You are free to cast your seed wherever, You just can't cast Monsantos seed without license.
Monsanto has copyright on that DNA. The courts granted them that. When you buy a sack of GMO corn, you are licensed to spread THAT seed, not its offspring (on the label is an end user license agreement: by opening this sack you agree to the terms and use...)
Which then raises the next question. If Company XYZ creates a human gene to give you some extra whatever, do they own the copyrights on that gene? and therefore own your offspring? the precedent has already been established.

My husband does not do litigation. He writes patents. I think he would say he has the good fortune...
quit being obnoxious and stick to the argument

you are the one making the claim. it's up to you to provide the proof. I have already been very outspoken against Monsanto's crony relationship with the govt in getting immunity regarding certain litigation
The SCOTUS decision is not what you are conjecturing

yes, please

http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages...

http://www.aspeninstitute.org/policy-wor...

http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/20...

http://www.johntreed.com/agentorange.htm...

http://www.cato.org/publications/comment...

Interesting that you mention court cases, where Monsanto is undefeated. Time for a cite call. I know that Monsanto clearly DOES sue people who have bought or raised contaminated seed, that was a SCOTUS decision last term, naturally in favor of Monsanto. But even at that, so what if the courts have been good or bad to Monsanto? They rarely ever get that far, while "David vs Goliath" often turns out spectacularly well for David, sometimes David would rather do other things (like plant crops) than fight: not everyone had the good fortune to marry a patent attorney

And what are they doing with Roundup now? genetically modifying "good" crops so that farmers can...spray it all over the landscape. Not going with a win here.

As one of many examples yes. Now, want to talk about Agent Orange?

the studies are biased and inconclusive

there are court cases on point that prove you wrong.
My husband has looked at this issue extensively (he is a patent atty) and there is no evidence that Monsanto is forcing people who did not buy their seeds, but somehow the seeds blew into their fields, to now they have to license from Monsanto. There is only one case even remotely close and in that case the farmer went out of his way to harvest seeds that were in a drainage ditch-not on his land. He did it specifically because he wanted those seeds.

The only problem with DDT was the huge quantities sprayed across the landscape. It was never proven to be harmful. Some countries are using it again in small localized applications resulting in decreased Malaria deaths.

Truth changes when someone else says it? Either something is truthful, or a lie, and you can plug your ears and shout "I'M NOT LISTENING BECAUSE BAD PEOPLE SAID IT" all day, but that won't change the truth of the statement

well, the removal of DDT from the world has resulted in the deaths of over 100M people, so who am I more afraid of? hmm...
seriously, on an Objectivist website you are going to bring up DDT?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonentine/20...

Talk about lack of scientific knowledge, differentiating seed corn and eating corn? Up until Monsanto screwed with things, the major difference between them was cosmetic: the seed corn was the eating corn that didn't quite look marketable. Nitpicking loses something when you're just as ignorant as the person you're being pedantic to

They CAN force a farmer to buy their seeds, many of their seed licensees started out not using GMO seeds and got their crop contaminated, Monsanto stepped in and said "we can sue you to hell and back for patent infringement, or you can just buy our seeds on contract, for as long as you grow crops". An extorted contract is clearly one that is forced

I'm going to go ahead and point out that the mere presence of Doritos and Cheetos in a Diabetes test subject's diet would have caused the doctors to have a conniption, regardless of whether GMOs were involved

Given that they came up with Agent Orange, DDT, and other fine examples, you have to ask how it's in Monsanto's interest to put products on the market that harm people? WHO CARES WHY? It's clear that they're going to do it regardless of what their best interest really is.

You got it! The government is already practicing "negative eugenics" (ripping half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, which eliminates the elderly faster; promoting every possible excuse for abortion, which eliminates possible positive human contributors). If anything, a more positive approach to modifying the species should be a good thing. However, this also creates the opportunity for a more severely class-separated society, with the genetically advantaged (those who can afford the expensive procedures) served by the "commons" (those who only reproduce normally). Does "Brave New World" start to sound familiar?

That's inaccurate. When a virus invades the body, it attempts to hijack normal cells and force them into using the body's own resources to make copies of the virus. It doesn't change the cell's DNA in a way that the cell can propagate itself - the change is always destructive to the cell itself.

Now there are things called retroviruses that scientists have engineered to attempt to intentionally alter the DNA of living cells by using viral bodies to implant modified genes into the host cells, but the retroviruses themselves die in the process - they don't replicate on their own nor do the modified host cells then produce more retroviruses.

"positive eugenics",

We're from the government, and we're hear to help.

AIDS (or any virus) delivers a genetic package into the host.
Unlike bacteria, Virus's can not reproduce. They need someone to do that.
Their little genetic package is delivered to the host, the host sews (splices) that package into your dna, and it's now being copied by your RNA. It may likely be genetic non-sense, but your body is copying it. the trick is, that virus has to look the right way, in order for it to be incorporated.
That's the 5 cent lesson.

That's why we can cure Bacterial infections with anti-biotics. Bacteria has to eat. We can poison them.
Virus don't eat, they don't have sex, we inoculate (infect) ourselves against them to develop immunity so that white blood cells can detect, and clean up the trash.
Can GMO DNA survive your gut? I don't see why not. Do you want to trust the governments research.. that's sponsored by Monsanto.

the seed is only part of the contractural arrangement. Leftover seed must be returned.
In college, I worked for the university bookstore. At the end of everysemester, publishers demanded you return excess stock. Because it was expensive to ship books, the requirement was slice off the book cover and destroy the book.People were fired for not following that rule and keeping books slated to be destroyed. IT was difficult to do, I must say! Especially one afternoon when it happened to be a bunch of copies of the Fountainhead!! aaagggghhhhh!a
However, into the incinerator they went, freshly sliced covers, mailed back to the publisher for the bookstore's credit.

Better get used to genetic engineering, like it or not. We couldn't even ban alcoholic consumption (18th amendment), so I seriously doubt we're going to stop genetic modification efforts.

The latest discussions are about what I call "positive eugenics", or efforts to improve the human species. Children created from more than two parents, to eliminate inherited genetic disorders, as one example of what's being explored, and the temptation to make the species better physically, mentally, and immunologically will be too great to prevent further experimentation.

Genetic modification of human and other species to fit new environments like Mars or the Moon are probably in the future. Robot warriors will probably inhibit any attempt to create super-soldiers genetically, but I may be wrong on that.

GMOs are only one more form of invasive species, just artificially created. Efforts to control python population in Florida aren't going so well, and Asian carp and "snakeheads" are having an impact on native fish populations.

Technological change resistance is futile, as the Luddites discovered. The human species has the talent for adaptation, and it's far more effective to adjust to changes in the environment than to try to freeze everything in place.

Will some GMOs cause problems? Undoubtedly, but others will be of great benefit, like the "golden rice". You can try to stop a freight train by standing in front of it, but I don't think you'll have much luck.

If we feed 7 billion people, they'll make 7 billion more. Where will keep them, and where shall we grow their food?
For those that want to blame climate change on man, and our use of fossil fuels.
The problem is there are too damn many people. Especially, useless people.
this is why Obama wants to give free birth control to women. Not for their health.
I'll bet, all your GMO corn, will be the cause of fertility problems in the US.
Connect the dots.