# data[].attributes.body
This is tough. I understand Monsanto's point of view, because they want people to buy new seeds year after year, and not have farmers have ways around purchasing less seeds. But, the I do not believe the farmer was replanting these cross pollinated seeds with ill intent. He was just using up his product so he doesn't lose anything by being wasteful. They both did what was best for themselves. Saying that and just with my own opinion, I don't believe I agree with the courts ruling.

# data[].attributes.body
I do not agree with the courts decision as plants cross pollinate everyday from mother nature. I also do not agree that they went after just one person.
Monsanto is not an ethical company because they do whatever they can to get what they want to ensure they stay on top of the industry.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't agree with the courts decision. They are correct that Monsanto owns a patent on the seed that they sell , but they shouldn't be able to say that you intentionally replanted seeds that were cross pollinated with our plants, then all they would have to do is visit every farm downwind of one they sold some seeds to and accuse them of the same thing they accused Percy of. Monsanto is not an ethical company, when they made him close his bank account that was just plain old harassment.

# data[].attributes.body
I don't agree with the court ruling, because there was not intent to use Monsanto's "product". Why would David have to pay anything when he did not use anything for his benefit or profit? I believe that Monsanto was trying to monopolize this industry by claiming ownership of crops that wasn't his.
Based on Monsanto's website, the depiction of the company is accurate. They use intimidating, ruthless and cruel tactics to get the results they want. Monsanto is an unethical company because they use underhanded and dirty tactics to ensure they stay on top of the industry.

# data[].attributes.body
After doing some additional research on this issue, (primarily because there was a clear bias in the documentary) I believe that the Canadian Supreme court made the correct ruling in this issue. The Round-up resistant canola developed and patented by Monsanto should be treated the same as any other protected product. Similar to the Kearns v. Ford Motor Co. lawsuit regarding intermittent windshield wipers, a product created and protected by one entity cannot be used without permission. By all appearances, Monsanto approached Mr. Schmeiser with a reasonable offer to continue using their product in accordance with the agreements they had with other farmers. He chose to continue using it without that agreement. As for Monsanto in general, i believe that they are a major player in a controversial market. This naturally leads to accusations and untruths being bandied about to the point where the exterior image of the company is not necessarily a reflection of the organizations actual ethical culture.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like we see this time and time again as the United States becomes this supercorporation, where big businesses run over all the small ones because they have the money and the resources to do it all. I do not agree with this ruling because of the history Monsanto has had with plenty of other scandals. It's like i said, there is so much money and power in these type of businesses and because they don't like any sort of competition they're always so quick to destroy anything.

# data[].attributes.body
I just do not agree with the courts ruling. So many times it seems the big companies are able to just run over the little people and this is just another example of that happening. Monsanto is huge and they have the money and resources to get what they want. So many times that is how it works. I do not think Monsanto is an ethical company at all. I think they are after a bottom line and that's about it.

# data[].attributes.body
BUS112- Multinational Corporations

I do not agree with the ruling.  I believe David had every right to keep on filing lawsuits.  For a ruling with no physical evidence in favor for such a large corporation and making a farmer start all over is unjust.  And when looking at Monsanto history, you see other scandals which they were involved in.  I don’t feel that Monsanto is an ethical based corporation, despite what their company website reads.  When a company states they have core values: “Integrity, respect, and transparency are core values, and acting as good corporate citizens in each country where we operate is at the foundation of our work” you would think they would enforce them.  Monsanto also has a statement on human rights.  Stating “We care about living and working conditions at our locations, and we work to respect and advance human rights”.  If they care about living conditions at their locations, they would consider the land and farmers around them that they have an effect. On

# data[].attributes.body
I believe David had every right to continue with the trails. I do not believe that Monsanto should have had the right to the crops and the seeds just because they contained Monsanto. And I also do not believe that all the profits should go to them. For these farmers to have to get new crops every year and spend the money on them is sad. I do not agree with the first judge agreeing with Monsanto that David needed to start over. Since there was no evidence that David was the source of the product but not the company, there should have been no ruling for Monsanto. With Monsanto wanting to positively impact the society and the environment on their website, but then going after every farmer and taking from them what they have worked hard for is contradicting themselves. I do not think they are entirely an ethical company. I think they have done a lot of questionable decisions and what they have done to these farmers is very unethical.

# data[].attributes.body
For my first case study I had the Monsanto company. I believe they are not a very ethical company. They have had many scandals in the past and all they did to fixed the problems were basically just changing their name.

# data[].attributes.body
May view on the ruling of the court in the David vs. Monsanto was that I thought it was what it had to be. That may seem a little confusing so what I mean by that is that some people may have a different view point on what the ruling should have been. However, that is how everything in life is everyone has a different view point. Based on what I know I do think Monsanto tries to be as ethical as they can but do not do a good job in doing so.