This is not a good partnership. I will avoid the st louis chess club and anything it promotes. Thanks to OP for letting the chess community know about this.
@MrCharles i dont believe they've ever sued over simple accidental cross pollination. every case i've seen has been a deliberate attempt by the farmer to use their seeds
i wouldnt say monsanto is a perfect company but they arent quite the monsters that the internet echo chambers claim them to be
i dont see a problem with taking their money for chess clubs
i wouldnt say monsanto is a perfect company but they arent quite the monsters that the internet echo chambers claim them to be
i dont see a problem with taking their money for chess clubs
Monsanto is a good company. The internet hates all corporations. Take thier money AND say thank you.
Scuzzball, are you saying that Monsato didn't illegally dump toxic waste and contaminate local water supplies, or are you saying that they are a good company despite that?
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I present to you the obvious:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
Bowman buys patented seed-stock from a grain elevator. Monsanto sues Bowman for planting patented seeds. (Ultimately, because the patented stock produces patented seeds, the case failed; the farmer lost, Monsanto won.)
Bottom line: Bowman lost the case. (US Supreme Court ruling, over and done. Circa 2013.)
However, Bowman did not sell the seeds to the grain elevator for re-sale. It was someone else that Monsanto had a contract with. Bowman used the seeds to plant a field, instead of use them for feed-stock or re-selling for some other purpose, etc.
In truth, when you look at "liability" concerns, then, the farmers who had a contract with Monsanto explicitly violated that contract in re-selling seeds to a grain elevator, where the grain elevator had no legal obligation to pass-along the patent exclusion or obligation to down-stream consumers. (Thus the term "patent exhaustion.")
It was not Bowman who should have faced fine and penalty, but, his neighbors selling seed-stock to the local grain elevator. But, we hear none of this. (And, that case is much stronger than a single farmer; you have multiple in possible violation; but, if you can eliminate a couple of acres of non-conforming crop to complete a block, what do you do?)
Corporations are not "evil" per-se. They have a right to invest in R&D, and they have a right to make a profit.
You cannot, however, stop genetic propagation (cross-pollination).
Eventually Monsanto's (GMO) "patents" will wear themselves out (likely before whatever respective period of patent availability ends, unless minor variations are continuously introduced cycle-after-cycle until there is a dominant seed producer which can claim patent infringement at any given time across any given field if any given farmer doesn't conform to any given whim -- irrespective other criminal matters such as trespass, needed to validate and/or verify before final production).
There are any number of nuanced details.
I'll agree -- corporations are not inherently "evil" or have bad intention, and, due to the time and money invested in R&D, they have a right to make a profit, if what they market and sell is profitable (in an unforced sense of benefit; or beneficial to all involved, from farmer to consumer, etc.)
On the other hand ...
Bowman lost not upon the spirit of the law, but based on the word of the law. READ CAREFULLY.
I can't emphasize that enough. READ CAREFULLY.
Bowman lost on the REGULATORY, WORDING OF THE LAW, not on basic common sense.
As in other things, such as continuous extension of things like "copyright" (to benefit entities like The Disney Company), the same will hold for seed patents, in terms of modifying the genetic make-up for seeds, (planting) season-to-season ... such to maintain some degree of control.
BUT, there are also other (valid) arguments going for companies like Monsanto (even though this single topic does not make up their entire portfolio of goods) ... such that ... we would not be able to feed the world without advancements made in GMO crops since World War II (2). -- I say this with both joy (we can feed the world) and disdain (the world must conform to the whims of corporations) -- We can feed the world (if we choose to do so) due to advancements made during and after World War II as populations have exploded across the globe.
I'll end my diatribe there. "Food" for thought, whatever your personal take. I'm still against Monsanto as a company due to the lack of logic it uses in pursuing corporate profits.
I present to you the obvious:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co.
Bowman buys patented seed-stock from a grain elevator. Monsanto sues Bowman for planting patented seeds. (Ultimately, because the patented stock produces patented seeds, the case failed; the farmer lost, Monsanto won.)
Bottom line: Bowman lost the case. (US Supreme Court ruling, over and done. Circa 2013.)
However, Bowman did not sell the seeds to the grain elevator for re-sale. It was someone else that Monsanto had a contract with. Bowman used the seeds to plant a field, instead of use them for feed-stock or re-selling for some other purpose, etc.
In truth, when you look at "liability" concerns, then, the farmers who had a contract with Monsanto explicitly violated that contract in re-selling seeds to a grain elevator, where the grain elevator had no legal obligation to pass-along the patent exclusion or obligation to down-stream consumers. (Thus the term "patent exhaustion.")
It was not Bowman who should have faced fine and penalty, but, his neighbors selling seed-stock to the local grain elevator. But, we hear none of this. (And, that case is much stronger than a single farmer; you have multiple in possible violation; but, if you can eliminate a couple of acres of non-conforming crop to complete a block, what do you do?)
Corporations are not "evil" per-se. They have a right to invest in R&D, and they have a right to make a profit.
You cannot, however, stop genetic propagation (cross-pollination).
Eventually Monsanto's (GMO) "patents" will wear themselves out (likely before whatever respective period of patent availability ends, unless minor variations are continuously introduced cycle-after-cycle until there is a dominant seed producer which can claim patent infringement at any given time across any given field if any given farmer doesn't conform to any given whim -- irrespective other criminal matters such as trespass, needed to validate and/or verify before final production).
There are any number of nuanced details.
