[omd]

>If you just mean that patent enforcement is inherently scummy and antagonistic, well, I have no snappy response for that.

Well then finally we can all agree that Monsanto is detrimental to the development of GMOs. No one is claiming that Monsanto is "waiting for the wind to blow IP-encumbered seeds onto fields", so that might explain why you can't find any evidence of it.

What people do have a problem with, is a patent troll and a litigious one at that. That's what Monsanto is and there are plenty of cases to prove it:

http://www.nature.com/news/monsanto-may-lose-gm-soya-royalti...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Schmeiser_v._Mo...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#India

[api]

What people are concerned about is basically "embrace, extend, extinguish" business practices applied to agriculture, with the result being a consolidation of ownership of the means of seed production into the hands of a small oligopoly of companies with interlocking patent agreements.

(Others have pointed out that no, Monsanto does not control the whole industry. But they are by far the dominant player.)

[tptacek]

That sounds bad. Is it what's happening in practice? I'd like to learn more about this. I certainly don't want to be knee-jerk in the opposite direction (that Monsanto is totally O.K.).