Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

http://blog.cloudant.com/monsanto-chooses-cloudant/

by cloudant • 15 years ago

130 252 15 years ago

blog.cloudant.com

oldstrangers7• 15 years ago

Fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck Cloudant.

"We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now and we couldn’t be more thrilled with the partnership."

Thrilled? I guess money is thrilling.

"The data & reporting interfaces will be used across Monsanto and should be instrumental in the making of key business decisions."

Key business decisions like which small farmer to sue into oblivion? Or what third world nation's crops to take financially hostage? Thrilling work guys. Really.

vijayr3• 15 years ago

It is one of those companies, that is pretty well documented. From what I've read, Monsanto makes Walmart (and some others) look like angels. Just google for farmers committing suicide in India (especially from Andhra Pradesh). I also read an article about them threatening American farmers, can't remember where. I don't have any experience with them, but from what I've read about them, they seem very very very scary.

glimcat• 15 years ago

Sounds like a problem to solve with a disruptive startup. Got any actionable ideas?

WiseWeasel8• 15 years ago

Smarter and cheaper robots. If the cost of labor for growing food organically on a large scale could be reduced, it would have a disruptive impact on conventional agriculture.

sitkack11• 15 years ago

I think if I wanted to round out the mix I would add in

Halliburton

Xe Services (Blackwater Worldwide)

The creation of roundup resistent crops is possibly the worst mistakes that the human race has ever made. It took what 3-5 years to make roundup impervious parasites?

Terminator seeds that can't actually create a viable organism? You have to go back to the source (Monsanto) every year.

Mono-cultures and engineered genetic pollution. Monsanto shouldn't exist.

davidandgoliath6• 15 years ago

Missing the RIAA: Same scenario, different product. Though the key difference is Monsanto's evils are !@#$ing with our food supply / chain / system that's happily evolved over thousands of years as they sue farmers into oblivion.

The RIAA is merely making 'big music' less important to the majority of us & shooting themselves in the foot in the process while suing their potential clientbase.

Both very much similar, and I'd happily support neither given the opportunity.

kreek2• 15 years ago

+1! If you want to learn more about this watch Food Inc. available on NetFlix streaming. If you have high blood pressure you may want to skip the part where an Indiana man explains how he was sued by Monsanto for inducing farmers to violate patents by seed cleaning - a practice utilized by farmers for thousands of years.

andylei9• 15 years ago

from what i understand, seed cleaning is part of a process to extract seeds from a harvested crop.

monsanto did not sue that man for cleaning seeds, they sued that guy because he marketed his services to farmers using monsanto seeds, claiming that those farmers could extract seeds from their harvest to avoid buying more monsanto seeds.

however, when you buy seeds from monsanto, you sign an explicit agreement saying that you won't do exactly that. the result of the case was that the court barred the indiana man from cleaning monsanto seeds, not all seeds in general. from what i undestand, they didn't even collect any damages from him, conditioned on him not cleaning monsanto seeds in the future.

pg3• 15 years ago

It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant.

If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet.

There are frequently inane comments of this type at the bottom of HN threads. What's alarming is to see them at the top.

Kroem3r• 15 years ago

Fair opinion. But I found it refreshing; I was resigned to seeing a lot of preemptory 'separation of ethics and business' discussions.

lbrandy• 15 years ago

I am -so- glad you said it. I've been resisting the urge for weeks to point out the /r/politics-ization of hacker news for fear of being "that guy" (you know, the one complaining about the good ol' days).

Just to be clear about what that means, to me, is that not so much politics is involved, but completely uncritical and tribalist politics, where we just unthinkingly upvote anyone advocating any position in support of the "good guys" and downvote anyone that defends the "bad guys".

kongqiu4• 15 years ago

It's an unfortunate sign for everyone that you (and/or Cloudant) wouldn't anticipate this reaction from going into business with Monsanto.

As to the "content-free" claim, sometimes a rant is an appropriate reaction. If some YC company partnered with Al Qaida, would we really need to spell out all the heinous things AQ has done before writing, "F- that!"?!?

EDIT: And to your "If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you're saying is fuck the entire corporate world, because I'm sure Monsanto buys Apple computers and Chevrolets and Clorox too. It's sort of ridiculous to hold Cloudant to a standard that essentially zero other companies meet."

-- It's one thing if Monsanto buys iPhones and Macs from Apple; that would represent ~.0001% of Apple's overall business. It's another thing if Monsanto is responsible for a significant % of your revenue.

