> [forces patent compliance] even in situations where it is clear Monsanto crops contaminated someone else's field
Can you provide any example of this? The only cases I'm aware of are the likes of Bowman. The supreme court finding in that case makes it pretty clear Monsanto was in the right: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf
> we now have RR weeds, and that is a one way process
No, it is not. This is the same nonsense as people touting antibiotics resistance as a dead-end street. It costs energy for these organisms to maintain resistance. Once you remove the antibiotic, or glyphosate, from the environment, the biologically ideal thing to do is to lose resistance, redirecting that energy to other things that actually serve a purpose.
> I don't need to know the exact mechanism
If you are going to be implying glyphosate causes autism, for some "extra fun" as you say, then you should perhaps reconsider this. Pointing out they've both followed the curve of modern industrial chemistry expansion and implying that correlation to be causative is irresponsible.