Slashdot Mirror
Can I See Your License for those Plants, Sir?
McGruff writes: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds blew onto his farm from passing seed trucks and from neighboring farms. The court held that regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and seedlings or pay royalties. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying the article and the Federal Court of Canada has the full
text of the ruling in PDF form."
...is it going to be mandatory? or will they force every farmer to get a licence to farm, after passing an exam in which they'll have to know and recognize EVERY single specie of vegetable/animal to avoid growing it?
cool.
-- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
Monsanto is to Microsoft what the Borg are to Dr. Evil (Austin Powers). Bill's pathetic little attempts to take over the world with some crummy software has got nothing on the company that owns the genetic rights at least one ingredient in something like 80% of all the food we eat. If that doesn't scare you, I bet you're running an unpatched version of Bind (or IE 5 ;-)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
This would be like the author of a virus suing all the people who received the virus for trademark infringment.
So if had a 10,000 acre farm, I would be responsible for investigating every square foot (metre?) of said farm, and take a sample of every growing plant on said farm, and bring it in for genetic analysis, otherwise risk being sued for patent infringment?? I don't get it?
This is my Sig.
God is suing, well, everybody, for violating his patent on cellular mitosis. Many people are using the 'my cells do it on thier own, I don't even know what that word means' defence, but the judge involved does not buy that. He says 'As soon as you realized that you weren't dead, you should have started paying the royalties, scumass.'
Brant
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
Well someone should have informed farmers that they are now required to have any seeds they find genetically tested. What idiots assuming that seeds are just things that come from nature.
Monsanto products should be banned worldwide. Yet another scumsucking corporation screwing over the public with their worthless products.
Hmmm, I could have sworn I was reading something a few years back regarding monsato. It was about them introducing a type of seed that could not produce seeds once it germinated. This was so that farmers would have to continue buying crop seed from monsato every season. I wonder what would happen if somehow these seeds "blew off a truck" and began spreading slowly? Would this contribute to a worldwide food shortage?
There is no spork.
So next time you could have patent owning companies purposely mixing some of their seeds with normal seeds and then claiming the present crops be destroyed or ask for royalties.
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
ok. At least the court let him just destroy it and avoid the payment, it would suck if he was forced to pay royalties AND destroy the crop.
The world never ceases to amaze me. I cannot describe it any better.
Arathres
stainless steel
This is truly fantastic, and it doesn't end with poor farmers.
For instance, say you're eating a genetically modified apple. The seeds drop into your flowerpot and starts growing, and voilà - you have to pay!
Would something like the echelon movement do here? What I mean is that people include words that trigger echelon in sigs and what not. In the same spirit, people could just get their hands on lots and lots of genetically modified and patented seeds, and plant them everywhere all over the earth - in public places, parks, governmental areas.
Not that that would be good for our poor planet, since we have no idea what can come of this genetic engineering with nature...
:wq!
.... and spread a few of the new seeds around the world (after copyrighting the DNA, of course). Can I then (in about 20 years time), sue the hell out of everbody for misuse ? What is going on here ?!
Two wrongs may not make a right, but three
I was under the impression that you could create for your own use, a device of any kind, whether patented or not. It is only illegal to sell the product. Also, perchance all farmers should sue monsanto for damages, since due to their failure to keep their seeds under control, (ie: cover their trucks), the farmers workload has dramatically increased. Of course, the farmer could be a thief...
Genetic information wants to be free. (like beer)
I find this interesting, because they have apparently patented the seed. Correct me if I'm wrong, but under trademark law (not patent law), you have to protect your product from being diluted. It seems to me that they took inadequate protections to keep their product safe. Of course, because it's patent law, it doesn't matter. Maybe it should be uinder different law. Maybe companies should leave his retirement fund alone...of course, I'm just sticking up for the little guy now. He may have been malicious for all I know ;)
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
I wonder if the license on this stuff is transferable, of if we'll have to start paying a license fee to use products made with the plant? Maybe they'll do like microsoft and wait until everybody is using/pirating it, then release a new version that can't be digested until you call them up and buy a license.
If his neighbor buys the seed, and he doesn't, but a bee pollenates between the two plants (I assume this happens, but I don't know for sure), and his seeds start to contain the Monsanto 'patented genes', then what? The decision Monsanto won says that he STILL owes them royalties.
I think this is the ultimate form of 'viral' marketing -- by selling to one farmer, and shutting up for a long time, they could (potentially) get all farmers in Canada (and, potentially, the U.S.) to owe them money.
*sniff* Hmmm... *sniff* *sniff* something smells rotten. *sniiiiiiiiff* I think it's coming from the patent offices around the world...
It is hard control a product like which is self replicating. It is almost like software in a since it is very hard to stop copying. Especialy when you have your product reproducing it. I guess they are trying to make a stand on it now so other will not do the same. I wonder if thsi could be a new business model plant your product in someone yard then demand money for it. Let me go to the patent office right now.
good article with realvideo here . i think percy should counter sue Monsanto for allowing nature to diseminate their genetically altered seeds into his field. they have contaminated his crops.
this whole thing make me sick. here is an account from a meeting where Percy spoke.
How can poor Percy know if a seed is mutated or not? Ok, when it's obvious from the outside, then it's a no-brainer, but most modifications in plants are not visible from the outside. So a farmer has to DNA test all weedplants on his acres if there is SOMEHWERE a plant grown from a foreign seed? Yeah, that will be good for the world food economy! Can I borrow $100? I'd like to buy some bread.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
If we can ignore the thing about patented plants, it really has come down to a guy that got some stuff that literally "fell off the back of a truck," to steal from the Lycos ad.
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
I prefer Ginger. She's hot!
Best Slashdot Co
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Go around the countryside on a windy day with a truck load of seeds with the top open. Come back a year later and start sending those letters. Reap the proffits, and you don't even need to sell ANYTHING! Now there's a marketing sceme!