(Of course, Cloudant's deal with Monsanto could represent only 2% of Cloudant's total revenue; but since it's a startup, the initial reaction people will have is that it's significantly higher than that.)

thomasgerbe4• 15 years ago

I think there's a difference between buying a product and working closely with a company in an intimate business relationship/partnership.

Not to mention that I don't think Apple (nor it's employees) would be publicly joyous about partnering with an ethically questionable company.

cickpass_broken4• 15 years ago

Such irony. Your comment seems much in the same style.

Tho oldstrangers vague logic was "by association" I don't think you should assume "if x sells to Monsanto." You can be much more specific in this case, as Cloudant clearly states, "We’ve been working with them for a few weeks now ..." Has Apple, Chevy, Clorox been "working with" Monsanto, or are their products just freely available for purchase?

I find it alarming that you think oldstrangers comment lacks sense. Food and water. That is the basis for human life. Monsanto threatens the freedom and right to access for those necessary things.

run4yourlives8• 15 years ago

That's a bit of a cop-out.

There's a difference between company A purchasing some of your product and actively bidding to be the sole-source supplier to a major project. As they put it, "Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops."

You can bet that Apple's feet would be put to the fire in just the same way should they release a PR note suggesting they are impressed that Monsanto has decided to convert entirely to OSX/iOS.

The top comment might be a little low on direct substance, but it's high on feedback. It's actually perfect for HN, because it shows that to many people, ethics in business DO matter.

biznickman2• 15 years ago

I agree that the comment is content-free but honestly what did the company expect when they're boasting about their partnership with one of the world's most hated companies?

I'm not exactly alarmed to see this comment at the top because it's ridiculous that the company was dumb enough to issue this press release. We all need to pay our bills but to boast about working with a hated company is just a stupid PR move.

Apple, Facebook, Google, Chevorlet, Clorox, etc, are all not stupid enough to write a press release like this one. Whoever advised them to do so should immediately be fired b/c they clearly don't get PR.

You know what else is hilarious is that they're not only admitting to power one of the most hated aspects of the company (genetic manipulation of seeds), but they're actually touting it as a win for the company.

pornel• 15 years ago

It's a false analogy.

Monsanto unilaterally buying generally-available products is a different thing than getting into business partnership and sending happy press release about it.

You don't jail shoe salesman who happened to sell shoes to a criminal, but you jail people who planned the crime together.

If someone is actively, consciously supporting Monsanto at the core of their shady business, then they certainly deserve the hatred that Monsanto gets.

WiseWeasel8• 15 years ago

You won't see Apple, GM or Clorox touting a partnership with Monsanto, as they are aware of the negative impact it would have on their own brand. I think there is a good lesson in this for other companies.

nirvana7• 15 years ago

I'm not alarmed because there seems to be two very distinct crowds of people who hang out on hacker news. "Startup people", like yourself, who are across the political spectrum, with probably a disproportionate number of libertarians (as compared to the broader population) and the /r/politics crowd which are very anti-capitalist, anti-innovation, pro-taxes, etc.

Some threads attract one crowd and the comments go one way, other threads attract the other crowd and the comments go the other way.

I really wish Hacker News was about startups, and if there was any debate, we were all capitalists debating it. I'm tired of the seemingly endless stream of leftist propaganda that gets promoted to the front page (e.g.: anything by Krugman, for example.) I'd hate this just as much if it were all rightest propaganda. IF it was balanced, I wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be irritating.

When almost all the discussions are of one mindset, and posting something outside that mindset gets you down voted to oblivion, I feel like intellectual discussion is much more difficult. This isn't always the case here, obviously, but sometimes it is.

I don't really care for Amazon, but at least when Amazon is on the front page its because they did something relevant to the site. I can just ignore those threads. Amazon' announcing that they've got a new finger service in AWS doesn't add anything for me, but it doesn't detract like the political topics do.

Cloudant, a company that takes CouchDB and turns it into a dynamo style ring, has produced something significant in their platform. We should be talking about this.

Cloudant provides a very useful tool that should be very highly relevant to people who are doing startups.

The thing is, I suspect a major population of HN commenters aren't really doing startups or planning to.

davidw• 15 years ago

That's the sort of debate you get when you leave all those juicy articles about this that and the other political thing out for the flies to land on.

seven_stones7• 15 years ago

> It's an unfortunate sign for HN when the top comment on a thread is such a content-free rant.

To the contrary, the tenor of the majority of comments makes it clear that the context is well-understood already, and this is encouraging.

Users evidencing a strong moral compass is a reason to rejoice, not despair.

