[MrDom]

It used to be that people who bought property became owners.

Depending on who you ask, that stopped being the case the minute states started charging property tax. It's not yours, you just rent from the government. With the addition of zoning laws, it's hard to argue with that interpretation.

You can't sell a cow, put a 40 page long shrink-wrap license on the gate, and claim thus the milk or offspring are yours.

If Monsanto could prove the cow was GMO and their intellectual property, they could do almost exactly that. At the very least, they could put an injunction on the sale of cows and milk until they could verify if a patent had been broken. During which time, the farm would most likely go under.

[belorn]

There is a difference between the state overriding property law and private entities doing it. The state has monopoly on breaking laws, and in a democracy, is supposed to only do so when it serves the public they represent. It is this difference that allow the police to lock people up, or fine individuals. As you say, they use taxes, copyright, and patent law, all which override private property laws.

DRM however allows private entities to override property laws completely, while tricking the consumer. While Monsanto can with the help of the government prevent the sale of produce, they do not come in the night and steal it and sell it as their own property. They don't turn food into stone with the flick of a switch. I dislike Monsanto and I think they do trick people into a deal which is not obvious, but they are not even in the same league as DRM with 40 pages long licenses that updates dynamically which not a single person can understand.