On 8/11/2018 12:09 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-08-11 11:04 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
>> On 8/11/2018 11:53 AM, graham wrote:
>>> On 2018-08-11 9:07 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2018-08-11 9:02 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2018 8:52 AM, graham wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH, were there any scientists on the jury? A competent lawyer
>>>>>> could convince a jury that homeopathy is scientifically valid.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know about the jury, but Monsanto likely had an army of
>>>>> lawyers.
>>>>
>>>> True.Â* They are the company who sued a Canadian farmer for using
>>>> their Roundup resistant product without paying the licensing fee.Â*
>>>> He never bought their product, but it was growing on his property.
>>>> He felt that he was entitled to plant the seeds from the crop he
>>>> harvested on his property. If I ran the world,Â* I would have
>>>> allowed him to sue Monsanto for not controlling their product and
>>>> allowing it to contaminate other farmers' fields.
>>>
>>> He maintained that the *seed* had blown in from a neighbour. Yeah,
>>> right! He'd grown it before and knew that it was a licensed product.
>>> This was one case where I was on Monsanto's side, not that I approve
>>> of the company, which is now owned by Bayer.
>>
>> Â*Â* I believe you've been misinformed . It was the POLLEN that blew
>> over and pollinated his crop , thus introducing the genetic
>> modifications to the grain he saved for seed . It matters not whether
>> he knew it or not , IMO Monsanto deliberately made it possible for
>> this to happen , in order to force everyone to buy their seed every
>> year . In the past , farmers kept a portion of their crop for seed
>> for next year . Not anymore , Big-Ag wants to control the market for
>> seed to make a profit . They also hate those of us who insist on
>> growing our gardens with either saved or purchased heirloom seed so
>> we can have some for next year . THEY WANT TO CONTROL THE FOOD SUPPLY !!
>>
> NO! He claimed it was the seed!!!
> If it had been the pollen, Monsanto wouldn't have had a case as 50% of
> the genome would have been non-Monsanto.
> He'd obviously kept their seed back for re-planting without paying the
> fee.
> I don't approve of Monsanto either but I don't like liars!!!!

Â* It's possible we're thinking about 2 different cases . I am familiar
with at least one occurrence that happened as I described . Either way ,
they want to have us by the balls , forced into buying their product .

--
Snag
Yes , I'm old
and crochety .
Get off my lawn !