I'll agree -- corporations are not inherently "evil" or have bad intention, and, due to the time and money invested in R&D, they have a right to make a profit, if what they market and sell is profitable (in an unforced sense of benefit; or beneficial to all involved, from farmer to consumer, etc.)
On the other hand ...
Bowman lost not upon the spirit of the law, but based on the word of the law. READ CAREFULLY.
I can't emphasize that enough. READ CAREFULLY.
Bowman lost on the REGULATORY, WORDING OF THE LAW, not on basic common sense.
As in other things, such as continuous extension of things like "copyright" (to benefit entities like The Disney Company), the same will hold for seed patents, in terms of modifying the genetic make-up for seeds, (planting) season-to-season ... such to maintain some degree of control.
BUT, there are also other (valid) arguments going for companies like Monsanto (even though this single topic does not make up their entire portfolio of goods) ... such that ... we would not be able to feed the world without advancements made in GMO crops since World War II (2). -- I say this with both joy (we can feed the world) and disdain (the world must conform to the whims of corporations) -- We can feed the world (if we choose to do so) due to advancements made during and after World War II as populations have exploded across the globe.
I'll end my diatribe there. "Food" for thought, whatever your personal take. I'm still against Monsanto as a company due to the lack of logic it uses in pursuing corporate profits.
Thanks again OP.
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-named-2013s-most-evil-corporation-new-poll-1300217
For those who know nothing about Monsanto's history
http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/poisons-legacy-Monsanto.php
I was going to watch the US championships today but realized it was held at the st louis club and just turned it off.
This partnership illustrates how desperate the chess community is for sponsorship dollars.
Sad.
http://www.ibtimes.com/monsanto-named-2013s-most-evil-corporation-new-poll-1300217
For those who know nothing about Monsanto's history
http://www.seattleorganicrestaurants.com/vegan-whole-food/poisons-legacy-Monsanto.php
I was going to watch the US championships today but realized it was held at the st louis club and just turned it off.
This partnership illustrates how desperate the chess community is for sponsorship dollars.
Sad.
@MrCharles on a contentious matter like monsanto wikipedia is not a good source
www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/18/171896311/farmers-fight-with-monsanto-reaches-the-supreme-court
"Those late-season soybeans are risky. The yield is smaller. Bowman decided that for this crop, he didn't want to pay top dollar for Monsanto's seed. "What I wanted was a cheap source of seed," he says.
Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. "They made sure they didn't sell it as seed. Their ticket said, 'Outbound grain," says Bowman.
He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene in them, because that's mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn't think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto's seed business. "I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind," he snorts.
Bowman told his neighbors what he was doing. It turned out that Monsanto did, in fact, care."
bowman knew what he was doing. he had previously bought seeds from monsanto under a contract
the seeds he bought from the grain elevator were not seeds that were supposed to be planted
he also treated the "mixed seeds" to roundup when they were planting ensuring that he had a pure mix of roundup ready seeds for the subsequent plantings
hugh bowman knew exactly what he was doing when trying to exploit that loophole
and on the case of patent for those roundup ready seeds that expired in 2015. now anybody can collect and store and replant those seeds as much as they want with no recourse from monsanto
www.technologyreview.com/s/539746/as-patents-expire-farmers-plant-generic-gmos/
www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/18/171896311/farmers-fight-with-monsanto-reaches-the-supreme-court
"Those late-season soybeans are risky. The yield is smaller. Bowman decided that for this crop, he didn't want to pay top dollar for Monsanto's seed. "What I wanted was a cheap source of seed," he says.
Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. "They made sure they didn't sell it as seed. Their ticket said, 'Outbound grain," says Bowman.
He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene in them, because that's mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn't think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto's seed business. "I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind," he snorts.
Bowman told his neighbors what he was doing. It turned out that Monsanto did, in fact, care."
bowman knew what he was doing. he had previously bought seeds from monsanto under a contract
the seeds he bought from the grain elevator were not seeds that were supposed to be planted
he also treated the "mixed seeds" to roundup when they were planting ensuring that he had a pure mix of roundup ready seeds for the subsequent plantings
hugh bowman knew exactly what he was doing when trying to exploit that loophole
and on the case of patent for those roundup ready seeds that expired in 2015. now anybody can collect and store and replant those seeds as much as they want with no recourse from monsanto
www.technologyreview.com/s/539746/as-patents-expire-farmers-plant-generic-gmos/
@twinEagle i see the federal reserve comes in second in that first poll goes to show just how the type of crackpots who voted on it
and "seattleorganicrestaurants" as a credible source for anything?
and "seattleorganicrestaurants" as a credible source for anything?
@ginja
The first link was to illustrate the very poor reputation that Monsanto has. Why would chess want to partner with such a bad reputation facing corporation?
If NAMBLA offered to give the st louis club a $100,000, would you also justify that?
You dismissing the second link without disproving the data that was offered seems a bit rushed and without much thought.
Just because you have never heard of an organization does not equate to faulty or bad facts that said organization puts forth.
No one had heard of Drudge when he broke the news of Monica and Bill Clinton.
The first link was to illustrate the very poor reputation that Monsanto has. Why would chess want to partner with such a bad reputation facing corporation?
If NAMBLA offered to give the st louis club a $100,000, would you also justify that?
You dismissing the second link without disproving the data that was offered seems a bit rushed and without much thought.
Just because you have never heard of an organization does not equate to faulty or bad facts that said organization puts forth.
No one had heard of Drudge when he broke the news of Monica and Bill Clinton.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.