How many farmers are going to just pay-up, instead of going to court with a Multinational company with the possilibly losing all there crop (and the rest in layer fees).
And Jezz... It's not like any farmer has a DNA splicer linked to a patent database in their barn.
-- Aji con Todo!
Did he sign ANY sort of binding agreement with Monsanto concerning their seeds? If not, what basis does Monsanto have for forcing the farmer to so anything?
If I were a genetics company I would hire some people to `accidentally' drop seeds onto a few farmer's lands, and sue them (the farmers) after the seeds had grown to nice beautiful plants.
-- Cheers!
"It fell off the back of a truck!"
If this were any other industry, this case would never win. Imagine if I build software that replicates itself (a "worm") and let it loose (without your permission) in your company. If you turn around and include it in your distribution I cannot see that I would have any right to go after you. It's my look-out for having put the damn thing there in the first place. You should not be required to inspect your software for my intrusions.
I had such respect for Canada, but it's slipping. They're beginning to start looking like a mini-United States with health care.
Not only will this reflect on other farmers, it is a valid point of law. A patent is a patent. Hopefully the patent will work against Monsanto. European anti-gene-engineering groups should have a field day with this, if they're smart. It's a lost cause that needs attention. When did growing naturally go out of fashion? On the same note, almost all American food being engineered doesn't inspire me with confidence. Stop growing our seeds! Stop planting them here! You owe us your plants! You owe me soil nutrients. Don't make us sue!
Don't apologize for your own behaviour.
Although as much as I hate it, its true, the man should be responsible for the plants. He could have destroyed them as soon as he saw them..
If he went to market and tried to sell them, then he's an idiot
Of course, I'd sue the truck and their company for damages.
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
Can't beleive no-one's said that yet! More seriously though - could Monsanto just 'accidentally' release seeds over a wide area and then sue every 'commercial' farmer who's land they then grow on?? In which case, can we expect a genetic mod. to make the seed glow in the dark or something similar to effect easier detection!? Perhaps they'll develop a seed which runs an embedded Linux wireless module - oops, wrong thread! This does bode the question though - how the f**k did Monsanto find out he was growing 'their' seeds in the first place??? and then... Could this decision be extended to anyone who doesn't destroy plants on 'their land' - e.g. land on which people don't grow 'commercially' - e.g. your garden!!!! Not a great day in Canadian Legal history - join the US, UK and Australians (at least) at the back of the class please... J
Step 1: Write a virus using the latest IE exploit
Step 2: Patent said virus (something along the lines of ("Patent for creating extra dtorage room on PC hard drives through selective file removal via network connection").
Step 3: Litigate, litigate, litigate.
Step 4: PROFIT!
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
--The Sphinx
Excuse me if I'm not up on Canada's laws but is this different than if someone mails you something that you didn't order (say like a mail order company screwing up an order to your neighbors and puts your name and address on the shipping label) then you are under no obligation to return it.
I can't remember what the Act was but I know it was abused massively by people signing up for the music clubs getting a bunch of CDs/tapes but when the bill came they said that they never signed up (the order form didn't have a spot for a signature) and thus would get the CDs for free. (Of course now all such forms require a signature as proof of identity).
But the idea is the same. The farmer didn't ask for the seeds, but they where "delivered" to his farm without asking, thus he should be able to do as he pleased.
After all at least in the U.S. possession is 9/10ths of the law. He possessed the seeds through no fault of his own, therefor he should have owned the seeds.
just my 2 cents...
-- Ed Bugg --You have freedom of choice, but not of consequences.--
Monsanto, love 'em or hate 'em (I choose the former) are being clearly unreasonable about this. No farmer can be expected to ensure that his farm is free of contamination from other farms in this manner. It could be argued that indeed, he doesn't have the right to sow the seed produced from the plants (but I personally despise that sort of idea), but this ruling extends further, saying that if any seed should happen to grow in an unauthorised (i.e. non-license payer's) land, that person is responsible for destoying that plant. I this the onus here should be on the license payer, forcing them to ensure that they do not either willfully or negligently distribute material where they do not have a right to do so?
Could a farmer bill another for letting his seed contaminate his land?
Another poster mentioned that a computer virus/worm writer could do a similar thing. Hell, why not? Because a virus/trojan is specifically engineered to propagate? Well, what's a seed meant to do.
I despair.
Tom.
Oh arse
Hey, Jack. I'll trade you some magic bean seeds for that cow...
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
that's an expense incurred by the farmer due to negligence by montasano. fields don't just till themeselves and plants don't get destroyed by magic. it takes time, money and work. all montasano has to do is drive past farms spewing seeds on their way to delivering to their customers and then offering to let farmers buy the seeds at a slightly lower rate then it would cost to destroy the crops.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
In the US treatment is guaranteed at the risk of serious debt.
If I have a non-terminal illness for which a simple emergency room visit will not suffice, I am not guaranteed treatment in the US.
I don't get it... this article is about seeds, patents, stupid judges and a fucked farmer. Not about software, microsoft, linux, Internet Explorer nor Bill Gates' mother. Why do you have to twist it to get Microsoft bashing into this discussion? Can we for once just leave the subject, please?
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
And then sue them for copyright infringment if they complain!
Say no to software patents.
Then how was it that the farmer was harvesting his 3rd crop if the seeds did not give the next crop?
There's always sufficient, but not always at the right place nor for the right folks.
No. Unfortunatley, (In the US)failure to defend a patent or copyright can result in loss of the copyright or patent. i.e. if you don't make it [painfully] obvious that you care about revenues for the patent/copyright, you get nothing.
They (whoever) let their seeds blow all over his farm, incurring legal liability, and displacing legal crops. Sue them for vandalism.
"All your gene are belong to us !"
The way Mon$anto find's crops is right out of X-Files. They were sending small planes over farmers fields and dropping chemicals. If the plants died you didn't have MonSanto plant material. If the plant's did die you were free and clear. They say they did this to ensure you didn't plant any saved seeds from the year before without paying a fee.
