The Supreme Court To Rule On Monsanto Seed Patents 372
Fluffeh writes "Can a farmer commit patent infringement just by planting soybeans he bought on the open market? This week, the Supreme Court asked the Obama administration to weigh in on the question. The Court is pondering an appeals court decision saying that such planting can, in fact, infringe patents. Last year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled, as it had on several previous occasions, that patent exhaustion did not cover second-generation seeds. The Supreme Court has now asked the Solicitor General, the official in charge of representing the Obama administration before the Court, to weigh in on the case."
Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Monsanto is about to realize a dream: The absolute ownership of the food supply.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Or find out that is has been building castles in the sky...
Keep in mind, that for Monsato to have such utter control means that the government is giving that control away. I don't think that the US government wants to give up that sort of power.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Monsanto is the devil, and farmers sold their souls to it for temporary edge over competition. Now, they get no more money than in the past. I would even argue, they get less money as more food floods the market.
The devil is laughing his ass off.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
You forget the USA government = corporations government. After all they can't bite the hand that feeds them: Occasionally groan for appearances to get some votes. Same for the supreme corp^h^h^h court.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Monsanto is about to realize a dream: The absolute ownership of the food supply.
The article makes for a scary reading!
"However, farmers remain free to sell the soybeans they grow in the commodity market,".
The implication here is that Monsanto may also eventually control farmer's ability to sell soybeans after they buy, plant and grow them?
Could this be a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's possible that this could be the concrete example of the brokenness of the patent system required to instigate reform. In this case, outlawing this type of genetic patent.
From TFA:
Monsanto has a point. Taking Bowman's argument to its logical conclusion would imply that anyone could buy a single batch of commodity (but still Roundup Ready) soybeans and use it to sell an unlimited number of copies. This would effectively eviscerate Monsanto's patent protection.
Yet Monsanto's position—that planting Monsanto-derived soybeans always requires Monsanto's permission—could also have troubling consequences. In a world where 94 percent of soybeans in circulation are descended from Monsanto's genetically engineered seeds, it might be hard for farmers who didn't want Monsanto's seeds even to buy seeds that were not patent encumbered. Monsanto's position would effectively place the burden on farmers to test seeds they hope to plant in order to ensure they are not covered by any patents.
If the product works as advertised then natural selection will ensure it comes to dominate the population.. how can you litigate against evolution? Surely the only winning move here is not to play?
Tough Call (Score:4, Insightful)
If you funded the invention of a new crop version and wanted to recoup your hundreds of millions of development costs, you would not want the court to eliminate patent rights for 2nd generation crops.
If on the other hand, you are a farmer, and nearly all beans in your area are patented and then you buying commodity beans from a "feed and seed" place & it means you get mostly patented beans and you plant them, you would not expect to pay a royalty on a "commodity" that you didn't want or order.
This is a tough one. I see the issues on one side and the other.
How about ruling Monsanto is contaminating (Score:5, Insightful)
I see it more that the farmer should sue Monsanto for contaminating the seeds he buys - he expects to get regualr bean seeds instead through no fault of his own, the seeds have been contaminated with genetically modified components.
Ruling that any farmer got it (contaminated agriculture) through natural processes as "infringing" is ludicrous.
Re:Make your own decision! (Score:4, Insightful)
There are a lot of fantastical views about the role of the Supreme Court and ones personal interpretation of the Constitution, but as it stands, the SCOTUS is a purely reactive branch. It's not their job to make policy, nor should it be.
Even with the recent Affordable Care Act oral arguments, you heard Supreme Court justices voicing their reluctance to wade through the bill to figure out where to sever the individual mandate. The court was not consulted on the constitutionality of the PATRIOT act or the most recent NDAA before they were passed. Someone has to actively sue (and have standing to sue, under federal law,) to even bring it to their attention. This might not be ideal, since it would be very difficult sue the federal government over indefinite detention while having the standing to do so, but it's how our government works.
