Monsanto’s Business Model: A Devious Strategy to Extend Copyright into Perpetuity?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Monsanto’s Business Model: A Devious Strategy to Extend Copyright into Perpetuity?



Monsanto has been receiving a lot of attention because of a lawsuit filed by five million Brazilian...

Monsanto has been receiving a lot of attention because of a lawsuit filed by five million Brazilian
farmers against it. But there is a larger issue involving Monsanto, and it has to do with Monsanto’s
business strategy and natural law.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Monsanto’s Business Model: A Devious Strategy to Extend Copyright into Perpetuity? Monsanto’s Business Model: A Devious Strategy to Extend Copyright into Perpetuity? Document Transcript

    • Monsanto’s Business Model: A DeviousStrategy to Extend Copyright intoPerpetuity?A.M. FreyedInfowars.comJuly 19, 2012Monsanto has been receiving a lot of attention because of a lawsuit filed by five million Brazilianfarmers against it. But there is a larger issue involving Monsanto, and it has to do with Monsanto’sbusiness strategy and natural law.What Monsanto and other corporate entities have been trying to do – and this has resulted in the currentlawsuit – is recreate a copyright-patent system that goes beyond what has commonly been consideredintellectual property.Ultimately, it is likely unreasonable as it works against “natural law,” which is why Monsanto is havingso much trouble enforcing its will. Combine a flawed strategy with the free-flow of information in theInternet era, and you get uncooperative customers and organized resistance. Though it is not explained this way in this “modern” age, this is likely why five million Brazilians are now suing US-based Monsanto for over six billion euros. Monsanto may have to largely rethink its business strategy in the Internet era. Monsanto now collects royalties from “renewal” seeds that constitute next year’s harvests. If farmers use Monsanto seeds, they need to pay a royalty for continuing to use them. The royalty is two percent every year.
    • The logic is that if the hand of man creates it, then itis copyrightable or patentable. This is disturbingbecause it is revealing a larger pattern that seemsboth conscious and inexorable. Russia Today hascovered the Brazilian controversy in an articleentitled “Seeds of Doubt.” It’s a good summary, andhere is an excerpt:At stake is Brazil’s highly profitable and evergrowing soybean production. Last year, Brazil wasthe world’s second producer and exporter of soybeanbehind the United States, according to the AFPreport. The crops can be used for anything fromanimal feed to bio fuel, and worldwide demand isgrowing.Genetically engineered soy first appeared illegally inBrazil in the 1990’s, smuggled in from neighboring Argentina. The Brazilian farmers found the seedattractive despite the ban in place from the Brazilian authorities because Monsanto had specificallydesigned the seed to be resistant to its own immensely powerful and popular herbicide Roundup.When used in tandem, the strong herbicide will kill the weeds while allowing the soy crops to growunimpeded. After the ban was lifted, genetically modified seed flooded the Brazilian market, and now85 per cent of the Brazilian soy crop is genetically-engineered. Soy has been extremely successful inBrazil, currently making up 26 per cent of the country’s farm exports last year and netting Brazil atotal of $24.1 billion, according to AP. However, Brazil’s farmers were apparently unaware there wouldbe a heavy price to pay.To make a deal with Monsanto is to make a deal with a company that is one the most powerful andpervasive food giants in the world. It is the world’s number one seed developer, and its patented geneshave been inserted into 95 per cent of all American soy, and 80 per cent of all American corn crops.Monsanto has repeatedly levied large damage suits against independent farmers that haveunknowingly or unwittingly used their seed.Food, water, energy – corporations (multinationals especially) inevitably seek control of the basicbuilding blocks of life because that’s where the money is. The strategy doubtless began at least 500years when the elites of the day came up with the idea of copyright itself. This was evidently a ploy toslow down the spread of printed information and to generally prevent its dispersal. Printed informationwas essentially undermining to the powers-that-be of the day just as the Internet is threatening it today. There is some evidence that copyright was applied more broadly in England then Germany. It has been hypothesized therefore that Germany’s intellectual flowering in the 1700 and 1800s was a direct result of the large quantities of printed information available to the public at low prices. The issue as it concerns Monsanto is not whether the company has a right to sell products and charge for them as it chooses. But essentially, Monsanto holds crops hostage with its position on royalties. The farmer grows his crop using manifold resources including labor. He also grows the seeds that he intends to replant – but finds he cannot until Monsanto is paid again … and again.