When you think about it Mon$anto now expects people to ensure nature stops the cross pollination process the has be around for millions of years. Nice to know you are now legally liable for wind.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
...although I think it would take more than a little Guiness to convince Linus.
science is a religion
Well well. I found a couple of articles about my old nemesis, Monsanto. A company that is responsible for thousands of deaths over the years. They love to kill, those Monsanto fuckers. They especially like killing babies. Think I'm crazy? Grow up and read the history kids...
But first, a little of what's going on right now regarding Genetic Frankenfood. Monsanto Under Attack Part 2
- Global Pressure Builds Against Monsanto
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/monprob2.html
Found this "conservative" essay on Monsanto's past. I could tell you far more...
Monsanto: A Checkered History
http://www.social-ecology.org/learn/library/tokar
BTW, my MSOutlook spell checker has Monsanto in it (?!?). Is Microsoft part of the Monsanto plans for world domination???
Oh wait... they both already did that.
Man!
______
jeff13
Given that Monsatan (sic) are so AMAZINGLY popular with Greenpeace etc, and that farming opinion is sliding anyway, I find it incredible that they pushed this case.
It gives the environmentalists another weapon against GM.
Which is a shame, as there are many valid uses of this technology, such as trees which don't require nasty chemicals to make paper, rice with added vitamins, monkeys with four asses etc.
The only good to come of this story was my smile when I misread plants as pants.
Re-reading this post makes it look like it was generated from catch-phrases. So be it. *post*
-Yarn - Rio Karma: Excellent
The woman on Gilligan's Island was Mary Ann.
Mary Jane was Spiderman's girlfriend.
----------
Technoli
Uh....in case you didn't notice, this is slashdot here... ALL replies require Microsoft, Linux, IE and Bill Gates mother....duh!!! ;-) But, in case the significance of it slipped by you, it's called an analogy....with just a touch of satire to give it that zesty tang...mmmmm....satirific....
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
To think I was messing with the idea of moving to Canada.
Bah! I don't think so.
Not when the gov. thinks they can crawl that far up your a$$ and look around.
Drive down I 94 in North Dakota and you'll see the stuff overgrowing everywhere!
It spreads across ditches, 4 lanes of freeway, it grows in cracks in roads etc.
I'd like to see even the government contain a 4x4 square mile field of it from spreading.
Great the only thing we'll have left to share is mutual masturbation. Lovely.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
One has to make assumptions with this report. Assume the farmer is innocent, or that a SMALL percentage of the Monsanto 'product' is the result of accidental transmission. I can hardly see trucks full of seed driving by and letting the seed fly everywhere. Seed comes in bags for the most part. I can see birds eating the seeds and being unable to digest the seeds, and thereby depositing the seeds elsewhere than where they are licensed. Assume that Monsanto made the seeds/hybrid/engineered fertile and capable of reproduction. (It would be a real bitch for Monsanto to have to grow gazillions of acres of rapeseed(canola) to supply farmers with seeds to use for crop production). Now let us get some wild speculation going here...canola(Canadian Oil) also known as rapeseed, is planted for the oil extracted from the plant. Perhaps the most oil that can be extracted lies in the seed itself. (I know this is pretty far-fetched) Now let us assume that some farmer plants the Monsanto product. How would he/she extract the oil? With corn, the stuff is crushed. Wouldn't crushing the seeds basically destroy them for reproductive uses? I would guess the answer is yes, but how does the next crop spring up? Do the farmers reserve some of their crop for planting next year? Do they pool their seeds in a co-operative manner, or do they harvest their own seeds and store them where no cross contamination can occur? Do they have to relicense their reserved seeds? They are after all second generation, think of it as a software release, first crop REV 1.0, second crop REV 2.0. Do you see how absurd this is getting? What if this farmer is surrounded by others who use and license the Monsanto product? Are they not responsible, as this farmer apparently was held, for allowing Monsanto product to be transferred to unlicensed "users"?
Among the things Monsanto has done is a "brand" of potato which produces it's own round-ups.
Ie, if for instance a Colorado bug gets to a Monsanto potato and starts eating, in a few minutes it falls dead on the ground.
And people are supposed to eat that food.
Probable scenarios in the future is that genetically modified food spreads it's DNA to "real" plants, eg via pollination, and then some day a disease shows up that Monsanto didn't think about. Woops! All our crops are dead!
What to do? Where to get the original seeds?
:wq!
The method involved in this genetically enhanced canola might be more high-tech, but it has really been done before, and for quite a long time. Canada grew based on genetically enhanced wheat for instance, 'natural' wheat wouldn't grow in the Canadian plains due to the cold.
I admit that there's a lot of skill involved in coming up with new strains but if they were that worried about propogating their seeds 'illegaly' then they should've also engineered them to be incapable of reproduction.
I don't know anything about farming, but it seems to me that this is one area where civil disobedience can make a huge impact. Think of a crop duster dusting a few square miles with these mutant canola seeds. I have no idea if this would actually work though, but if it did it'd cause enough of a problem in the legal system to make them think hard about whether growing seeds should be illegal.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
Oh, come on. Isn't that excuse a little overused? I remember hearing that many times in college.
P.S. Come to think of it, it didn't work then, either!
----- I hate sigs.
I doubt anything like that would happen in Europe. In the UK a group of anti GM food "activists" were found not guilty of trashing a farmer's GM crop. There is such hostility to the stuff here that it is unlikely if ever, going to happen anywhere outside US/Canada.
Anyone remember that cheesy 80's film "The Stuff"?
I patented the air you are breathing. So everyone better pay me royalties for breathing. By continuing to breathe, you deliberately seize my intellectual property. Don't even think about writing "O2" without a "[tm]".
You may soon be able to pay your e-Air[tm] license fees online. But that's just Vaporware for now...