On this issue, it makes sense. The SCOTUS is merely asking the other branches of government "hey, there's a problem with your law. How would you solve it?" before writing a precedent-setting decision.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Since beginning of time, if I bought( or got a hold of) a seed, planted and nursed it it would produce more seeds which can in their turn be planted and nursed. This is the definition of a seed.
If Monsanto has issues with this, then they need to genetically modify the seed (or plant that it gives birth to) so that it will only produce one generation.
If Monsanto wants to challenge the whole reason we became agricultural societies instead of hunter gatherers then I guess that is just in their business DNA.
But if you the people allow them to get away with it, then you the people are morons.
Ugh (Score:5, Insightful)
Not going to hope for much here, seeing as Monsanto already owns the government.
I'm looking forward to a day when living things cannot be patented - especially things which can self-proliferate in a natural setting. I might need to go to another planet to achieve this, unfortunately.
Re:Could this be a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't that render it close enough to a monopoly for the government to be able to step in and regulate it?
Government is already regulating it by allowing companies to patent seeds. That's exactly the problem.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tough Call (Score:5, Insightful)
If you funded the invention of a new crop version and wanted to recoup your hundreds of millions of development costs, you would not want the court to eliminate patent rights for 2nd generation crops.
This attitude is a problem. Why should anyone be forced to prop up a poorly thought out business model? Farmers have been manipulating genes for thousands of years.. is there a patent on corn [wikipedia.org] or bananas [corpwatch.org] or any number of domesticated crops? No, because the reward to the farmers was a more productive crop.
Maybe monsanto needs to change the way they do business rather than try to force everyone else to do so.
Compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since I'm quite aware that new combinations of other things are quite often patentable, I won't say that gene-manipulated seeds don't automatically deserve to be patented. But it might be reasonable to limit the scope of the patent. Because, historically, most patented things need to be manufactured to exist in quantity; they don't go out and automatically make copies of themselves as seeds can do.
So, my opinion on this matter is that the patents should not be allowed to cover any "copies" of the seed-genes that Naturally "get away" from Monsanto's (and most any other industry's) normal control-of-supply. If Monsanto can lock down cross-pollination of its patented gene combinations, fine (and good luck!). If Monsanto can produce seeds that grow plants that produce nonviable seeds, fine (also, good luck!). Because either of those would be reasonable ways to keep its patented gene-combinations under control. But trying to claim ownership of the results of perfectly Natural gene-spreading processes, NO.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as I can tell, the only thing you're missing is the leader cult.
Given their last bunch of leaders... Obama, too polar, you either love him or hate him, sort of the Apple of the political world. Bush W, even Americans knew he had more teeth than IQ. Clinton, bit too liberal to make for a leader cult, also lost his chance by getting caught dipping his cigar into the local ashtray - big no-no for the bible belt. Bush Senior, had a rockin chance with close to 90% approval ratings, blew it by making new taxes and being caught up in the econimic slump. Regan, elected too early before Americans were really ready for a leader cult - was elected in a time when being "American" still meant working hard, taking it on the chin and wearing bowboy hats.
Maybe the next election, one comes along, though Obama will still be much too polarizing of the population and from what I have seen, none of the other candidates really stand a chance - too old, too dumb, too radical or too dumb - do you see what I did there?
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:3, Insightful)
"The people" can eliminate a law at any time by refusing to convict anyone. Who cares what the Supreme Court say if you can't get a conviction in a real court?
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok -- analogy critique
You're suggesting Monsanto built a self-replicating machine, which is totally false. If it was true, Monsanto could take a few train cars of pure carbon, some cylinders of pure hydrogen and oxygen, and a few other trace elements -- and produce seeds. When Monsanto can use air and charcoal to make seeds, maybe then we should talk about patents.
At present however, it is indisputable that Monsanto did NOT build a self-replicating machine. Monsanto took a pre-existing semi-self-replicating machine (semi in the sense that it replicates with the help of other like machines, mixing their designs in the process), a machine that it absolutely can NOT produce from the ground up -- a machine that everyone already had for free or next to free. It made a tweak to that machine, and then released it into the wild with all the others. When the originals and the tweaked version intermingle as would naturally occur, Monsanto claims ownership over the whole shebang.