    • Yet it is not Monsanto that will enforce this dictat, but authorities.And thus we can conclude what Monsanto wants to do is againstnatural law. There is no way that Monsanto could enforce its willon customers all over the world when it comes to seed royalties.Whether the penalties are civil or criminal, it needs governmentofficials and bureaucratic authorities to do that.If Monsanto tries to pursue this business model on its own, itwill soon likely find the costs to be prohibitive. This, in fact, is thereason that furniture makers don’t try to charge twice or three timesfor the same chair. Or why manufacturers of milk, butter and eggsdon’t try to charge a royalty for the end result – a cake for instance.If Monsanto wants to charge royalties for its seeds, let it enforce this idea on its own. It is onlyMERCANTILISM – the ability that multinational Monsanto has to motivate governmental agencies todo its will – that allows Monsanto to pursue this apparently flawed business model.One may argue that Monsanto’s position is one that involves accepted practices of patent law. But thisis just the point. There is plenty of evidence that patent law retards progress considerably, whileenriching only a few. Just Google “patent law abuses.”If Monsanto wants to collect royalties on seeds, leave the government out of it. Applying its will viagovernment force in the Internet era may be – increasingly – a non-starter from a business strategystandpoint – as five million Brazilian farmers are signaling now.The World According to Monsanto VIDEO BELOW, Inc. VIDEO BELOW Matters VIDEO BELOW Under Attack FULL Documentary GMO VIDEO BELOW Modified Food - Panacea Or Poison VIDEO BELOW
    • Genetically Modified Babies Already Born –How Will They Alter Human Species?Dr. MercolaMercola.comJuly 19, 2012When I first read that genetically modified humanshave already been born, I could hardly believe it.However, further research into this story featured inthe UK’s Daily Mail1 proved it to be true. They’vereally done it… they’ve created humans that naturecould never allow for, and it’s anyone’s guess as towhat will happen next.Even more shocking was the discovery that this isactually old news!The Daily Mail article was not dated, and uponinvestigation, the experiments cited actually tookplace over a decade ago; the study announcing theirsuccessful birth was published in 20012.While I typically comment on recent findings andhealth related news, in this case I will make anexception, because I think many of you may be assurprised by this information as I was. I do notpropose to have any answers here as this is out of my scope of expertise.At best, I hope I can stir you to ponder the implications of this type of genetic engineering, and I inviteyou to share your perspective in the vital votes’ comment section below. As reported in the featuredarticle: “The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics… Fifteen of the children were born… as a result of one experimental program at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey. The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilized in an attempt to enable them to conceive. Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults—two women and one man.”Human Germline Now Altered… What Happens Next?Today, these children are in their early teens, and while the original study claims that this was “the firstcase of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children,” later reports putsuch claims of absolute success in dispute. Still, back in 2001, the authors seemed to think they had itall under control, stating:
    • “These are the first reported cases of germline mtDNA genetic modification which have led to the inheritance of two mtDNA populations in the children resulting from ooplasmic transplantation. These mtDNA fingerprints demonstrate that the transferred mitochondria can be replicated and maintained in the offspring, therefore being a genetic modification without potentially altering mitochondrial function.” It’s relevant to understand that these children have inherited extra genes—that of TWO women andone man—and will be able to pass this extra set of genetic traits to their own offspring. One of the mostshocking considerations here is that this was done—repeatedly—even though no one knows what theramifications of having the genetic traits of three parents might be for the individual, or for theirsubsequent offspring.Based on what I’ve learned about the genetic engineering of plants, I’m inclined to say theramifications could potentially be vast, dire, and completely unexpected.As a general, broad-strokes rule, it seems few scientists fond of gene-tinkering have a well-rounded orholistic view of living organisms, opting instead to view the human body as a machine. And asdemonstrated with the multi-varied problems that have arisen from genetically engineered foods—fromthe development of superweeds and superpests, to the creation of a never-before-seen organism nowlinked to miscarriage and infertility—such a view is bound to lead you to the wrong conclusions…Surprise, Surprise… “Unpredictable Outcomes” ReportedAs it turns out, this type of genetic modification, called cytoplasmic transfer, is actually a hot topicamong geneticists, but it’s rarely published or discussed in the lay press, if at all—as evidenced by myown surprise when reading this decade-old piece of news.Many follow-up reports continue to tout the high success of thismethod of treating infertility. But some, including a book putout by Cambridge Press, warns of the dangers and risks of thisprocedure. For example, the following excerpts from a report3delivered during the 2003 World Congress on Controversies inObstetrics, Gynecology & Infertility in Berlin raises questionsabout the less than thoughtful implementation of thistechnology, and some of the problems encountered: “… Cytoplasmic control of preimplantation development is not a “new” concept, but ooplasm transfer have been amazingly rapidly applied in humans, with relative success, in the absence of extensive research to evaluate the efficacy and the potential risks of the method, resulting in some publications highlighting the potential dangers (Winston and Hardy 2002, DeRycke et al 2002, Templeton 2002), and unpredictable outcomes (Cummins 2001, 2002).
