> I'm all for calling out unethical companies and IP trolls

In terms of unethical Monsanto is in the absolute top league. This is a company, which positively can be described as evil.

I suggest you do some reading up about this company.

I love the claims for calling this company "evil" with absolutely no scientific proof given. I thought we were supposed to be believers in science and due process.

This is one example, taken from the Food, Inc. documentary.

The parent topic asks, Monsanto made the roundup-ready soybeans, which took millions to develop. If the farmer doesn't want to be sued, he could use non-roundup-ready soybeans.

In the documentary, they profile a farmer who got sued by Monsanto for not paying their license. The farmer claimed he was not using Monsanto seeds. However, Monsanto's argument amounted to "We are the largest seller of these seeds in the world, therefor, it must be our seed. Even though you can prove it isn't, you must have "washed" the seed to make it seem like it isn't ours, or maybe some of your neighbor's Monsanto seed blew into your land and you owe us for that too."

The judge sided with Monsanto.

Yes, this shows our legal system is evil for letting them get away with this, but the fact that Monsanto is driving around & actively looking for farmers who aren't using their seed, extorting them for not & dragging them into a court battle they know will bankrupt them is evil too.

For further viewing, check the Monsanto Food Inc. clips. They are on YouTube. Mansanto has also responded on their website.

> but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything

How about addressing his point?

> How about addressing his point?

OK. Monsanto seems to have a unique interpretation of IP for themselves. They invented a genetic modification of existing crops. Now they claim the modified crops themselves as their IP, which is like HP claiming copyright on material printed with their printers. Not only that, they also claim rights on the following generations of these crops, which is just absurd.

If you want to patent your genetic modifications, so noone else can apply it, go ahead - sue people who apply the same modifications. But claiming IP rights on modified (with it) seeds is not reasonable.

Patent problems are no secret around here, but I'll reiterate one of the key points: Patents deal with possession of technology, not the implementation. In other words, if I violate someone else's patent in a product, and you buy it, you have become liable for the violation.

Now, with that said, you cannot possess GM seed without the necessary license agreements with Monsanto due to the above. Theoretically farmers, who have acquired the necessary licenses, could grow second generation seed, except those license terms provide additional clauses around the use of the second generation seed. You can disagree to those clauses, but then you will not be granted access to the patent rights.

So, the issue is that you cannot buy GM seeds in the first place without entering into a legal agreement, and that legal agreement dictates how you use future generations. There is no scenario where the second generation can be logically free of IP rights, because if you disagree, you cannot reach the point of growing a second generation.

Of course the real issue here is that the patent system needs to be fixed, and not just for seed and software.

Soybean seeds aren't finite like fossil fuels. They're specially grown. If you don't want to use patented seed, don't use it. Use organic seeds if you want (and many farmers do). Otherwise, pay the IP holder. Monsanto isn't a monopoly, and you have several other GM competitors to choose from.

I suggest you watch the documentary Food Inc to see why it isn't as straightforward as that..

I assume you are referring to the fact that the traits can make their way into non-GMO seeds due to the way nature functions? However, Monsanto has only been able to successfully defend their patents when gross violations have occurred – i.e. the crop has also been sprayed with roundup. Someone who is honestly trying to grow non-RR seed is obviously not going to be doing that.

Monsanto has been so successful with this because, for 99% of the farmers out there, these patents have no effect on their business. It wasn't particularly common to grow your own seeds for a variety of reasons, even before the patents came into effect.

I suggest you read actual peer-review scientific journal articles on the matter instead of relying on a documentary you saw on NetFlix.

> what's the point in developing anything.

One good reason to developing better farming techniques is that a large number of wealthy organization would profit, and such are more than willing to spend money on research. If I went to the military and said I had a method to produce biofuel at 50% the current price, would a likely response be: "No! If you don't have a patent, we are not going to give you any money for that. We are happy to spend loads of money on more expensive methods for fuel. We the army lives for patents!"

Lets take a hard look on something like corn. From chemical industry to food to fuel. I am sure not a single company would want to spend money on research into better production if there was no patents. Cheaper production and less risks be damned.

Or... and this is just a thought... Some research is like math. There is intrinsic benefit from improved technology. The army is not hurt because others can also produce cheaper fuel.

> unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything.

To make money.

Companies (and people) have been developing new technology long before patents were introduced, and something tells me that they will continue to do so just fine even in the unlikely event of the patent system is abolished.

The millions spent give them the advantage of being the first to introduce this type of product in market. Nothing more.

on a personal note: I'd hate to think what would have happened if everyone throughout history thought of "IP" the same way people nowadays seem to think. We'd probably just started producing cars that need to be cranked to start.

Babies born near the "RoundUp Ready" Farms have been known to have higher birth defects:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_23430.cfm

I didn't see anything in that article related to roundup ready crops, just concerns over the use of glyphosate, which has been used long before the advent of roundup ready seed.

> but unless companies get to protect real IP that they develop themselves, what's the point in developing anything.

So there was no progress in the world at all prior to the creation of patent law?

You could argue about whether or not patents cause more progress, but it is quite obviously not the case that companies not have any reason to develop anything without patents, given that companies did develop things without patent protection for a simple reason: If not, they'd get crushed by their competition.

Sure, they could copy things, but then they'd be stuck in perpetual catch-up mode figuring out all things they can't quickly glean from the copy, such as the optimal way of manufacturing the product. They'd also face substantial risk: What if a competitor comes up with something they're unable to figure out how to copy quickly?

And it is clear that there's plenty of profit to be had without being the "low cost generic" copycat even once the copycats enter the market.

E.g. Boots patent on Ibuprofen ran out a long time ago, yet Boots successfully created (and sold off) the Nurofen brand that still sells Ibuprofen (and other) products at 10-20 times retail price of generic products (including, amusingly, Boots own "generic" store brand).

This does seem to be a pretty decent area to provide intellectual property-based incentives for. The fundamental innovation here is intellectual -- it's the engineering of a new genetic code.

All of us are familiar with something similar -- engineering of new computer code.

It is often granted that computer code provides unique benefits worth protecting. I can certainly see why genetic engineering deserves similar protections.

That said, this is a fairly complicated piece of case law and I could definitely see how it could fall through the cracks in naively written legislation.

let's not forget the farmer whose crops had monsanto mixed in, likely due to the windy conditions. Monsanto sued and took his farm because of a natural environmental occurence.

For things like that, they are a vicious and unethical fast moving train that will crush good people for their own profit. Don't just think you can avoid them and everything will be ok.