Which is bullshit. Maybe its fair for Monsanto to have its own patent covered version of the seed (emphasize "maybe" here), but the fact that its modifications find their way into other plants is not a basis for Monsanto gaining ownership of the other plants, its a basis for the people who want the originals to sue for nuisance. But in our bassackwards world, Monsanto's nuisance liability becomes its cash cow.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists! No jury trial for them.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Terminator seeds only work if they are not crossbreeding. But in most cases, it is about non-Monsanto seeds crossbreeding with Monsanto ones. And if the courts determine, that Monsanto had a patent on those plants too, then it's Monsanto's responsibility to keep the seeds from crossbreeding.
No farmer not in a business relationship with Monsanto should be forced to throw some of their products away just because they are contaminated with Monsanto's patented DNA. It wasn't the farmer who planted the Monsanto seeds in the first place. So it's Monsanto negligently damaging the farmer's harvest.
There is a solution though. If Monsanto insists on claiming patent infrigment on those plants and their seeds which are the result of crossbreeding due to pollution of neighbouring non-Monsanto fields, and if this claim is uphold, they should have the responsibility to buy all plants and seeds which are contaminated with their patented DNA at the market prices for the incontaminated one until they manage it to create such seeds that the resulting plants don't pollute non-Monsanto ones.
Re:Make your own decision! (Score:5, Insightful)
You're entirely right, except for one thing. Of COURSE the Supreme Court should ask for a VARIETY of input. That's what a court is FOR. To weigh competing legal cases and theories. Sheesh. Whether they BUY the establishment's arguments or not is an entirely different matter, but they should HEAR them.
Re:Breach of Contract not necessarily IP infringem (Score:4, Insightful)
but there never were a contract..
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
I've wondered why farmers can't do that too. Why couldn't a farmer call up Monsanto and insist they get their garbage out of his field?
Re:Could this be a good thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Monsanto is the acme of the corporate problem in this equation. We really have been fools about all of this. We've allowed corporations into our food production to the point that it threatens the "mom and pop" farmers that make this country great. Why don't we want corporations involved? Aside from the usual great arguments, there is one we must consider. Corporations can be bought and controlled by interests that run contrary to the good of us all.
If we keep the "power" in the hands of small farmer, we make it nigh impossible for any entity to control it. This isn't just Leftist hippie drivel, it preserves our food supply from falling into a "lack of genetic diversity" to keep it safe. If you end up with just ONE strain of something, you have put the system at risk.
The individual independent farmers of America are one of our greatest assets. Through them, we have a stable food system that can feed the world in an affordable way.
But don't expect our government to do what is wise by it's own nation or people. We have elected a ship of fools it would seem. But this is only because we have a population that revels in it's own ignorance. These same people then pass this value on in their electorate. News for Nerds you say? Look at this, name calling from the neolithic cavemen who are too lazy to educate themselves. Nerds indeed!
I believe we are in this situation due to our own stupidity. Corruption is the acme of stupidity and it's tenacity. Corrupted we are indeed. We have lost the ability to think as a nation, and it's now just a matter of the factions splitting up the spoils of the ruins. It's easy to predict how this SCOTUS will rule. I believe they have neither the intelligence, the wisdom, or the integrity to rule for the nation on this. I believe they are corrupted and will side with the hand that feeds them.
Judge a tree by it's fruits. What insane rulings have we seen out of this court so far? "Corporations are people too" hallmarked the rise of Corporation-ism / Fascism in this country. There is a political/power jigsaw puzzle coming together that has been decades in the shuffling around into place. It takes objectivity of a highly removed magnitude and a scope of vision that pans the global history to see it.
To put it in gaming terms, the perspective of the pawn will not see it. You have to look at it from the perspective of the player. Looking at this as just another piece on the board, how fares the game for us?