Personally I say a consortium should be created in order to monitor (fully monitor) patents and some of the broad circumstances in which the patents claim. Government is no good at monitoring private sector businesses and this has been proven time and time again.
Now can government be trusted to fully monitor whats going on, when some government employees who are on a time based scale of employment look forward to moving into the private sector, often taking jobs at these corporations who's patents they pass along merrily? It happened with the chemical industry.
Framework for the non profit could include, committee members who are voted into the corporation, just like a politician so there can be no form of monopolization. Patents would have to pass a rigorous full proof dissection to ensure fairness in the open market segments before being given a patent number.
This is whats happening in the justice system regarding technology based cases. Many people can scream and bitch on forums, to friends, etc., about the abuses going on in the justice system, but here is what it comes down to when dealing with the justice system.
Court
Jury of peers Highly unlikely 90% of the time the jury will be comprised of people who do not have any understanding of whats going on fully. These people are purposely selected by both lawyers, and the prosecution, depending on how they intend to fight the case. If the prosecution's job is to win by hiding facts about technology they'll option to choose as many e-illiterate jurors as they can and vice versa.
Lengthy trials
Jurors don't want to sit through boring trials such as these, and this combined with jurors that don't have a clue are a ticking timebomb set to explode in a very bad fashion. They will not look at any of the evidence, and rather they'd just wanna hurry up and go back to watching Oprah, Martha Stewart, and CBS.
Finances
Company X's resources are 1billion dollars for their legal teams while Defendant is almost dirt poor.
Companies who are bringing these patent suits should be held liable to pay for the entire trial along with damages for attempting to manipulate the legal system. Hefty fines should be imposed on them which could be used for research into the patenting system and its mechanisms.
Newflix
360 degrees of Karma
Is it my fault? I didn't buy them, they just happened to be there. Officer.
While I'm a big fan of genetically engineered foods (genetic engineering just being good ol' selective breeding sped up) I'm astounded that the courts found that the farmer has to pay damages for seeds that fell onto his land and grew there.
And in Canada too, normally the Land of Common Sense.
I'm writing my MP about this.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Now that Monsanto has the 'Terminator' seeds, I see no reason to punish people who use seeds that have come from previous crops. If Monsanto wants to keep making profits, they should have to sell those seed instead. Otherwise, the Canadian government is being criminal in it's treatment of farmers.
Lastly, how can a farmer be forced to destroy his crop in the first place. Every genetically engineered seed that blows onto his land, germinates, and grows, is wasting that piece of his land, and making it unusable to plant legal crop for that season. Not to mention the labor costs of going through the entire farm to check for these renegade plants. Farmers should have the right to sue Monsanto for crop contamination in this case. I'm sorry Canada, but what the hell kind of legal system do you people have anyway. Whoever made this decision obvioulsy didn't put any thought into it.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
Because of that omnipotent science of genetics?
Give me a fucking break.
Genetics is a dead end. Proteonics is the future. Genetics is to proteonics in biology as atoms are to gears in a machine. Which ones do you think are more useful to study?
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Offtopic, I know, but I saw your sig, and ... well ... not sure if there's an official continuation of that song, but, well, the creative juices are flowing this morning and here's my version
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
I troll slashdot
And flame JonKatz,
I like to get first post
I have a dozen accounts
But use HiNote the most
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
I post AC,
Reply to sigs
I complain and I whine
I like to spell micro$oft
With a dollar sign
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
I flame a lot
I use 1337 5p34k
Then people envy me
I wish I was hacker
Not just a skript kiddie
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
On peut soigner la forme, mais le fonds est assez vrai.
That Chickweed better be GM-free; and those bees...where do they gather their nectar?
Life? Don't talk to me about life...
No doofus. You have to defend a TRADEMARK.
You DO NOT LOSE a copyright or patent because you don't defend them. You might lose some money but you don't lose your rights.
I see this confused so often online I just had to speak up.
Oh, bullshit. If you're going to make comments regarding legal points, at least try and get your facts straight.
Copyrights and patents do not need to be defended. What you're talking about are trademarks, which have absolutely nothing to do with this case.
Monsanto: The very same company that brought us the chemical defoliant called Agent Orange. In manufacturing Agent Orange, large quantities of dioxin were leached into the soil.
When Monsanto pulled out of Niagara Falls, N.Y., the toxicity of the leftover dioxin made itself known to families there. A federal investigation into the cause led to the most expensive environmental cleanup of the 1970's. The neighbourhood's name: Love Canal. To anyone who grew up in the 70's, this name has an ominous ring to it.
Need I add saccharine to the list...Monsanto never performed sufficient testing on it and left it to the federal government to declare it a carcinogen and restrict its distribution and consumption.
-- Insert witty one-liner here. --
It is certainly withing the police power of the state to place an obligation not to use the seeds upon the farmer, even if they blow there. *However*, if these seeds are waste of such a type, which imposes an obligation to act upon the farmer, then the entry of the seed onto his property was a tresspass, for which he is entitled to damages--includeing the cost of removing them, lost profits from not being able to use the contaminated portion of his land, etc.
hawk, esq.
My own, personal, heartfelt message to the empire.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
And FYI, the whole religious spin on taxes are nothing new whatsoever -- look back to the 1400s or so (IIRC) and it was quite common.
you have got to be kidding me.
.e.
www.perceive.net
People see the world as they are, not as it is.
There have been cases of Canadian farmers reporting that crop dusters have flown over their field and sprayed pesticide in a small area. The probable reason being that if the pesticide doesn't kill the crop, then the farmer is using Monsanto's Round-Up Ready brand of seeds. As if farmers don't have enough problems as it is...
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
Please read the source material and not just the /. posts
I must agree with the court and Monsanto - I really don't think pollen flow can account for the presence of Round-Up Ready canola is the Mr. Schmeiser's field.
90% of the grain in his field was Monsanto. Pollen flow cannot reasonably account for that kind of distribution. I don't believe it was blown from a neighbouring field or that it blew off a truck.