If you want some context, try Wikipedia.

Monsanto is responsible for more than 50 United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund sites, attempts to clean up Monsanto Chemical's formerly uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.[27]

The Center for Food Safety[108] listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations.[27] The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.[27]

It's a combination of a major environmental polluter and a patent troll.

Dumping of toxic waste in the UK

Between 1965 and 1972, Monsanto paid contractors to illegally dump thousands of tons of highly toxic waste in UK landfill sites, knowing that their chemicals were liable to contaminate wildlife and people. The Environment Agency said the chemicals were found to be polluting groundwater and the atmosphere 30 years after they were dumped.[71]

The Brofiscin quarry, near Cardiff, erupted in 2003, spilling fumes over the surrounding area, but the local community was unaware that the quarry housed toxic waste.

A UK government report shows that 67 chemicals, including Agent Orange derivatives, dioxins and PCBs exclusively made by Monsanto, are leaking from one unlined porous quarry that was not authorized to take chemical wastes. It emerged that the groundwater has been polluted since the 1970s.[72] The government was criticised for failing to publish information about the scale and exact nature of this contamination. According to the Environment Agency it could cost £100m to clean up the site in south Wales, called "one of the most contaminated" in the UK.[73]

One thing to remember is that patents are fundamentally at odds with food availability. You can either have Big Pharma-like profits, or cheap food that feeds billions.

As it is, countries with functional governments already overproduce food. Zimbabwe used to be called the "Breadbasket of Africa" before Mugabe.

white_devil2• 15 years ago

Oh boo-hoo. You're not exactly an impartial observer here.

Besides, it's one thing for Apple to manufacture a computer that gets bought by a Monsanto employee somewhere, and another for a YC startup to decide to work with Monsanto and help them with whatever pure evil they're up to next.

oldstrangers7• 15 years ago

No, I'm saying fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck anyone that celebrates doing business with them. This was one of those little cash cows that Cloudant should have kept to themselves. Any PR person probably could've saw this coming.

I'm sure there are many evil corporate dealings in the world that would warrant such a "content-free rant"; however, those companies are smart enough not to celebrate their evil doings on a site as popular as HN.

Perhaps YC should provide media training: Item 1; keep your skeletons in the closet.

EDIT: Furthermore, Cloudant isn't supplying Monsanto with something as simple as a car. They, as they themselves put it, are fundamentally helping shape the way Monsanto does business.

I also find it troubling that instead of addressing the issue at hand, or at least providing a defense for this company, you instead ridicule your own userbase for putting my "content-free" rant at the top of this thread. That seems infinitely more content-free than anything I've added/not added to the discussion.

lwat• 15 years ago

If I had Monsanto as a major client I'd make them sign a confidentiality agreement.

johngalt• 15 years ago

The problem with aggregators like Digg/Reddit/HN is that anger will unite a mob quicker than discussion. Eventually you end up with an angry echo chamber populated with the worst sort of content.

HN opened my eyes to a group of problem solving people who could generate a discussion that was better than any linked article. Originally the commenter attitude was "HN vs the problem presented". This slowly gravitated towards "My solution to the problem vs. your solution" with the associated rudeness, arrogance, and appeals to authority. Now it's headed towards an "Us vs. Them" kind of attitude similar to r/politics. Where you're wrong just for your identity or associations.

Sato• 15 years ago

I rather see freedom from censorship here.

rjstatic• 15 years ago

Paul, while I do see your point, you aren't looking deep enough here. Please let me explain.

Yes, this comment is missing some crucial content, yet, it is not a contentless comment as proven by the up votes. It is a war cry against those who seek to end this world in a fit of greed. It seems contentless to you because you are unaware of the game Monsanto is playing. I'm not just talking about giving a few kids Asthma by pumping chemicals into the air, I'm talking about risking the collapse of our life support systems for the sake of profit. Please read up on Monsanto, our survival depends on us to do the right thing. http://www.right2knowmarch.org/about-2/educational-links/

pbreit2• 15 years ago

I disagree. The rant contained at least as much content as a press release announcing one new customer. And I think the disappointment has to do more with the boasting than the simple customer relationship.

zallarak• 15 years ago

Here is a potential reason why some are upset. Its obvious that large corporations like Chevy, Clorox, Apple sell to Monstanto [and other corporations some could consider "bad" or whatever you want to label it]. But when startups do it [especially YC startups who I generally believe have smarter people involved relative to large corporations] it is felt because people generally hold them to higher standards [not just in situations like this, it applies for operational, financial and strategic measures as well]. I worked at a YC startup for a while, and saw some pretty generous things done by YC founders for society.