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:3, Insightful)
Your statement is overly optimistic. In fact we are already at fascism including abusive police powers,suppression of free speech, detention without due process and execution of citizens without trial. Our militaristic aggression may help those outside the US to recognize the situation. The veneer of very recent democratic principals in action is now being removed as a nuisance. There is no responsibility to provide for the common good though that is invoked to serve corporate interest as is the case with the absurd so called health care changes. Note that there has been no move to increase the amount of doctors and hospitals. There is a nasty abusive provision to require all citizens to pay a set of corporations. So more revenue for the insurance industry is a given and since actual health care capacity is stagnant this means that no greater provision of actual health care to the populace is also a given. It is blatant corruption and fraud.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
if worse comes to worst, a constitutional amendment can fix a bad supreme court decision.
You're misunderstanding what the Supreme court does; the only thing that can "fix" a "bad Supreme Court decision" is another Supreme court decision.
A new Constitutional Amendment will change the boundaries of the government, but will not change what court rulings mean; they will still stand as precedent on any related cases that the Amendment did not address.
What I think you're trying to say is that an Amendment can make a SCOTUS decision moot. In that case, you're going for overkill, though - a simple change in law is all that is needed, not an Amendment.
Re:Breach of Contract not necessarily IP infringem (Score:4, Insightful)
The guy who bought the seed from a third-party was not party to ANY contract.
The guy who sold them, and the company that produced them - possibly they DID have a contract. Possibly that contract IS breached. But that's a *contract* dispute between those two parties. You can try to sue that seller for the perceived loss of value of Monsanto assets due to their breach of contract, if you like.
But trying to sue the guy who bought them (who at worst has been conned into buying something "illegal") is like trying to sue the guy who bought your TV from a pawn shop, not knowing it was stolen. Except there is no theft, in this instance, only an "unauthorised copy", so no intention to permanently deprive, and no case of handling stolen goods either.
What you're trying to say is that you own ANY plant that, by natural process, has acquired genes that were originally obtained from a Monsanto plant. That's like suing because your dog has acquired a specific colour because his parents had bred with a dog that come from a "company-owned" stock. It's like suing because someone's horse has acquired Red Rum's genes from somewhere. And just as fecking ludicrous to try to defend.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
I agreed to everything you said until you mentioned fascism. I thought, things are bad in the US, but surely they can't be that bad, the US are nothing like Nazi Germany, right? So I googled for a fascism checklist and found this: The 14 defining characteristics of fascism [rense.com]:
This is scary.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
As for "controlled mass media," well, you're posting on Slashdot, aren't you? And isn't the article two back titled "Millions of Subscribers Leaving Cable TV for Streaming Services"?
Read the whole site (Score:5, Insightful)
I would challenge "supremacy of the military" on the grounds that our Commander in Chief is, and always has been, a civilian. A veteran, perhaps, but never an active-duty soldier. And the second-in-command since 1949, the Secretary of Defense, is also a civilian
The actual criteria, as explained on the web page, isn't how high active military are in the political chain, but rather how much a country spends on military and how often it uses its army as a solution to the problems.
Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
And as seen from outside (from the other side of the atlantic pond), the USA seem to fund disproportionately a lot their armed forces, and seem to think that fighting wars (Irak, Afghanistan) is the best solution. Active soldiers are seen as doing something patriotic. These wars have cost unbelievible amounts of money, yet the country still hesitate to spend money on public health (the whole debate about medicare/medicaid).
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
well you know this system was designed, from the start, to maintain power in relatively small (and, until recently, shrinking) circles. Its been pointed out that to maintain representation levels with population growth, we would need 100k members in the House.
By the model the senate wouldn't need to expand.... but all the state legislatures would.... in any case, its clear to see that this doesn't scale. Thats why it hasn't happend, and wont.
