have any evidence of Monsanto suing farmers for unintentionally growing crops from seeds that have drifted onto their fields?

The most well know case is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser, but the facts do not support the farmer's claims of innocence. It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could.

The case you pointed to is about invalidating Monsanto's patents, or at least rendering them unenforceable. It's plainly just an attempt for farmers to save money by using Monsanto's seeds without paying for them and nothing about "victimisation".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Bayer confirms $66bn Monsanto takeover by darkarmani on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @05:09PM (#12501222)

> It's clear he tried to grow and acquire as many of Monsanto's seeds as he could.

What's wrong with that? If your patent passes on its genes onto my corn, then it's no longer exactly your plant.

[ Parent | on HN ]