Another way to look at it (if it helps you understand the other perspective): You frequently see YC funded companies help each other out. Why do they do it? Is it just to accumulate more wealth/raise a valuation? Or is it because they've developed meaningful relationships and care for each other? I use this example to show how empathy and relationships can impact business decisions in a general sense, and that this same logic could be used to apply to a YC company NOT being proud of serving a large corporation known to use tactics that harm farmers in underdeveloped nations.

The fact that you use the term 'hold to a standard' at least implies that some could perceive the action as 'slimy'.

Finally, as someone wise once said, "be the change you want to see in the world" -- of course we hold YC companies to a higher standard :), many are made up of brilliant and compassionate individuals whose products make the world a better place. /cheese

abbasmehdi3• 15 years ago

pg, I understand your frustration. The OP starts off in a tone that is way over the top, and the language is completely unnecessary. However, wouldn't you appreciate the distinction of a “partner” (a conscious relationship) from a “consumer” (unconscious)? They might be consumers of Apple/Chevy/Clorox products, but this seems more like a partnership.

freewil• 15 years ago

I hate Monsanto, although I don't know if I would blame Cloudant for attracting such a large business.

For those not in the know, part of Monsanto's business plan includes creating patented seeds that are genetically altered and "Roundup-ready" so they can be doused with their other business, pesticides.

They also aggressively enforce their seed patents by suing local farmers that have their land contaminated, by no fault of their own, by other farms that may use these "Round-Up ready" seeds. I believe Monsanto has also now developed crops that do not create seeds and/or create seeds DOA.

achompas• 15 years ago

Congratulations to Cloudant for signing a big deal. Why work with a company as...ethically ambiguous as Monsanto? I would love to hear how your team decided to accept this deal, and I hope more than dollar signs crossed your minds.

Personally, I would start a startup (if I ever have the guts) for freedom. How could dealing with Monsanto differ from wearing golden handcuffs?

famousactress3• 15 years ago

There's nothing ethically ambiguous about Monsanto. You'd be hard-pressed to name an organization of any ilk that's actively perpetrating more devastating evil.

aMoniker• 15 years ago

Halliburton. What do I win?

heydenberk2• 15 years ago

Actually, I think Monsanto is quintessentially ethically ambiguous. Their cutthroat business tactics (including excessive litigation and political lobbying) must be weighed against their technological achievements that have had an enormous role in the "green revolution" increases in agricultural productivity allowing the human population to grow while malnourishment rates shrank. They are also partially responsible for the advent of LED lighting and they have financed the research of a future Nobel laureate.

SODaniel2• 15 years ago

Calling Monsanto 'ethically ambiguous' is akin to describing Hitler as a 'colorful leader with sporadic public relations issues'.

itaborai83• 15 years ago

Godwin's law - As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

temphn3• 15 years ago

Monsanto has received terribly negative press, this is true. Part of that negative press is due to public dislike of GMO foods in Europe. Part of that is due to their DRM-like technology that stops farmers from replanting seeds after one generation.

If you invented a new kind of seed which was significantly more productive but cost billions in R&D to develop, what business model would you use instead?

Put in other words, is the objection to agricultural biotechnology in general (like the Green Revolution) or to Monsanto's specific implementation, and if so what are the top flaws in their approach in your view?

carbocation2• 15 years ago

No, those aren't really the major problems that people have with Monsanto. We should start by discussing their lawsuits against farmers because Monsanto grain blew onto their fields and move up from there.

yew• 15 years ago

Monsanto's primary business model is essentially peddling genetic DRM, and their secondary business model involves suing people who weren't particularly interested in associating with them in the first place. They've also been involved in bribery and coercion scandals on multiple levels, and (speaking as a GMO advocate here) they're incredibly irresponsible with their technology. It's no surprise they're unpopular.

It's true that Monsanto has put a lot of money into R&D, and that they're occasionally misrepresented by extremists and farmers who want to give the appearance of being small businesses, but that hardly justifies most of what they've done. And if they're really in such a precarious position, attempting to achieve a "food monopoly" is even more irresponsible than it would be otherwise.

seven_stones7• 15 years ago

> If you invented a new kind of seed which was significantly more productive but cost billions in R&D to develop, what business model would you use instead?

If the new crop is more expensive because of IP regulations, it is NOT an improvement.

There's just no way to reconcile feeding the poor with making massive profits on patents.

