> where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means.

That sounds like a very hollow commitment to me. Who defines what "trace" is. Monsanto?

And what is the normal cross pollination rate from doing nothing. 1% 5%? It sounds like it just means we won't sue you the first year, we'll wait until the second year then sue you.

The practice needs to be banned. It's Monsanto seeds that are spreading their genetics in the wind. If they don't want that, then make crops that can't. If they're unable to, then tough.

Saying nobody within pollination range can grow their own crops anymore once someone nearby purchases Monsanto seeds is absurd.

That's all aside from the fact that patenting things that reproduce still is somewhat of a weak concept to begin with.

Putting an absurd tech spin on it. If you made a robot/machinr that could replicate itself sure patent it. If you made a robot that sent out radio waves and every machine within receiving distance could/would suddenly replicate, you can't sue those owners for "stealing your technology".

The proof is in the pudding. To my knowledge Monsanto has never sued anyone over inadvertent cross contamination regardless of the percentages. The cases where they have sued were farmers who explicitly went out and got Roundup resistant seeds to use with Roundup from unlicensed vendors or in violation of a license they themselves signed with Monsanto.

It has never made any sense for them to enforce it against cross contamination because farmers don't want the seeds if they're not already nuking everything with glyphosate. They either buy F1 seeds every year for the extra yield hybrid vigor gives them or they save seed that's somewhat optimized for their growing conditions.

> Saying nobody within pollination range can grow their own crops anymore once someone nearby purchases Monsanto seeds is absurd.

This is a fantasy you have concocted, not the reality.