|
Apparently Monsanto are attempting to Sue a farmer over his use of offspring seed of their seed that he purchased at a communal seed silo. If they succeed A precedent will be established where if a company adds their patented genetic material to a living organism they own the offspring that will carry that patented DNA. That means you, having taken a DNA cure for a disease and then going out and having a child who then carries that Patented DNA will be the Property of the Corporation that holds the Patent.
So where do you stand on the reintroduction of Human slavery? Yay? or Nay?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I look forward to our new dryad serfs.
Apparently Monsanto are attempting to Sue a farmer over his use of offspring seed of their seed that he purchased at a communal seed silo. If they succeed A precedent will be established where if a company adds their patented genetic material to a living organism they own the offspring that will carry that patented DNA. That means you, having taken a DNA cure for a disease and then going out and having a child who then carries that Patented DNA will be the Property of the Corporation that holds the Patent.
So where do you stand on the reintroduction of Human slavery? Yay? or Nay?
...please tell me they aren't serious.
That's not the issue. Knowing how crazy the world is, I'm willing to bet someone would seriously try something like that.
So the obvious response is to genetically engineer a retrovirus that inserts TATA boxes that spell out "Property of BigNorseWolf" in Morse code and own the world!
That just gave a whole new meaning to the term "ownage", didn't it?
But yeah the "owning people" addendum is all the 'Dingos.
|
|
Monsanto has definitely pursued such lawsuits before. The worst I heard of was suing a farmer who hadn't planted their seed, but whose crop had been contaminated by GMO corn from another field.
That said, the extension to owning humans is yd's own special addition.
I guess ownership of other humans will be a rich corporation's game...once the precedence is set in law.
But yeah the "owning people" addendum is all the 'Dingos.
If you took a dump, though, and some special genetic corn kernels were in there, though,.....they could sue your arse.
He might be on to something.
If you took a dump, though, and some special genetic corn kernels were in there, though,.....they could sue your arse.
He might be on to something.
I had never considered that angle. They are suing for IP and patent infringement. Your digestive track does some serious altering/"remixing" of their product. Would they legally be able to legally lay a claim on your waste?
In communities where human waste is recycled (link 1, link 2: NotSafeAtMealtime links), could they lay claim to recycling plants output or revenues if they could prove a certain percentage of residents consume their GM product(s)?
What about the urea refills on your shiny new diesel automobile? The urea comes from cattle who may be fed GM corn/grains; could the GM IP/patent holder now require a percentage of the profits from the auto manufacturer (passed down to the consumers)?
Not necessarily. Next time you eat a cob of corn, take a look.
There's some pretty non altered kernels in that Baby Ruth.
Ive said it before, Ill say it again: Monsanto is pretty much the most evil entity in the world.
Ive said it before, Ill say it again: Monsanto is pretty much the most evil entity in the world.
Second most, behind the U.S.A.
They're responsible for my basementism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets take this to crazy land...
Human Slavery: Yay or Nay?
[Doffs hat]
All hail the Dingo!
Also, as a goblin, I do believe in enslaving pinkskins.
[Cracks whip]
Aren't you going to vote for my awesome White House petition?
Cmon! Be the first of your friends!
No, I won't. Nor will I sign of Comrade Dingo's other amusing petitions.
I'm not begging Obama for anything, that plutocratic imperialist war pig f+@&.
sigh. another virtual vote for slavery.
All because he's too proud to beg.
Get ready to bow down and lick the boot of your corporate overlord then.
Me? I plan to fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally a topic I can weigh in on!
I'm not familiar with that particular demon lord, but if this is the future Monsanto promises, I need to build a shrine, quick.
In any case wouldn't the Thirteenth Amendment prevent Monsanto from actually compelling any service from their hypothetical "property"?
Depends on contracts. Technically anyone can sign away their rights to another. In most countries. Especially in the USA. Signature is binding and you are expected to read a contract before signing.
It is already well established that a company can patent its genetically altered foodstuffs (including seeds). If they win, it will not set a precedent that has not already been set. The precedent was set when the US Patent Office allowed genetically altered stuffs to be patented. That's what the patents are for.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that any patent of any kind can cause any entity to own a human being. Human beings have unalienable rights that cannot be superseded by the fine print on a company's patent.
Edit: If you believe that by accepting gene therapy, you are altering your own DNA, you are sadly mistaken about how gene therapy works. It does not pass along the donor DNA to your gonads, therefore, does not pass along any patented DNA to your offspring. That would be Science Fiction.
If you sign a contract to be able to use their product though they can put it in.
If you sign a contract to be able to use their product though they can put it in.
And no US court would uphold it. Trust me. I worked in contracts for 12 years. Any "fuzzy language" or language that would supersede civil rights would be ruled against by any court in this country. They always side with the party that did NOT draw up the contract when faced with weird language.
Depends on the Contracts details.
If the contract states you are to work in their store for a Year with small compensation, such as a small apartment over the store & 3 Dollars then it is considered legal.
Just like someone can sign away the right to Overtime pay.
Depends on the Contracts details.
If the contract states you are to work in their store for a Year with small compensation, such as a small apartment over the store & 3 Dollars then it is considered legal.
Just like someone can sign away the right to Overtime pay.
Contracts that abridge a person's ability to work elsewhere tend to fall afoul of things like right to work laws (though they aren't present in all states). Sure you can sign a non-compete, but it's not enforceable everywhere.
Plus, judges can and will void contracts that while technically legal appear to have been made in bad faith or with bizarrely worded, 'fuzzy' elements.
What do you suggest? only Moms should be elected to Senate?Lets take this to crazy land...
Human Slavery: Yay or Nay?
There has to be some middle ground.
Something mom would vote for.
I have no earthly idea how you intuited that conclusion from my statement, and my i.q. is higher than yours.
