� Monsanto has pioneered enforcement strategies for protection of its plant patents. Much of this pioneering has been centered on its genetically altered soybeans which have the ability to withstand spraying with the company�s leading herbicide, Roundup. (Weeds and other native plants die, beans live.) In 1996 the company set a new precedent requiring farmers buying its genetically engineered "Roundup Ready Soybeans" to sign and adhere to the terms of its "1996 Roundup Ready Gene Agreement." Terms: The farmer must pay a $5 per bag "technology fee"; the farmer must give Monsanto the right to inspect, monitor and test his/her fields for up to 3 years; the farmer must use only Monsanto�s brand of the glyphosate herbicide it calls Roundup; the farmer must give up his/her right to save and replant the patented seed; the farmer must agree not to sell or otherwise supply the seed to "any other person or entity." The farmer must also agree, in writing, to pay Monsanto "...100 times the then applicable fee for the Roundup Ready gene, times the number of units of transferred seed, plus reasonable attorney�s fees and expenses..." should he violate any portion of the agreement. The farmers� outcry against the stringent inspection and monitoring of their private property caused Monsanto to modify that part of the agreement in 1997.
Also it is impossible for MON to patent the soybean or any other food. Now if they spend millions enhancing it with scientific technolgy they can license that technology. (And if it hadn't panned out they would have eaten that research money so they deserve to make money from the technolgy-it's that capitalistic risk-reward thing that you haevn't grasped. And the funny thing is the researcher who discovered it would still probably have a job)
Oh btw, I'll let you in on a little secret-come closer I don't want anyone to overhear-patents expire after a certain time. That is why Roundup has generic competition now. But Monsanto sells seed that is glyphospate tolerant. Smart business move. Anyway you can't patent food and even if you could patents expire numbnut.
And in case you didn't read your latest econut literature you can always grow your own. Of course if you live in the desert it might help to have a crop that has been gentically modified for drought conditions. Or you can subsist on desert plants and animals as inhabitants have. Of course watch it when you kill that rattlesnake to feed yoru family because PETA might get their underwear in a bunch. Heheheheheheheheeeeeeeeee!!!!
Oh and one more thing on capitalism, in large public multinational corporations generally the BOD is made up of only a few people from within the company. Many more are from completely different fields/endeavors and not related to that company. The only compensation they recieve is for attending BOD meetings and that pay is of public record and published in the company's annual report. Of course they may get rich from a discovery if it makes money for the company because many times a requirement is that a director own x amount of shares of the company they are director for. So in that respect it would be benficial just like any employee who owns company stock through their 401k, options the big bad company granted them or ones they bought on their own.
"Let's think about who is coming up with these drugs. Not Doctors"-well I think you probably mean practicing physicians because I believe you will find many a researcher with a PhD and would therefore carry the title "doctor". I also believe that medical doctors do function as heads of R & D at some places. Though I suspect many are PhD's.
"Wrong. It is some researcher making less than the doctor."-Well probably but how much do these researchers get paid? Especially ones with advanced degrees and those who have a track record of discovery. Please tell us.
Let's see here the researcher is using the company's facilties, tools and other resources, being paid by them for his/her time...I can see where the invention shoudln't belong to the company.
Now lets go to capitalism school...Say in the pharmaceutical industry if the researcher's discovery costs the company millions going through clinical trials and then say fails in phase 3 trial does the researcher have to repay the company some of those expenses? That would be capitalism idiot. Risk and reward. And if an employee he/she may be vested in profit-sharing or receive stock options which any successful invention will improve.
Not withstanding that in many industries if a researcher is expert enough and wll-known enough in the industry they contract with the company and share in royalties and co-own the patent.
Let me tell you something else about big bad capitalism Rainbow. If a researcher/inventor/person with a great business idea is good at what he does and believes in the potential and can sell teh idea to otheres there is nothing stopping him from seeking venture capital and starting his own company. It happens all the time.
That is your capitalism primer McDolphin.
Actually Monsanto is involved in R & D of desalinization of water adn other water research. A shortage of ptoable water in this world will probably come much sooner than a shortage of the food supply. And I'm sure you object as strenuously to that as well. Now let's see here Monsato shouldn't be involved in making the water useable for crops and they shouldn't manipulate crops to grow in unuseable water. Boy your solutions are jsut letting people die left and right Rainbow.
