Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 04:32 AM EDT |
The government statement actually makes more sense if you read
"equipped" as "funded".
Yes, the government has recieved more funds with notes about this issue than the
supreme court. That's part of the problem.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 11:32 AM EDT |
If I interpret the newspick correctly, Monsanto wants to
destroy traditional open and free farming methods so their
"we own your farm products" business model won't be destroyed.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 12:14 PM EDT |
Monsanto's "business model" is "I did something valuable;
therefore I should be able to reap payment forever without doing more
work."
I guess the older business model of "By the sweat of thy brow thou shat eat
thy bread all the days of thy life" is unsatisfactory for such enlightened
ones as Monsanto.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 11 2012 @ 01:09 PM EDT |
In my daydreams I see the court ruling: "The seed supplier does not control
what the farmer does with the products naturally grown from those seeds. Oh, by
the way, seeds, no matter how they have been altered, are a product of nature
and not a valid subject for patent." But the nightmares are quite another
matter.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|