It's also misleading to focus on the crop itself; soil management is a far bigger issue. If your crop produces more, it means it depletes the soil more. Topsoil depletion is a huge issue wherever there is intensive modern farming.

The goal with patents is to control the food supply, not increase it.

ebaysucks3• 15 years ago

Monsanto is one of those rare companies that is so fucked up that it is hated by both socialists and libertarians.

nirvana7• 15 years ago

I know socialists hate it, because they hate capitalism. I don't think libertarians hate it, because they don't hate capitalism.

However, as libertarianism has become popular, more and more there are socialists (leftists, "democrats" and "liberals") who are deciding they are "libertarians" without understanding what libertarianism is.

Libertairans -- and this is what defines the movement-- are people who agree with the Non Aggression Principle. (aka NAP) In fact, to be a Libertarian Party Member, and get your card, you had to sign a pledge that you subscribed to the NAP.

Show us how Monsanto is violating the NAP, and a libertarian will agree that Monsanto should be held accountable for the crime.

Libertarianism isn't really so much about hating, or loving various companies. It is really about enforcing the NAP against anyone who would violate another's rights using violence.

Sometimes this includes companies as well, but we're pretty resistant to the piling on that a lot of people do. (e.g.: "I hate monsanto, therefore cloudand is evil").

ebaysucks3• 15 years ago

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mises+monsanto

I don't need a lecture on what libertarianism is.

Also, if you think Monsanto represents pure capitalism, you are not much of a libertarian.

william425• 15 years ago

Monsanto is one of the biggest pushers for and beneficiaries of corn subsidies, and corn subsidies are one of the biggest examples of corporate welfare in existence.

nizm• 15 years ago

I was hoping all Entrepreneurs that run YC companies would have a social conscience.

hvass• 15 years ago

It's a huge deal for your team and investors, but don't expect any applauds.

SODaniel2• 15 years ago

Hey Cloudant! Remember that time you first read about IBM supplying the database system that the Nazi regime used to effectively carry out genocide? Yeah, that's you now.

georgemcbay2• 15 years ago

As much as I'm hesistant to pile on to the general theme of any thread, this announcement colors my impression of Cloudant very negatively.

There are about a dozen companies that I find so vile that anyone doing active business with them is marred by association, Monsanto is one of them.

drivebyacct2• 15 years ago

Heh. I didn't know what to expect when I came here, but frankly I was a bit surprised to see the ethical implications of this deal weighed so heavily here. Not that I view the HN community as cut throat necessarily, but certainly often business oriented. Granted this was only posted an hour ago, but I will try to less judgementally provoke a discussion regarding ethics and startups...

Is it wrong to even associate with a company like Monsanto? What if they're providing some tangential support infrastructure that doesn't relate to the actual business practices that people are so ethically opposed to?

davidandgoliath6• 15 years ago

"Is it wrong to even associate with a company like Monsanto? What if they're providing some tangential support infrastructure that doesn't relate to the actual business practices that people are so ethically opposed to?"

Certainly. Ethics should trump finance in every scenario. There are very few companies as evil as Monsanto, and helping them further their cause is akin to direct involvement.

I see the nazi / ibm situation being tossed out in the thread, but in this case I think it's more like the RIAA.

Would you help the RIAA further their cause?

WiseWeasel8• 15 years ago

> Is it wrong to even associate with a company like Monsanto?

Yes. Associating your name with the likes of Monsanto, especially as an entrant to the market, is PR suicide. You would be hard-pressed to come up with a more universally reviled entity than Monsanto... maybe the Church of Scientology, though even that is probably not enough.

I've got it; Intellectual Ventures!

irrumator5• 15 years ago

Agreed, I don't think I've ever seen so many 'fucks' and similar words used on an HN thread before. For some reason all these new posters are tying every company which they have a grudge against with Monsanto, and by association, with Cloudant. Amusing to read all the pent up angered comments, with any dissenting ones heavily downvoted. Did /r/politics arrive to stay? What happened here?

Cloudant is providing an amazing infrastructure to power a large client, and with that, they grow as a business and innovate in technology. I don't see anything wrong with congratulating them for their securing of this great partnership, and I find the response here from the mainly younger accounts very disappointing.

edit: We've hit Godwin's law pretty quickly already I see.

nirvana7• 15 years ago

I've been very curious about the persistence of anti-capitalists attitudes on Hacker News.

For me, one of the things that changed me from a liberal into a libertarian was starting businesses. Getting out there, trying to grow, dealing with government, and recognizing that I needed to learn finance, etc, caused me to get experience with how the business world works, and to also learn economics, and that was pretty much all she wrote.