    • … A frank follow-up of ooplasmic transplantation pregnancies and infants reports that two out of 17 fetuses had an abnormal 45, XO karyotype. The authors assume the hypothesis of a link between chromosomal anomalies and oocytes manipulation, and reveal that one of the babies has been diagnosed at 18 months with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a spectrum of autism- related diagnoses.” [Emphasis mine] So it didn’t take long—less than two years, infact—for reports of “unpredictable outcomes” to crop up. I for one am not surprised. It’s somewhatdisconcerting that so much of this research is taking place without open discussion about the ethicalquestions associated with it. The US FDA appears to have begun looking at the ethics of ooplasmictransplantation, and in one powerpoint4 it is pointed out that an 18-month-old child born from thisprocedure has been diagnosed with autism (PDD), and that the incidence of chromosomal anomalies isknown to be higher in children born from the procedure than the rate of major congenital abnormalitiesobserved in the natural population. The document also states that lack of testing and long-term follow-up of the children born from the procedure so far is a significant shortcoming, making evaluation of thesafety and effectiveness of the technique very difficult. The genetic modification of humans appears tohave been running alongside the genetic engineering of plants, being just a few years behind in terms ofthe technology being unleashed, and the lack of proper evaluation of health effects is apparently on paras well, which is to say near non-existent…Could They Create Patentable Humans? Perhaps…Another horrific side effect that has nothing to do with health per se, is the potential that making thisprocedure widely available may trigger a “patent” war; meaning these genetically modified humanscould become patentable property.Sound crazy?You bet! But it’s not outside the realm of possibility.The world is already embroiled in discussions aboutwhich genetically engineered life forms can and cannotbe patented5, and biotech companies have securedpatents on everything from genetically modified seedsto engineered animals of various kinds. Even humangenes have already been patented!As explained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)6: “The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants patents on human genes, which means that the patent holders own the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. Anyone who makes or uses a patented gene without permission of the patent holder – whether it be for commercial or noncommercial purposes – is committing patent infringement and can be sued by the patent holder for such
    • infringement. Gene patents, like other patents, are granted for 20 years.For example, Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, controls patentson the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes [two genes associated with hereditary breast- and ovariancancer]. Because of its patents, Myriad has the right to prevent anyone else from testing,studying, or even looking at these genes. It also holds the exclusive rights to any mutations alongthose genes. No one is allowed to do anything with the BRCA genes without Myriad’spermission.A 2005 study found that 4,382 of the 23,688 human genes in the National Center forBiotechnology Information’s gene database are explicitly claimed as intellectual property. Thismeans that nearly 20% of human genes are patented. In addition to the BRCA genes, genesassociated with numerous diseases, both common and rare, are patented, including Alzheimer’sdisease, asthma, some forms of colon cancer, Canavan disease, hemochromatosis, some forms ofmuscular dystrophy, Long QT Syndrome, and many others.”If this sounds outrageous, illegal, and nonsensical, it’s because it’s all of those things. The ACLUclaims to be engaged in a noble lawsuit against the US Patent and Trademark Office to stop the practiceof issuing patents that are contrary to the law, which states only inventions can be patented—notnaturally occurring parts of the human body. Still, the precedent has been clearly set. So what’s to stopa company from eventually claiming patent rights on an entire individual?Human Cloning Next?According to the featured article7, “altering the human germline—in effect tinkering with the verymake-up of our species—is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world’s scientists.Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra,desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.”But that’s clearly not the end of the line in terms of where this technology might lead, if it hasn’talready: “… Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies,” Mail Online states8. “He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab. Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF. Last year [2000], Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children—a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community. ‘It would be an afternoon’s work for one of my students,’ he said, adding that he had been approached by ‘at least three’ individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.”That was then—12 years ago. One can only guess what might have transpired in laboratories such asthat of Professor Cohen since then…