The electoral system basically makes a two party system the only stable configuration... to its credit, it does effectively seem to prevent a one party system from being too stable. That is, unless the second party was really weak. Maybe a group that seldom or never comes up with any good ideas and basically represents a few moneied interests like...say... the security services, paired up with some large but intellectually insignificant group that nobody is ever actually going to accept the policies of... like say.... whacko christians who support Isreal because...and I shit you not.... the Bible says the jews should have that land. (Ever wonder why the republicans always beat the drums on what a good friend Isreal is, when US Jews are not only so few in number, but almost uniformly vote democrat?)
The bigger problem is, its all little cults of personality. Making it about electing individuals makes campaigns about the lives of individuals. Honestly, I think it lends creedance to investigations of affairs. I mean, if the election is about putting a person in a seat.... what would you expect it to evolve to?
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Kids these days just have zero conception of how little human life was worth in the 1940s, or what really went on. It seems that historical reality is beyond the capacity of your imagination.
On all sides. It was not merely Germany, Italy and Japan targeting civilians and taking rights away from people on the homefront. Every country did it in the name of survival. Anything you want to whine about the Nazis or Fascists doing, we already did. Restrict rights of domestic citizens and put them into concentration camps, or conscript them into war? Check. Bomb the hell out of German civilians with our British bros all night long? Check. Push a prototype nuclear weapon of mass destruction out of the back of an airplane over a city filled with civilians
Calling someone a fascist is inane and meaningless, and is an insult to history.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:2, Insightful)
The argument should logically be this simple:
(1) Pollen from GMO crops is abandoned property just like an abandoned ship. It is neither under control of nor is any attempt to retain control of it in the hands of the property owner. Abandoned property is open for claim by any person who receives it. It is just like discards in the trash.
(2) The pollen from a GMO crop is pollution recognized by pollen counts and represents a damage or degredation of the property of those who receive it because it is being used to degrade their property rights and is in fact an unwanted genetic contamination. Monsanto should be liable for this damage.
(3) No court would rule that if I had a cow and it was in my field and a bull escaped from another farm and crossed my fences getting to my cow and impregnating it that I owe one cent to the owner of the bull for stud fee or that any claim existed to progeny.
If this is not what the supremes rule it will demonstrate that they are neither Judges nor in possession of judgement. Common law, the law of the sea now extended to Aircraft and rightfully to be extended to things passing in the air and the laws regards pollution and the liability it extends say that Monsanto should be liable to a massive fine for their wanton acts.
In addition Monsanto tries to "license" seed use. It has never been accepted that patent seeds prior to this extended any genetic rights or extended any ownership rights to progeny. It only extended to prohibition of marketing it as the brand item. For example corn which was bred seed could be bought and sold and reseeded even though it was under patent prior to this. The only thing one could not do was sell it as brand seed for replanting. This constitutes the common law and the traditional law that should define the seed process. This is equivalent to the RIAA discussions in that most users of music assume that copy within their devices of RIAA registered recordings should be within "Fair Use" and in fact is US Supreme Court ruled cases.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:0, Insightful)
Obama in office wasn't strong enough to make the change.
Ugh. I guess that's the natural reaction - denial. Its not that he wasn't strong enough, its that he lied his ass off. Why is it so hard to get into people's heads that you were lied to. He never had any intentions of doing most of the things he claimed he would do. It was repeatedly stated that most of the things he claimed he would do are impossible and/or not in the best interested of the US and out allies and therefore could not change in the timespan of his presidency. The problem isn't that Obama failed to execute, but rather the masses were dumb enough to believe obvious and well publicized lies.
If people are disappointed in Obama, they should really be ashamed of themselves. They knowingly followed someone who lied to them because they wanted to believe in the lie more than they believed their own eyes and ears. They allowed themselves to be deceived. Which interestingly enough, is exactly what brought the likes of Hitler into power. And now, I'm not comparing Hitler to Obama, but rather pointing out its the same lies and charisma which provided the foot into the door. The dumb people wanted lies more than they wanted reality.