Maybe Hacker News has a lot of overlap with the /r/politics demographic due to commonality in ages?

vijayr3• 15 years ago

It is a huge negative publicity, to be associated with a company like Monsanto. Not sure if that would affect Cloudant's future business prospects though. We all know of the sweatshops run by companies like Walmart and Nike, lots of people even complain loudly, but those companies seem to be doing very well, year after year.

On the other hand, given the size of Monsanto, there is no doubt that Cloudant could effectively demonstrate their expertise, and use them as a case study for landing big customers in future. Plus, the money must be pretty good.

I guess it isn't our job to judge Cloudant, they are running a business - their business, their choice (moral or not). HN crowd (me included) just can't digest associating with an entity as Monsanto, hence the extreme reaction.

klbarry2• 15 years ago

Nike hasn't been an ethically questioned company since 2000. In fact, they're pretty universally acclaimed as one of the most ethical companies in the world now (google Nike Most Ethical). Most of the Monsanto data in this thread is decades old, as well.

dionidium7• 15 years ago

I'll offer the first unqualified congratulations. I don't think it's at all obvious that Monsanto is a perpetrator of "devastating evil" (as one of the comments says below) and I'd love it if one or more of the critics would do more than merely state that as fact.

white_devil2• 15 years ago

Someone already posted this: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto...

But seriously, if even the politically correct & good natured commenters on HN are unanimous in their hatred for Monsanto, you can be pretty sure it's a pretty despicable company.

So yes, fuck Monsanto, and fuck Cloudant too. Supporting Monsanto in any way is disgusting. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

dionidium7• 15 years ago

But seriously, if even the politically correct & good natured commenters on HN are unanimous in their hatred for Monsanto, you can be pretty sure it's a pretty despicable company.

Do I really need to point out that this is a logical fallacy?

klbarry2• 15 years ago

I am completely with Dionidium here. I've read a number of the books (Michael Pollen, etc.), seen the documentaries, read the science. There are bad effects from agriculture and livestock. Monsanto is not especially bad in this regard - unless you want to not associate with anyone in the food industry who's not organic, it is stupid to place so much hate on them.

sitkack11• 15 years ago

The solution to pollution is dilution.

If everyone is doing it, we should each take 1/1e6 of the blame.

inmygarage• 15 years ago

For those looking for some background on Monsanto, take the time to read through this Vanity Fair article from 2008: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto....

mcknz• 15 years ago

Food, Inc. is also valuable: http://www.foodincmovie.com/

dionidium7• 15 years ago

I don't think this article is as damning as many of the commenters seem to think.

- The section addressing the lawsuits includes a lot of "farmers say this" type statements. It's not very long on facts. It even admits that some farmers simply aren't aware of their obligations in many cases. The only case that was actually litigated that I'm aware of is Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser -- a case in which the farmer almost certainly was saving seeds in violation of his contract with Monsanto.

- The section on past environmental violations can be mostly ignored in the context of this deal. It might be an interesting historical conversation, but Monsanto is no longer a chemical company. Cloudant has not struck a deal with the company described in that section.

- I'm sympathetic to the opposition on the labeling debate, but it's a labeling debate! It should take more than a labeling debate to generate comparisons to Nazi Germany (as more than one commenter has done below).

davidandgoliath6• 15 years ago

"The only case that was actually litigated..." Certainly -- because most give in vs. the threat of a lawsuit that'll put them in financial ruins.

There's no EFF or ACLU for farmers, though I'm now thinking there should be.

tptacek16• 15 years ago

Feel free to correct me on this, as I'm likely to be wrong.

Loosely, the way Monsanto's GMO crop system works is, their crops are designed to resist a specific herbicide, which Monsanto also sells. Farmers pay a per-acre licensing fee to use the system, meaning they plant the GMO crops and then bomb their fields with the herbicide to kill everything but the crop, which improves yield.

The fact pattern in these Monsanto lawsuits seems to be that farmers are doing three things: (1) planting Monsanto's GMO crops (intentionally or not), (2) using Monsanto's herbicide to take advantage of the improved yield made possible with the crop, and (3) not paying Monsanto.

It is obviously possible for Monsanto GMO crops to end up in an unsuspecting farmer's field. But it's not possible for a farmer to accidentally use Roundup as an herbicide in that field. If they do that without paying Monsanto, they are trying to get something for nothing. That, to my understanding, is what's motivating the lawsuits.

