[tptacek]

The licensing fees we're talking about farmers getting sued over are for the Roundup-ready crops, not the herbicide. The point of the Roundup-ready system is that it allows you to plant crops that aren't killed by Roundup. As someone else noted, you can buy Roundup itself at Wal-mart.

I think even a cursory read of the thread would have indicated to a good-faith commenter that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product.

[seven_stones]

> As someone else noted, you can buy Roundup itself at Wal-mart.

And who do you think makes money when you do that?

Hint: It rhymes with "Monsanto".

> that I know the basics of the difference between Roundup and the Roundup-ready GMO product.

Not in dispute. Dispute is over your claim of them getting something for "nothing" because they used RoundUp.

Monsanto gets paid if they use RoundUp. RoundUp, unlike seeds, doesn't grow itself.

[tptacek]

I don't understand this debate that you think we're having, and because I'm pretty sure I'm not really a party to it, I'll let you have the last word.

[seven_stones]

You're right about the seed currently being a bigger source of revenue and profit than RoundUp, because it's currently protected by patents whereas the herbicide patent expired in 2000, and now Monsanto is being undersold on generic glyphosate (without its special additives) by Chinese chemical producers who have been incentivized and subsidized by their government.

However, RoundUp seed patents begin expiring with soybeans first in 2014, and it looks like canola will follow a year or three later.

RoundUp (the herbicide) apparently accounts for 10% of Monsanto's revenue, but the corresponding seed will soon account for zero.