Shamed on everyone who voted for Obama. They should at least have the honor to stand up and admit they were morons. Its even more disgusting that so many continue to lie to themselves.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it very odd that even here on /. that you get modded down for criticizing Obama's evolving dictatorial powers
Well, I don't ever get mod points, but I can tell you why I've begun to just tune those people out now: Because, more often than not, they follow up all that with defense or justification of the stupid Tea Party war on abortion, birth control, or sex-ed, how they shouldn't have to pay for the poor to get medical treatment, or how public schools are full of "liberal indoctrination", or college kids are all "entitled" and all sorts of other ultra-conservative nonsense.
Obama pisses me off in a lot of ways, and I'd be happy to discuss his shortcomings, but I refuse to do so if it's just to steer the conversation towards how the other side is better in some twisted way, and most of the time, that is exactly what happens. If someone wants to talk to me about how government is completely fucked up, from top to bottom, left and right? Fine, let's dish. If they want to try and spin it like Obama is some evil genius trying to "turn 'murika soshulist" and they automatically get ignored.
This isn't a Republican/Democrat problem. This is a problem with the whole fucking thing, across all three branches of government. The cult of Obama you complain about has just as large a cult on the other side, the cult of "everything wrong is Obama's fault"...and both cults are retarded.
No Comparison between Left and Right (Score:4, Insightful)
The left has been extremely critical of the Obama administration. The left has been consistently critical of his attacks on civil liberties, his wars, his attacks on medical marijuana producers, his deportations, his attacks on whistle blowers, and his obsequiousness to corporate power and the security state. Everyone has heard of the Occupy Movement. The left has challenged Obama's power and leadership on a scale unimaginable of the right-wing during Bush's term.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Most if not all of the people are probably quite disillusioned with the campaign Obama at this point, and have come to the realization that the Obama in office wasn't strong enough to make the change.
This is not actually the case. Have you actually tried talking to an Obama supporter about Obama? They're convinced he's doing a good job, even though he's barely better than Bush on some issues, and far far worse than Bush on others. Anything you care to bring up, they blame on a Republican Congress, even things that are wholly the domain of the executive (e.g. packing his cabinet with crony capitalists, the behavior of the DOJ, blatant violation of the War Powers Act etc.).
Anyone who was stupid enough to belive that Obama was actually going to try and change anything significant is too stupid to realise they've been conned.
explanation of terms (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary uses the term "patent exhaustion", which some people might not be familiar with. This is the doctrine of first sale for patents. Patents don't just cover the manufacture, sale, or distribution of protected devices/etc, they also cover the use, private, commercial, or any other kind of use. The law as written would therefore mean that you can patent your device, sell it, and then sue your customers for using it. So the courts have decided that OBVIOUSLY they can't do that, so the first time you sell a device, your patent interests are "exhausted" and can no longer be used to prevent the use of that particular device.
This is a complicated court case because patent exhaustion is not written down anywhere, it's a wibbly wobbly thing. But as usually stated, it covers the one device. You cannot buy one patent device, and then make your own copies and sell them, because only the one device is "exhausted", and the patent is not nullified. On the other hand, patent law says that if you buy a patented device that can make things, then patent exhaustion also allows you to sell the things made by that device, if they are not covered by patents. That is to say, although things made by a patented process are protected by patent law, if you can legally use such a process (whether by license or patent exhaustion) the patent rights no longer extend to the product. So the court here must decide if that includes self-replication.
On the one hand, the idea behind the Doctrine of Exhaustion is that its pretty obscene to sell somebody something and put the burden on THEM to research all of the currently valid patents to make sure they're allowed to use the damn thing. So that should imply that Exhaustion applies to all intended uses of the patented product. So if a seed is intended to be grown, patent exhaustion would apply to all uses of the final plant. Since for thousands of years farmers have replanted crops using seeds from the last generation, that should be an inalienable intended use of a plant. On the other hand, if you have a Star Trek Replicator which you have rightly patented, its intended use is to make things. So if it can make patented parts of itself, that is part of its intended use? (Other posters here have suggested such a thing). I'm not sure of that. I think for that to apply its intended use would have to be self-replication specifically. That is to say, its purpose is not to make itself specifically, but to make whatever pattern you give it. So patent exhaustion on the replicator would not extend to pattern files you feed it. Besides which, the Doctrine of Exhaustion only applies to unencumbered sales, not to licensed sales or leases or anything else. So if it was truly a concern, they could make you sign a license when you buy the replicator, which explicitly enumerates how you may use the patented device.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - check - sometimes, but you don't go to jail if you're not patriotic
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - X - apart from some isolated incidents, the US has high regard for human rights.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - X - Although "terrorists" may have unified some people, it's not like the cold war with the with us or a commie mentality.