If, as a farmer, you find RUR growth in your field, Monsanto claims they will come in and remove it for you at no cost to you. Since I haven't heard contrary to this, I think that is a reasonable position.
The more important issue for me is questioning the ethics and impact of patenting DNA, and why no one is talking about Monsanto's strategy to fundamentally alter the agricultural industry by selling seeds that are one-use-only.
/. since 3.30.2001
Bringing the nightly Canadian news to
Actually, of the three types of intellectual property, you listed the two that this is not true of. That rule only applies to trademarks.
___
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
Sorry but this whole story sounds rather...contrived, and hardly as one sided as it is made out to be. Big evil business versus poor innocent farmer.
The story as I see it goes like this: Supposedly one day the farmer goes out near the edge of his crop and tries to use Roundup on some weeds, realizing that there will be some collateral damage of nearby plants. He's aghast to discover that Roundup didn't kill the nearby plants! He proceeds to harvest the seeds from those plants, and next year he plants more of those seeds, basically taking advantage of the properties of those plants (which is the engineered fact that they resist Roundup, among other things, which he being a farmer is well aware is a trait of the Monsato seeds). Sorry but the "I'm an innocent farmer and dem der seeds blew on my farm so now they're mine!" sounds, to my cynical ears, completely bogus, and honestly something that I would see being believed and held up as credible on Slashdot where that sort of thinking pervades. If you "find" a CD-R of Windows 2000 sitting on your front step and someone removed any Copyright notices, do you therefore have the legal "just" right to give copies to anyone? If copyright & patent law worked like that they would be grossly ineffective as every tricky farmer would have seeds "blowing off trucks" into their crops, and every wank would claim to have received some software minus any copyright notices.
If indeed this was a matter of crop infection he should have immediately destroyed the crops and sued whoever was the culprit. He should NOT have taken advantage of it.
What's wrong with patenting new breeds of plants? Creating those seeds costs Monsanto probably millions of dollars in research. Also, Monsanto doesn't hold the patent on 'corn' or 'wheat'. Anybody can grow 'corn' or 'wheat' or whatever. Monsanto isn't stopping them. The deal is that anyone who uses Monsanto's seeds gets the benefit of much higher crop yields. So, why shouldn't they pay Monsanto? It's the same as using anything else to improve your business: you need to pay the owner. If I were to slap the name 'McDonald's on my restaurant, and I were to benefit from the increase in business, don't I owe the real McDonalds for this boost in business that came abuot through them building the name brand for 50+ years? Sure I do. If this farmer has greater yields because he used Monsanto's seeds that they spent millions to develop, doesn't he owe Monsanto? Sure he does! What's wrong with this?
Nope, thats trademarks. Patents or copyrights you dont have to defend to be able to enforce. And with patents its a good idea to let them get incorporated in standards (or propose them yourself), or just spread seeds around, so you can sue everyone. That way you just have to have laywers, not actually produce and sell anything. Almost as popular as spamming and pyramid schemes.
I have now laid claim to the creation of life. Everyone who pollinates, conceves, or attempts to bring life into this world must cease or pay up. Sorry guys, but hey I have to take advantage of everything I can in America. An if it means getting the slighly intelligent Patent Office to give me a patent like this, then it is my duty to my shareholders to do it. Gosh, even Microsoft does it.
I have a right as a corporation to be a leech on society. It is what our country stands for. The rights of the corporation outweigh the rights of the individual citizen. Right?
The post was about evil empires. Both Microsoft and Monsanto fall under that banner according to many. What makes that difficult to understand?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Couldn't either of you two neanderthals respond kindly to this guy?
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
Personally, I like the section that says if he finds it growing on his land he's required to destroy it! If I were Monsanto I'd be tossing this stuff out all over the damn place and then just sitting around raking in the money. Umm... that was sarcasm.
Right, now I'm worried.
This slight seed mixing is exactly what they found in Italy.
AP story
Reuters story
--
It's completely different. If marijuana is growing in the middle of a corn field, you can look at the two plants and see that one is corn and one is something else - you may not know that it's marijuana, but it sure as hell ain't corn. Natural canola plants and Monsanto Round-Up Ready(TM) canola plants look identical to each other. The only ways to tell them apart are to spray Round Up(TM) herbicide on them (in which case the natural plant dies and Monsanto's doesn't) or perform a genetic analysis. It's not something that can be determined by casual observation.
The CBC article mentioned in the blurb contains links to two other articles on this case. Both of them are better than CBC's if you're interested in the story behind the case rather than just the ruling.
This is a particularly blatant example of the clever new corporate strategy Monsdanto has been pursuing for some time. If you can't make enough money selling your products, why, sue people who choose not to be your customers. One issue this really showcases - along with the escape of Starlink corn - is that the genetically modified crop manufacturers are not capable of controlling their product, and very much want to make this someone else's problem. As people's suspicion of engineered crops (right or wrong) makes non-modified crops more and more of a value-added commodity, the issue of liability for contamination is going to get bigger - and this case sets a very bad precedent. Since the dawn of civilization, farmers have gone through the very sensible and natural process of saving enough of the harvest for the next year's planting. Monsanto and its ilk aim to end this. I have yet to hear a single argument on how this will benefit anyone but agri-giant shareholders. For what? crops that can take heavier loads of Monsanto herbicides, mainly. Maybe it's time for a genetic-engineering open-source movement...
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
all those multinational corps now have a great money making scheme. If they don't have enough funds, just go "plant" a few their patented seeds and then sue the people... Seriously if genetic modified plants run rampant (think kudzu in America) are we obligated to destroy it and pay a penalty for not licensing it. On a more probable example, crops which have been modified to be resistant could increase the cost for farmers who have to work hard to remove stray seeds blown in by the wind. Should the MNC's be liable for damages when the farmers have to spend time + money removing unwanted genetic crops? I am worried about genetics taking away taste in foods. Many people don't know how good tomatoes can taste. The beefmaster/roma/... tomatoes that were propogated before genetic engineering cannot compare to the antique varieties which taste great.
