What is the most evil corporation in the world?

[Viking]

OK, if you schmucks are opposed to gene patenting what incentive can there be to do any research into using genes to create drought resistant corn or vitamin d containing rice or any other genetically modified organism?

Patents only last 10 years. How are inventors and scientists supposed to profit from their work if once they have done the work any schmuck can use that gene themselves? Most opponents have argued that the genes should not belong the company that discovers them and makes them viable for use, but rather the local aboriginal population or local state.

Do I really have to go into a first principles argument for patents?

[Martinus]

IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.

Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature?  Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil.  The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time.  I blame the gays.

Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.

In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.

You do realize that Evangelical Christians were the driving force behind the American abolition movement don't you? Without there support slavery would have lasted at least another 50 years.

How's that relevant to the point I was making? 

[Eddie Teach]

Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.

In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.

You do realize that Evangelical Christians were the driving force behind the American abolition movement don't you? Without there support slavery would have lasted at least another 50 years.

How's that relevant to the point I was making? 

BTW, Tim, it's "their support" 

[DontSayBanana]

Monsanto gives a lot of money to charity.  Therefore, not evil.

Indulgences?  Quite evil.

The cross-pollination suits are the big kicker, but I've heard rumblings of getting govs to abuse eminent domain on their behalf, as well.  Those fuckers want their land, and they'll do whatever they can to get it.

[Neil]

OK, if you schmucks are opposed to gene patenting what incentive can there be to do any research into using genes to create drought resistant corn or vitamin d containing rice or any other genetically modified organism?

Patents only last 10 years. How are inventors and scientists supposed to profit from their work if once they have done the work any schmuck can use that gene themselves? Most opponents have argued that the genes should not belong the company that discovers them and makes them viable for use, but rather the local aboriginal population or local state.

Do I really have to go into a first principles argument for patents?

I don't care, but then again I don't need any of those things.

A lifeform isn't a widget, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

[dps]

Monsanto gives a lot of money to charity.  Therefore, not evil.

Indulgences?  Quite evil.

The cross-pollination suits are the big kicker, but I've heard rumblings of getting govs to abuse eminent domain on their behalf, as well.  Those fuckers want their land, and they'll do whatever they can to get it.

Then your anger should be directed at shopping mall developers before Monsanto.

[Viking]

I don't care, but then again I don't need any of those things.

A lifeform isn't a widget, and that's pretty much the end of the discussion.

you eat food, drink water, use medicines and pay taxes. You need all those things.

[DontSayBanana]

Then your anger should be directed at shopping mall developers before Monsanto.

Oh, redevelopment companies are absolutely the devil.  As an institution?  Probably more evil than Monsanto.  Each individual company has a fraction of the reach that Monsanto does, though.  And besides, like I said, Chiquita's arguably worse than both: combining the worst qualities of both redevelopers and agro-industrial behemoths.

[Barrister]

Then your anger should be directed at shopping mall developers before Monsanto.

Oh, redevelopment companies are absolutely the devil.  As an institution?  Probably more evil than Monsanto.  Each individual company has a fraction of the reach that Monsanto does, though.  And besides, like I said, Chiquita's arguably worse than both: combining the worst qualities of both redevelopers and agro-industrial behemoths.

That's like calling out Union Carbide or IG Farben though - the evils of the United Fruit Company are long in the past.

[CountDeMoney]

That's like calling out Union Carbide or IG Farben though - the evils of the United Fruit Company Central Intelligence Agency are long in the past.

That's like calling out BASF for their gas production in WW1.  YOU ALMOND-FLAVORED MOTHERFUCKERS

[The Minsky Moment]

IMO if you have a problem with patenting genes, then your problem is with the courts and/or the legislature, not individual companies.

Who do you think bribes the courts and the legislature?  Besides, even if an evil thing is legal, it can still be evil.  The idea that the law and morality are one and the same is one of the great mental plagues of our time.  I blame the gays.

Exactly (except the gays part). Only because something is legal, it does not necessarily mean it is ethical. It's funny how so many "Christians" have such an utterly immoral outlook on the world as dps.

In 1860 he would have been defending slave traders (including those who would dump the cargo into the sea when it "goes bad" or prices drop) as good, moral Christian folk. After all, they are just using the legal means available to them. This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.

Please.  talk about overblown rhetoric.

Gene patents may be bad policy, but it's not like private companies are being given the right to charge people for being born.
The question concerns methods or products that are derived from particular isolated gene sequences, where the claimant claims to have discovered some novel application for the sequence.  The consequence if the answer is yes is that the claimant receives a temporary monopoly for maketing the particular method or product claimed. 

The moral stakes here are not quite the same as the transatlantic slave trade.

[CountDeMoney]

This is why I hate worshippers of the dead Jew on a stick.

Please.  talk about overblown rhetoric.

What, Marti and overblown rhetoric? Say it ain't so!

[Josquius]

Coming immediately to mind I'd have to say apple.
Though of course there are doubtless a bunch of non-household name companies that are worse.

[DontSayBanana]

Coming immediately to mind I'd have to say apple.
Though of course there are doubtless a bunch of non-household name companies that are worse.

Funnily enough, Apple itself doesn't have that bad a track record.  Foxconn's a different story, but they're a vendor, and Apple finally laid down the law with them around the end of last year/earlier this year.

[CountDeMoney]

Though of course there are doubtless a bunch of non-household name companies that are worse.

Like Otto mentioned with Exxon Mobil as an example, there are plenty of companies that are not directly responsible to or possess exposure to a tangible customer base, and therefore don't give a royal rat fuck what you think about them.