Non-IT News Thread
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
Game industry against Right to Repair bills
This reminds me a lot of the case with Monsanto, where they have a patient on a seed variety, and sue farmers who try to keep seeds for planting later from the crops they grew.
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
Game industry against Right to Repair bills
This reminds me a lot of the case with Monsanto, where they have a patient on a seed variety, and sue farmers who try to keep seeds for planting later from the crops they grew.
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
No. Monsanto legally applied for and was granted a patent for the seed.
Monsanto sold the seed only to people that signed a contract that stated keeping seed is not allowed.
Monsanto has done zero wrong and the farmer is in breech of contract.
This is no different than Jim's case with the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber, as far as we are aware, was in breech of contract.
Now, if you want to argue if Monsanto should have been allowed to get the patent in the first place, or if their contract should be legal, or anything else, you are free to.
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
Please. Tell me how you REALLY feel!
-
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
Please. Tell me how you REALLY feel!
While, I personally feel that Monsanto patented seed lawsuits like this are shit. It does not change the legal facts of them.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
Please. Tell me how you REALLY feel!
While, I personally feel that Monsanto patented seed lawsuits like this are shit. It does not change the legal facts of them.
I understand that, but it appears to me that you are getting emotional through your words about things that do not directly affect you. They are just facts.
-
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
Please. Tell me how you REALLY feel!
While, I personally feel that Monsanto patented seed lawsuits like this are shit. It does not change the legal facts of them.
I understand that, but it appears to me that you are getting emotional through your words about things that do not directly affect you. They are just facts.
Who is emotional?
Saying that because I used the word shit?
Just because you have some puritanical bias against swearing does not mean I am going to be beholden to your point of view.
Fuck that.
-
Also, "farmers" are not people and have not been for years. As a group farmers are businesses. Big business in many cases.
Yes, these businesses are operated by people, but the "poor farmers" from around my Midwest home town mostly own multiple sports cars for pleasure cruising, etc.
-
"Smart" stuffed animals hacked.
-
@Son-of-Jor-El Is that new or rereporting of something from a couple weeks back? I swear I read about this before.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
Game industry against Right to Repair bills
This reminds me a lot of the case with Monsanto, where they have a patient on a seed variety, and sue farmers who try to keep seeds for planting later from the crops they grew.
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
No. Monsanto legally applied for and was granted a patent for the seed.
Monsanto sold the seed only to people that signed a contract that stated keeping seed is not allowed.
Monsanto has done zero wrong and the farmer is in breech of contract.
This is no different than Jim's case with the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber, as far as we are aware, was in breech of contract.
Now, if you want to argue if Monsanto should have been allowed to get the patent in the first place, or if their contract should be legal, or anything else, you are free to.
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
What do you mean? I only statdon't d that they went to court for it. Which they have. Your opinion on it being legal or not isn't relevant. They are in court for this. That's what they did is or isn't legal with or without a contract is much of what is in question.
-
-
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.What do you mean? I only statdon't d that they went to court for it. Which they have. Your opinion on it being legal or not isn't relevant. They are in court for this. That's what they did is or isn't legal with or without a contract is much of what is in question.
You stated it in such a way that you have judged them guilty. The phrase "at least" is the key there. If you want to claim a neutral stance then you can phrase it in such a way to not show support.
Monsanto, has done everything for profit. That is what a company is supposed to do is it not. Specific to the cases of seed saving, they seem to also have mostly done it legally.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
You stated it in such a way that you have judged them guilty. The phrase "at least" is the key there. If you want to claim a neutral stance then you can phrase it in such a way to not show support.
Yes, I believe that patently life is itself an act against humanity. So only judging them to have done what they and you have claimed that they have done. They've used that patent in unthinkable ways as well including sending illiterate poverty stricken parts of the world into starvation. The "at least" was that they had to go to court for it. I believe everyone involved should be jailed, honestly. It's an unthinkable act. Life should never be patented. It's life, it owns itself.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
Monsanto, has done everything for profit. That is what a company is supposed to do is it not. Specific to the cases of seed saving, they seem to also have mostly done it legally.
