Seems likely then that a lot of people dont like what Monsanto is doing, no matter how they sustain it. Also, its all a matter of degree, and it seems Monsanto goes to extremes, which gets people upset.
Second, I have yet to hear a serious argument against the tech that Monsanto is producing. I hear a lot about how they're raping the poor farmers, but, as far as I know, those farmers aren't being forced to do business with Monsanto. I'm pretty sure they've chosen to do business with Monsanto because their seeds produce higher yields at lower prices. That sure seems like a positive to me. I also hear a lot of arguments that are basically various forms of "I think this tech sounds icky."
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
If you read your own post, you'll see that you claim that every case involves: a) a contract b) a breach of mentioned contract
Yet you seem to reference a case in which there was no contract between Monsanto and the farmer, thus contradicting the aforementioned universal claim a.
Can you explain this seeming paradox? Or are you just abusing the language to paint a pretty picture?