Where am I wrong on this?

shawndrost• 15 years ago

For another side of Monsanto's story, see Norman Bourlag's speech commemorating Monsanto's committment to rice and wheat breeding[1].

Norman Bourlag's life work was to develop and distribute high-yield crops. He's a Nobel peace prize winner and is often credited with saving over a billion lives. Monsanto is carrying on his work at a scale he always strived for.

People in this field is deeply passionate and morally involved in their work. Read the responses from this Monsanto employee at IAMA[2] -- his earnest attempts to explain his morals and his rationale speak for themselves. These people aren't even naked capitalists (not that I have any problem with that) -- they're empirical environmentalists and humanists.

I'm kind of disappointed to hear Monsanto shrilly decried here. Modern ag is a deeply interesting and controversial topic, but that Vanity Fair piece is just rhetoric and linkbait.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1w4zM4SouM [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/d83i9/i_work_for_the_m...

seven_stones7• 15 years ago

> Norman Bourlag's life work was to develop and distribute high-yield crops.

Borlaug's work was via selective breeding. He helped countries produce unpatented food at massive scale in order to feed a billion people.

These crops also were productive because they were planted in areas that had not yet been subject to intensive farming methods. The major obstacle with modern farming is NOT the crops, but the soil quality, and depletion of topsoil is a major problem which is only exacerbated by more productive crops.

There's no free lunch -- in order to have a more productive crop, i.e. more output, it has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the agricultural inputs.

Monsanto's attempts to control and patent food, were an IP regime put in place to actually enforce that, would simply instigate a food crisis.

You can't have Big Pharma profits without severe controls on availability.

"Feeding the poor" is a complete smokescreen that is fundamentally incompatible with their business model.

sitkack11• 15 years ago

IRobot is also helping America conduct safer wars. Where is the humanism is that?

An employee emoting isn't the company or its actions.

cickpass_broken4• 15 years ago

Also, here is a very recent article outlining the issues of seed patents and the case between Monsanto and India, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1087730/how_i...

shiven• 15 years ago

Fuck Monsanto, and by association, fuck Cloudant.

Couldn't have said it better myself. What happened to the "no assholes" policy? Guess it does not matter when dollar signs start floating in the air.

lispm• 15 years ago

The genome of Monsanto is rotten down to the core...

jasonallen2• 15 years ago

Yuck. Does anyone know if they were forced to put out that press release or did they actually write that on their own volition?

georgemcbay2• 15 years ago

I don't know anything for sure, but it appears that cloudant themselves posted the link to the press release on Hacker News, which seems like a pretty good indication that they are the ones trying to publicize this, which then points to the latter of your two choices being likely.

Whether this is due to lack of realizing how poorly Monsanto is viewed by most, or whether they thought the somewhat Rand-ian slant of HN' would offset that, I don't know.

gravitronic• 15 years ago

Unless you've been in the position to turn down a similar offer and did, you should probably not be criticizing.

thomasgerbe4• 15 years ago

Yeah, screw ethics! I can't criticize anyone for anything unless I've been in there position!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0AL4yml3bw

kul• 15 years ago

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

headsclouds• 15 years ago

It's a weird feeling when a company that's coming from an environment you admire (YC) makes a move like this. Makes you wonder would you do the same, and where would your priorities lie.

That's why you need a cofounder; when you start wondering about things like this, you need someone to slap some sense back into you.

zquestz2• 15 years ago

Supporting Monsanto is supporting the end of our organic food supply. It saddens me to see any YC company supporting such an evil organization. Money just isn't worth it.

dionidium7• 15 years ago

Supporting Ford is supporting the end of our organic transportation industry. I'm kidding, but it is worth remembering that the word "organic" doesn't contain in it some magical counterargument that requires no further elaboration.

zquestz2• 15 years ago

Agreed, but I didn't feel like writing out a novel on why Monsanto is quite possibly the most evil organization in existence. Creating sterile, engineered food, while suing local farmers who didn't want Monsanto's seed on their farms anyways. Not to mention the patents they have an all sorts of food products in order to control the food supply. Remember, Monsanto's main mission is to control the entire world's food supply... aka, all seed would be purchased from them... If that isn't evil, I don't know what is.

run4yourlives8• 15 years ago

Most people would take "organic" in this context to mean "natural", as in if you plant one seed, you can grow a crop, save some of the harvest and replant the seeds for next year, like we've been doing since we started farming.

That is what Monsanto wants to stop.