For the last time Rainbow. QUIT SPREADING LIES! MON does not control the world's food supply and won't. Now they would like it if all those who produce the food CHOOSE to buy their seeds, like the majority of soybean farmers in the US have chosen to do despite lower cost alternatives. (Despite numerous requests you still haven't explained why these US farmers CHOOSE to do that)
I think it's you missing the point. Let's think about who is coming up with these drugs. Not Doctors. What do you think, Dr. Smith takes some time away from his hectic surgery schedule to, real quick, whip up a new cure for colon cancer in the supply room? Wrong. It is some researcher making less than the doctor. If he comes up with a cure, will he be rich? Probably not. It will be the board of directors who probably never even lifted test tube one. How about if they (doctors) had the incentive of a substantial piece of the pie, if it works out? I know that doesn�t resemble your Monsanto brand of capitalism, but it is still capitalism. You see, I never said anything against capitalism. Capitalism comes in many forms. I believe it is you that suggested I had �an irrational fear of capitalism�. Sounds like a case of capophobia (Monsanto sells a pill for that ailment, only $50 a pop). There are just certain NECESSARY items you just don't want a corporation, who exists for the sole purpose of making money, having too much "market power" over. The MOST obvious example of this is food, which Monsanto is using methods that are questionable AT BEST to achieve. Next, is probably medicine. Wait, I forgot to mention water. I can see it now...
Headline: Monsanto granted patent on new formula, H2O. Prices immediately spike.
Sound crazy? They�re pretty close to getting a patent on freakin� soybeans!
I was talking to you. But I see you still have no facts or evidence to back up a thing you say.
Intersting..."try gettnig out once in a while, it's good for you" Did your Mommy just tell you to do that?
the drug issue either.
First I can't believe you and 5 of your co-workers (btw why are you working...capitalism is bad remember) would go to the doctor and get prescriptions for a damn cold.
But you said it you all got prescriptions. For what? Some drugs. Without capitalism those drugs may not have been available to be prescribed idiot.
And, in typicla fashion, you told some stupid little anecdote (probably lies like all your others)rather thasn answer the question. Was it some money-loving corporation that invents these drugs and diagnostic devices for profit or did they do it because they care?
If it is the first choice then you still must answer how many more would die without these inventions and is that what you would rather see than someone make a $ from it?
If it is the latter then your corporate bashing does not hold water.
Was the light bulb patented? Did somebody make money off of it? So it must be bad.
Did some corporation make money from that computer you have? Whether you bought it from a company or bought parts and assembled it yourself. It's bad better stop using it.
Did some corporation make money from the shoes you wear to walk to all your little econut field burning, property destroying protests? (Because we know none of you nutballs would ever drive a fossil fuel guzzling, air polluting car to such a place) Bad, very bad.
You closet corporation supporter.
>>How much harder would it be for these medical professionals to save lives if drug companies creating the latest life-saving drugs and medical technology companies inventing the lates diagnostic device did not exist? <<
Funny. I went to the doctor for the same cold that 5 co-workers had. We all 5 come back with different prescriptions. That's odd, shouldn't 1 or 2 of these be the best prescription? Why did 5 people get 5 different medications? Oh yea, money! Who's kicking down with the most cash is used to prescribe medicines, not what will get you better the quickest. Sounds like a great system to me!
let the econuts take up the slack of all the corporate charitable foundations, all the charities that those overpaid professional athletes start and fund, all the nice organizations formed by money-loving liberal Hollywood elitists.
Oh that's right we won't need them because the goal is to distribute wealth equally to everyone in the world. Oh but there won't be any wealth because money is bad so we will do away with it.
Let's just see how long it takes for your precious little life-saving drugs to be invented in this fantasy world.
First, you paint with such a wide brush. Nor is money the most important thing to me. Freedom of choice of the food I desire, which you wish to take away, is one.
I agree, most people in the medical profession feel saving lives is motivation for their chosen profession...On the other hand there aren't many doctors who are exactly whining about their paychecks either.
But you still miss the point.
How much harder would it be for these medical professionals to save lives if drug companies creating the latest life-saving drugs and medical technology companies inventing the lates diagnostic device did not exist?
Simple fact is that money, $$, dinero, buckaroos have fueled discovery and technological advance for centuries.
This is not to say that some of these things may not eventually be discovered anway by some altruistic individual, but the almighty dollar which you lament has certainly sped it up. And how many more may ahve died had the promise of a buck not sped up the discovery?
Once again you would have millions more suffer and die because of your irrational fear of capitalism.
This is going to shock you. May even scare you. But, to some people, money is NOT everything. I know it's hard to believe, but there are a few people in the medical profession that feel saving lives is, in some way, a motivation. I know someone like you could NEVER believe it, but it's true!