Supremacy of the Military - check - though the military is not used for civil matters which I would put as a key point of a fascist regime
Rampant Sexism - X - I think all societies have sexism, but it's nothing like Saudi Arabia in the US
Controlled Mass Media - X - That we're talking or that there was coverage of any government scandal (wikileaks data anyone?) shows that the government is not in control
Obsession with National Security - check
Religion and Government are Intertwined - X - This isn't the taliban, although many leaders do share a faith, there are plenty of other faiths, and the religious text does not direct policy (the justice system has blocked it when it attempts to).
Corporate Power is Protected - check/X - corporations are very powerful, but they do have limits and regulations (though they could be stronger in many cases).
Labor Power is Suppressed - X - see labor unions across the country
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - X - any disdain for intellectuals or arts is not being pushed by the government
Obsession with Crime and Punishment - X - we're not having China like police crackdowns with people sent to labor camps
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - X - Corruption is nothing compared to places like India or Afghanistan, not even comparable.
Fraudulent Elections - X - apart from a few isolated incidents, elections are clean. See Russia for what a fraudulent election is.
In general, I think you could apply any list to pretty much any country if you just look for one example of it happening. People that seem to think the US is a fascist regime really need to look at actual Fascist countries and get a grip on reality.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the problem is the opposite. It's the Obama opponents who are convinced that Obama has done nothing, and that even when an Obama supporter points out a flaw in their attacks on Obama, or even their own hypocrisy, they still blame Obama.
That's been my experience, treated as if I worshiped Obama because I didn't accept their narrative.
Heck, your bit about crony capitalists? When that comes from somebody who I know supported George W. Bush, I know that's completely dishonest hypocrisy. In fact that turn of phrase is a clear indicator of somebody who has been listening way too much to Fox News.
So no, I don't buy your complaints either. You've got no perspective to demonstrate the fairness of your criticism, so it's appropriate to dismiss it. Get back to us when you've cleaned up your own house.
Re:Culmination of a dream (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right... this isn't just leftist hippie drivel. It's a fight for freedom vs. fascism disguised as free industry. I am a 46-year-old, extremely free-market libertarian guy who has begun to experiment with small-scale farming, and the things I come across are downright scary.
Recently a friend who is a gardening/farming geek unparalleled, working on his Master Gardener certification, lost the greater part of his organic garden due to aminopyralid damage in the soil. His mistake was to bring several barrels of cow manure from a conventional cattle farm to mix with his soil. It turns out that Dow Chemical has produced an additive to livestock feed that renders the manure unsuitable for soil for up to 2 years. (This affects horse manure also, BTW). His expensive collection of blackberries, blueberries, fruit trees, and tomatoes: gone overnight. If a guy who reads up on all the science and technology of farming the way a Linux contributor reads Unix programming books can't prevent such disaster, what hope is there for the typical local farmer? One simple mistake of involving your food supply *in any way* with the world of corporate farming can wipe you out. And there are so many ways.
And if you think this problem is bad in the USA, it is even worse in India [mercola.com]. Literally a quarter million small-scale farmers have committed suicide over the last couple decades because of international food corporations and genetically modified plants.
Between the heads of international food corporations and the international banking elite, I'm not sure which group should become the more hated, but they are both doing their level best to turn the rest of us into serfs. I don't see how it can end well. I am starting to believe there will be a major upheaval in the world in my children's generation.