Mvandenbergh• 15 years ago

I too have opinions based on half-remembered articles in lifestyle magazines!

goodweeds• 15 years ago

Anything to make a buck.

kongqiu4• 15 years ago

This raises a real dilemma: at what point does a company or organization cross the line from "not my cup of tea" to "ethically ambiguous" to "pure evil"?

What if Cloudant were to power analytics for Trader Joe's?

Goldman Sachs?

Halliburton?

The Sinaloa Cartel?

Certainly there's a line...

vej• 15 years ago

Logged on here for the first time in 417 days to say:

Fuck you Cloudant.

Also, shame on YC for allowing this to happen.

rohern4• 15 years ago

Give us another 417 days of your silence.

huntero• 15 years ago

When I read the headline I imagined that Cloudant was going to be pretty upset to see this on the front page of HN - but it looks like it was submitted by Cloudant themselves and links to their own press release!

If it must be done, this is the type of deal that you sweep under the rug and never talk about again, much less publicize on a site like HN.

sova• 15 years ago

I'm kinda hurt to see this on here, to be honest. Might advise getting out before you plant the self-terminating PR seed. Dramatically illuminating movies you can watch to learn about why everyone on YC thinks this is an absurd move: FUEL, Food Inc.

mshave• 15 years ago

Congratulations Cloudant and good luck, you'll need it! A lifetime knowing you're directly contributing to the future destruction of the worlds agricultural biodiversity cannot be worth all that dirty money.

InclinedPlane• 15 years ago

Personally, I am very anti-Monsanto.

However, I'm a bit surprised at the sentiment expressed here. Monsanto may be a pretty shitty company, but they are not satan. More so, I'm not convinced that Monsanto's actions are so exceptionally egregious compared to so many others.

What about Cisco getting into bed with China and other oppressive regimes in helping to track down dissidents? What about companies filtering and censoring content (twitter's hash-tag policing, for example)? Or ISPs and hosting companies rolling over with zero effort when presented with take-down notices or requests for customer information (even without a subpoena)?

sitkack11• 15 years ago

I am going to sound callous here, the human race can make more people. The level of shit-getting-fucked up by Monsanto could make it really hard to make new people.

In long term shittery, Monsanto beats Cisco.

mark_l_watson• 15 years ago

I really like BigCouch - a great open source project. Awesome, really.

That said, I think that Cloudant should have kept a low profile as far as bragging about a big deal with Monsanto, a company that I personally dislike more than any other corporation on this planet. Awful company!!

That said, I don't blame Cloudant for accepting the business, but they should have just put it in their Edgar SEC filings, and not done any press releases. I hope that they did not actively market Monsanto, and that Monsanto liked BigCouch and approached them. That would make it more palatable for me.

tlogan• 15 years ago

Such a horrendous PR move.

This is like during apartheid claiming that you are delighted to have partnership with government of South Africa. Or like now partnership with Ministry of Morals of Saudi Arabia.

All customers are good, but but you don't parade all of them during triumph.

rdl• 15 years ago

Independent of how you may feel about Monsanto (and industrial agriculture in general), this is good news for Cloudant -- both an endorsement of their technology by a technically-competent buyer, and a bunch of contributions to their open source codebase.

(I dislike Monsanto's heavy-handed IP enforcement, but the data scientists are pretty far away from that; it's like criticizing Microsoft Research for the Windows OEM bundling concerns. I prefer organic food, but I'm happy that industrial agriculture/the green revolution keeps billions of people from starving.)

pjscott• 15 years ago

It's great news for anybody who wants to use CouchDB, because this means that they're going to run into the problems of big deployments, and that they'll have the money and the motivation to fix it.

Better that Monsanto pays for the big-fixing than me.

checoivan• 15 years ago

I don't know the details, but whatever sequencing queries Monsanto is running against cloudant, would be nice to replicate and open source to universities and researchers.

phamilton• 15 years ago

Preface: I would like to take the liberty of starting a thread of discussion about the technical merits of the press release. Any non technical concerns can be posted under someone else's comment please.

What does this mean for a me as a hacker?

Someone brought up the huge benefit of large scale deployment. I think that's a very interesting point. If Cloudant can get their system to scale to meet their large customer's needs, the overall experience for all clients should be streamlined.

How would such a big client affect their pricing? Would they be able to price the lower tiers more aggressively?

What other side effects does this press release have for their customers?

amaddox• 15 years ago

"the world will not be destroyed by those doing evil, but by those who watch them without doing anything."

Monsanto chooses Cloudant to power its genome analytics

Related Stories