The nightmare the "lefties" and "socialist freaks" have screamed and raved about has happened; a perfectly innocent person, who apparently didn't realize his crop was contaminated until the company came in and tested, has lost his life's work over something he had little to no control over - nature - because the law gave the company that kind of power and legal backing. Time to stop laughing; you can now have your life taken away from your through no wrong actions of your own. Unless these plants look significantly different, or the seeds friggin' grow or something, there is no way he could have known an outside plant had invaded his crop. But accidents and acts of God be damned, there's a patent to protect, and some license money to reclaim - and possibly get a little more money in the process (read the article, especially the part about Monsanto wanting all of his profits for the past few years).
That, to me, is a sign of a broken, unjust legal system, one where logic is shoved out of the way to protect not just every last cent (and more) of a company's revenue, but a series of legal institutions that are unable to deal with certain natural realities. The result has been disaster for a man that didn't steal anything from the company, except under a tenuous, legalistic definition of "theft", whereby you can apparently now be charged in unlawful posession of a plant species that the wind tossed on your lawn, and have to pay for it. You can say "but that's the law" all you want - in this case, and in many others, the law is wrong and needs to be fixed before someone else gets hurt.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
From the start of genetic engineering for food crops, we should have seen that corporations would start to patent genes. We should have realized that just making the human genome public domain would not be enough. This decision is only for a food crop today, but it will set the standard for future court cases.
Don't think it can happen? With this decision, I see it as much more likely than any sort of legal and bioethical issues revolving round human cloning.I would be very interested in hearing discussion from bioethics students and philosophers. We are rapidly entering a point in time, if we have not already passed said point, when to merely be able to do a thing is not enough reason to actually do that thing.
So... what now? Unlike politicians, whom we have passing rapport with anyways, research companies are beyond our reach. We cannot picket them, we cannot blast them verbally, we cannot do anything to stop them. Beyond those doors, God Money is what dictates what happens.
That leaves us with the legistlatures of our respective countries. The governments must be made aware of the ethical horror which is threatening us. For make no mistake, we are verily threatened. This is not an SF ethics-thriller, this is not a grade-B horror film, this is real. The genes are real, the people are real, and the future... the future is all too frighteningly real.
"I am an Adept of Tantric VAX."
"or the seeds friggin' grow or something"
that should be "glow".
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Yes, because:
1) You clearly identified what they were.
2) You took steps to promote thier growth, knowing what they were.
If you had a liscence to grow THC free marijuana, but a couple fo plnats were the wild type, they you would have an excuse. However, as it's easy ti ID marijuana, that doesn't hold.
GM rapeseed looks identical to proper rapeseed. The farmer did not, and could not, identify the difference, and treated it like the expected crop.
And that's the difference
--
Trespass, destruction of property, etc.? I'm neither a lawyer nor a Canadian, but I see a lot of potential for Monsanto's culpability.
I hope some big guns back the farmer and bleep Monsanto over. It sounds like all this guy wanted to do was keep farming and/or retire.
I also hope other farmers are paying attention. Bleep your customers, Monsanto. Oh, they'll never notice! Just a bunch of dumb hicks, eh?
Well, most farmers I know know a lot more about the world than most of us cubicle schmucks. Don't think they aren't watching!
if for instance a Colorado bug gets to a Monsanto potato and starts eating, in a few minutes it falls dead on the ground.
And people are supposed to eat that food.
Actually every raw potato is poisonous. It was hard to convince European peasants that they are edible after cooking.
And a relative of potatoes is tobacco, whose leaves contains dangerous alcaloids, like nicotine. But nobody will tell to smokers. Er, wait...
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
I'm going to preface this by stating I've worked in AG before, with Monsanto, in the seed division.
The whole seed industy is all about making round up ready seed. If you're not making genetically altered seed, then you're not going to be in business much longer.
So where did Monsanto come from? Well, they are a former Chemical Company. They made many products, including PCB's. Dateline NBC has portraited Monstanto as a company that has contaminated water supplies, covered up said contaimination, and been directly responcible for Deaths, birth defects, and cancer of hundreds of people.
Now if a case like this were held in the US some interesting things might come about. First, and most damning for Monsanto is that seed companies have been held responcible for cross seeding. The makers of Star Link corn face some pretty hefty fines for contaiminating the corn supply. This might play out well because everyone in the industy is testifing that the source seed was all good. It was the cross breeding that created the wide spread contamination.
In the end, we need some laws specifically protecting famrers. They already get the shaft 9 times out of 10 anyways.
> IANAF
Perhaps IDARTS (I didn't actually read the story) would be more apprpriate.
Canola is grown primarily for the seeds. Sterile plants wouldn't be worth much, would they?
What was that big article on the CBC news last night?
Oh, yeah. Another whine about how Canadians are having to go to private clinics (where "allowed" by the gun-toting, we know what's best for you, and are willing to jail you to prove it-government, yee gods, what a horrid system) or to the States to get treatment.
And, just like the California power crisis, caused by government intervention, no doubt somehow someone will try to blame it on capitalism.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
It's times like this when I hope that there is a God and he will rule that the evil bastards at Monsanto are misusing HIS patent (the human being) and will revoke their further use of it.
You're using her as bait, Master!
> Bullshit. I've been to the doctor about 10 times
> this year and the most I've waited is 20 minutes
10 times in one year, so far, and it's only March! So much for the high quality of socialized medicine in being able to fix problems.
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
say you're eating a genetically modified apple. The seeds drop into your flowerpot and starts growing, and voilà - you have to pay!
That's why Monsanto uses the Terminator gene. Descendants of a Terminator seed are sterile. At the same time, Monsanto makes the farmer dependant and reduces genetically engineered being in the wild.
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
- The guy was previously growing the company's seeds, and did not pay a license to continue growing it.