In the US it has been legal. In many countries, that's not so clear.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@Son-of-Jor-El Is that new or rereporting of something from a couple weeks back? I swear I read about this before.
The article has today's date at 7:22am, but you know, other news sources will pick up on stuff late.
-
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
Game industry against Right to Repair bills
This reminds me a lot of the case with Monsanto, where they have a patient on a seed variety, and sue farmers who try to keep seeds for planting later from the crops they grew.
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
No. Monsanto legally applied for and was granted a patent for the seed.
Monsanto sold the seed only to people that signed a contract that stated keeping seed is not allowed.
Monsanto has done zero wrong and the farmer is in breech of contract.
This is no different than Jim's case with the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber, as far as we are aware, was in breech of contract.
Now, if you want to argue if Monsanto should have been allowed to get the patent in the first place, or if their contract should be legal, or anything else, you are free to.
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
The trouble is seed from a season of planting is different than the seed they bought. As you get cross pollination and a different seed as the end result.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
Game industry against Right to Repair bills
This reminds me a lot of the case with Monsanto, where they have a patient on a seed variety, and sue farmers who try to keep seeds for planting later from the crops they grew.
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
No. Monsanto legally applied for and was granted a patent for the seed.
Monsanto sold the seed only to people that signed a contract that stated keeping seed is not allowed.
Monsanto has done zero wrong and the farmer is in breech of contract.
This is no different than Jim's case with the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber, as far as we are aware, was in breech of contract.
Now, if you want to argue if Monsanto should have been allowed to get the patent in the first place, or if their contract should be legal, or anything else, you are free to.
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
The trouble is seed from a season of planting is different than the seed they bought. As you get cross pollination and a different seed as the end result.
Which they could patent
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
Game industry against Right to Repair bills
This reminds me a lot of the case with Monsanto, where they have a patient on a seed variety, and sue farmers who try to keep seeds for planting later from the crops they grew.
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
No. Monsanto legally applied for and was granted a patent for the seed.
Monsanto sold the seed only to people that signed a contract that stated keeping seed is not allowed.
Monsanto has done zero wrong and the farmer is in breech of contract.
This is no different than Jim's case with the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber, as far as we are aware, was in breech of contract.
Now, if you want to argue if Monsanto should have been allowed to get the patent in the first place, or if their contract should be legal, or anything else, you are free to.
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
The trouble is seed from a season of planting is different than the seed they bought. As you get cross pollination and a different seed as the end result.
Which they could patent
If Monsanto had that genome of seed to patent. If not, just because something is cross bred doesn't mean that a patent extends to it.
The terms of the contract say they won't keep seed, which is fine. That's enforceable in a court.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@JaredBusch said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@NerdyDad said in Non-IT News Thread:
Game industry against Right to Repair bills
This reminds me a lot of the case with Monsanto, where they have a patient on a seed variety, and sue farmers who try to keep seeds for planting later from the crops they grew.
At least they face a crimes against humanity court for that.
No. Monsanto legally applied for and was granted a patent for the seed.
Monsanto sold the seed only to people that signed a contract that stated keeping seed is not allowed.
Monsanto has done zero wrong and the farmer is in breech of contract.
This is no different than Jim's case with the Chamber of Commerce. The chamber, as far as we are aware, was in breech of contract.
Now, if you want to argue if Monsanto should have been allowed to get the patent in the first place, or if their contract should be legal, or anything else, you are free to.
But, that statement of yours is pure shit.
The trouble is seed from a season of planting is different than the seed they bought. As you get cross pollination and a different seed as the end result.
Which they could patent
If Monsanto had that genome of seed to patent. If not, just because something is cross bred doesn't mean that a patent extends to it.
The terms of the contract say they won't keep seed, which is fine. That's enforceable in a court.
In US court. They sell these all over the world though.
