this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
260 points (94.2% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

the defendant was trying to scam the company.

No, that's a lie. Monsanto may have characterized it as "scamming," but I don't give a fuck about monopolists' opinions and neither should anybody else.

Even intentionally preferentially gathering and replanting "Monsanto's" "patented" seeds is not wrong, end of!

[โ€“] IMongoose@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

These are public court cases, Monsanto isn't characterizing anything. The ones I've seen are deliberate attempts to use the seeds without paying. Do you have examples of a farmers livelihood destroyed by Monsanto? Because it doesn't seem good business to me for them to attack random farmers. I implore you to look at the link I posted or google it yourself.

[โ€“] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The ones Iโ€™ve seen are deliberate attempts to use the seeds without paying.

Yes, I know. Re-read my last sentence.

[โ€“] IMongoose@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Ok, again, no one is forcing these farmers to use the seeds. They have every opportunity to use their own heirloom seeds that they can replant forever, but they don't because even when paying for seeds the GMO ones bring in more money. It's a business, if they want to use them they need to pay. It's ok to fundamentally disagree with seeds as a service but recognize (as the courts did) that this applies to all IP. Just owning a product doesn't give you the right to duplicate and redistribute it.