- This is a 1400 acre farm. Seeds do not "blow in" for 1400 acres. It's quite obvious he's harvested seed, which he wasn't supposed to do, and re-planted.
- If instead of "seeds" I said "code" and instead of "license to grow" I said "GPL" I'm sure the slashdot attitude would be very different.
Go ahead, call me a troll. Just don't believe all the presented statements in the article as fact.
Monsanto has been hunting seed pirates as early as 1998. In the aforementioned article, monsanto specifically went after farmers who were hording monsanto seeds they purchased. I'm guessing that purchasing the seed 'media' isn't the same as purchasing the license, just like with software. I recall hearing about this as early as 1993 however, it the context of African farms suffering from Monsanto, however what I heard at that time might have been speculation that this would happen, or it might have been rumors of real incidents.
Monsanto's activities could easily be a threat to the continued existence of humanity (though not as great a threat as overpopulation!).
Try a google search for the keywords "Monsanto" and "Deaths" to find a lot of articles discussing Monsanto's activities for better or worse.
I'm all for mucking with nature to improve the survival chances of our civilization, but I think Monsanto is reckless and therefore dangerous. Maybe someday layers will find that they are willfully reckless and send the police to ask them to stop.
Farmers are having trouble finding non modified seeds:
_ id =30 (See 3/22
_ __ ____________________
h tm l?article_id=1000991
American Farmers Are Getting Angry over GE Crops
Genetic Contamination & Unavailability of Non-GE Seeds Anger North Dakota
Farmers
Genetic Beans Giving Farmers More Headaches. Difficulty
Finding GM-free Seeds.
Bismark (North Dakota) Tribune, 20 March 2001
http://208.141.36.73/listarchive/index.cfm?list
listing). BY Jerry W. Kram.
Excerpts: Wiley was informed that his sample had tested positive for
genetically modified varieties. The level of contamination was 1.37
percent, which was too much for the Japanese. 'I was stunned and
sick to my stomach,' Wiley said. 'I finally went into the house to tell
my wife we had just lost $ 6,000 because of a neighbor's planting
decision.' Other producers who sell into markets that prohibit or
severely restrict the use of genetically modified crops are having
a hard time finding seed. Donald Vig, an organic farmer from
Valley City, said he has talked to seed suppliers as far away as
California and cannot find seed guaranteed to be free of foreign genes.
'The organic industry has a zero tolerance for genetically modified
crops,' Vig said. Rodney Nelson, a farmer from Amenia, is also looking
for soybean seed free of genetically modified varieties. Nelson is being
sued by Monsanto, producer of Roundup Ready soybeans, for growing their
variety of soybeans without buying seed from the company. "I want
soybean seed that's guaranteed not to contain genetically engineered
material,' Nelson said. 'When I asked my seed dealer for a guarantee, he
laughed at me..."
_______________________________________________
Indiana Farmers Getting the Bad News on Biotech
www.DirectAg.com articles. 3/23/2001, or
http://www.directag.com/directag/news/article.j
Why Didn't You Warn Me About GMO's? Excerpts:
"I came here this morning feeling pretty good," the farmer continued.
"But now you've got me very concerned about where we're going to sell
our GMO-crops in the future. It's not right that you let us all get
hooked growing these GMO-crops and now tell us that maybe we should be
growing something else."
Tom Bechman, Indiana Prairie Farmer, a Farm Progress Publication.
Purdue Extension corn specialist Bob Nielsen didn't mince words when he
addressed the issue of genetic modified organisms (GMO's) and the
controversy still swirling throughout agriculture due to the StarLink Bt
debacle last fall. He warned farmers that while the long-term potential
for great benefits from biotechnology still existed, the short-term
fall-out could actually make life more difficult, and perhaps even less
profitable, for farmers who didn't manage carefully in the short term.
When he finished his talk at the Wayne County Conservation Tillage
Workshop in Richmond, Ind., one farmer in the crowd was quick about not
mincing words, either.
"Why didn't you tell us about all of these
potential negatives a long time ago," he questioned, sharply. "Where
have you been for the last two or three years? "I came here this morning
feeling pretty good," the farmer continued. "But now you've got me very
concerned about where we're going to sell our GMO-crops in the future.
It's not right that you let us all get hooked growing these GMO-crops
and now tell us that maybe we should be growing something else." While
Nielsen is never at a loss for words, he did acknowledge that the farmer
had a point. But it wasn't just Nielsen who didn't see the controversy
coming. He contended that it was all of agriculture, plus the media and
even regulatory officials. "Six months ago, hardly anyone in Indiana
even knew what StarLink was," Nielsen says. "It was barely a blip on the
radar screen."...
Living here in Sunny Alberta (tm), Canada and having family members directly involved in agriculture, I am saddened by this decision.
Unlike some of the raving left-wing crowd crowing about GM foods, and how wrong they are, I have no personal problem with them.
Having taken a whack of genetics courses (before deciding that messing around with fruit flies is not how I want to spend the rest of my life), I am surprised he did not use the simple defence of:
It's a naturally occuring mutation.
Prove it otherwise.
Really. What could Monsanto do in that scenario? Do they have a patent on randomly occuring genetic mutation? Cross-polination? NO.
All genetic modification is really just selectively chosing genes that exist elsewhere. Nature does this too. It's called...wait for it...evolution.
If you want to support GMO's, thats great. But don't use this lame excuse to try to justify it. Genetic engineering allows you to create organisms which you would never ever be able to produce via selective breeding.
The clearest example of this is a new type of tomato which has genes from a certain fish in it. The result is a tomato which keeps longer and is resistant to freezing. Now, pray tell, how long would it take you to use "selective breeding" between a tomato and a fish? The fact is you will never get it to work.
I've even heard propronents of GMO's both admit and deny that genetic engineering is just like selective breeding in the same interview. First they say, "of course it's safe. It's the same thing people have been doing for thousands of years: selective and cross breeding." Then later, "Genetic engineering is important because it lets us create things that would be impossible to make via any other method". Well, which one is it? A powerful new tool which makes the impossible possible? Or just a sped up verion of a old tool? It can't be both. The two options are mutually exclusive.
