Comment: frequently plays the part of the Useful Idiot.

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: "But are they going so far as (see in situ) frequently plays the part of the Useful Idiot.

They are very good at making wild claims that this or that law does some horrible thing. And they would be correct, if the law weren't so limited to whom it applied. That's the part seems to overlook, or not look at whatsoever.

The problem with this behavior by them is that people will erroneously believe that have to follow this or that new law when they don't. Effectively, has suckered people into volunteering to submit to bureaucratic tyranny that most don't have to submit to.

S.505 from last year, that was hotly debated here on DP is a prime example of this.

And you still haven't shown that what I asked is what DuPont is doing.

You are implying that by trying to dupe farmers into continuing to use their seed, or claiming they own the product of that seed, they EFFECTIVELY are leaving no other choice, but you haven't shown that DuPont is asking any court to force farmers who once bought DuPont seed to forever buy DuPont seed and that the farmers have no legal right to buy from anyone one else, or to try to grow heirloom seed on their own without using DuPont seed as a source in any way.

That was the question I asked.

I don't see anywhere that DuPont is pushing such nonsense. I see them trying to effectively corner a market. But the farmers can defeat this buy buying seed from someone else entirely and simply not dealing with DuPont any longer. Farmers are still free even to source heirloom seed from someone other than DuPont and save THAT seed product. DuPont can be left out of the loop entirely, as they should be, for their heavy-handedness.