Personally, I think genetic engineering is a great new tool. But, I also think that we barely know how to use it. The current situation is that we are honing are skills using our food supply as a guinea pig and releasing the newly made creatures into the wild were they will propogate on their own. All of this with basically no regulation or testing. Stupid and foolhardy both.
The truly frightening thing about this whole story, is the particular type of seed the farmer was charged with stealing.
This is a genetically modified form of canola which was created in a lab to have resistance to:
A) pests
B) fungus
C) disease
D) drought
E) all of the above
F) none of the above
saddly, F is the answer. This genetically altered form of Canola is resitant to: Roundup. and what tis that? Monsanto's flagship Herbicide...is it any wonder the stuff is spreading around? If a Herbicide can't kill it, what can?
I feel there is real danger in this sort of thing, the loss of "natural" populations of plants, and hence seed, could lead to catastrophy. Why? Because artificial gentic manipulation could lead to unforseen weekness in genetic structure. What if we came to the day where EVERY canola plant in the worl was grown from seeds "made" by Monsanto. And what if some virus/fungus/whatever mutated slighty, and found it did real well attacking these plants. Where would we be then? all the f***ing Roundup in the world won't save us. Maybe I am being alarmist, but recent news regarding sever genetic weakness in clones (along with the fact that when cloning certain plants for personal use - the clones eventually die due to mutiplying gene weaknesses).
All I can say is I don't like it one bit.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
This wasn't about government licensing for genetically modified crops.. it was about a patented crop.. he was growing without a license from the patent holder.
The other way it works is if they can put as many small farmers out of business as possible. Do you think Monsanto wants to sell SEEDS? Screw that, cut out the middle man and put the whole process in the hands of one company.
And lawyers can make that happen.
I've read the full text of the judgement and i agree with the Judge's decision. Okay here's how it goes.
Roundup Ready canola, engineered by Monsanto, can survive spraying of Roundup herbicide, also made by Monsanto. This allows farmers using this variety of canola to control weeds easily by spraying herbicide without killing their crop. Monsanto holds the patent on this engineered variety of canola.
The farmer in question, found Roundup resistant canola in field number 2. How that strain of canola ended up there isn't known, but it could have been accidental etc. He then deliberately saved those seeds from field 2, and then planted it over his entire farm, knowing that those seeds were Roundup resistant. Thus the judge said he knew those seeds were Monsanto's Roundup Ready canola and he wanted to use them. Even though the farmer owned those seeds, since they were grown and found on his land, he infringed the patent on the use of those seeds from Monsanto.
Anyway, what some people have posted about Monsanto going round planting seeds on your land and then suing you don't hold water. If you find Monsanto seed on your land and you didn't plant it there, Monsanto has to come over and clean it up for you at their cost, not yours.
So he's guilty, and it seems like it was a just decision too.
MOD THE CHILD UP!
Is effectively what Monsanto is claiming. Because some idiot granted them the patent on genetically modified canola, they own the rights to a type of *life* in perpetuity? This seems ludicrous to me, obviously we must start campaigning to deny the legality of any patent that relates to living being or DNA.
For instance, life evolves naturally. If natural evolution were to produce the same result as genetic modification, would it invalidate the patent? How would we ever know? Or would the patent holder suddenly gain the ownership of an entire species?
I am very sad to see the courts make this ruling, particularly as a I am a proud Canadian.
"The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
Unfortunately, large corporations know how to manipulate people and manage monopolistic sales enough that nobody has a choice anymore.
Sort of like cable companies.
And therein lies the problem. Morons who run to the doctor for every sniffle, ache, and runny nose because they really do think they're going to die. Perhaps if people only went to the doctor when medically necessary, or for an annual exam, then there wouldn't be such a large waiting list.
Why doesn't some insurance company come out with a Catastrophe-Medical Insurance plan? In other words, I'll pay for routine Dr. visits (I never go), but if I break my leg or come down with Cancer, then I'm covered....
Sique
Your product uses Nutrasweet, a product of Monsanto. I don't like Monsanto, and I don't like their persecution of a Canadian farmer. As a result, I will not buy any products (including your own fine company's fine products) that include any product from Monsanto.
Yours,
etc.
When you've seen these concepts confused as often as users 2714, 11355, and myself have in this forum, you won't be so tolerant either :) I'm just glad they got to him before I did...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
The Canadian farmers started to accuse Monsanto of cross pollinating a while ago. Farmers near fields with "those gall darn ge'tic seeds" found that Monsanto seed ended up in their crop. Fears of an uncontrollable cross pollinated world of genetically altered food started to be thrown about. What happened next?
Monsanto spied on farmers, then "burned" farmers fields in order to destroy evidence. When caught, Monsanto said they were "testing" fields. Hmm, and flew night missions in Cessnas to carry out these "normal" activities. Yea... sure.
And now they win a court case against a farmer who has complained about Monsanto seed in his crop before. I don't care if the whole field is full of Genetic seed, it's still Monsantos responsibility.
Monsanto wants to own the worlds food before the farmer does. It's insidious!
They have killed before, they will kill again.
______
jeff13
Now someone needs to plant a bunch of canola and marijuana, and opium seeds at the courthouse and ask who is responsible once they are found.
Really. The main feature of these crops are that they are resistant to roundup (for those overly untanned urban types, it's a broad spectrum herbicide, kills everything). It's not like they are orange, or something, where you can just take a look. This poor bastard lives about 2 hours drive from me.
What's really worthy of note is that the bee (Eric), who did the cross-pollinating could be held liable under patent laws, possibly even the DMCA.
It's probably important to note that the juries, lawyers & judges involved will probably find poor Eric responsible for damages payable to Monstanto.
Poor Eric's dirt-bag lawyer would probably recommend that he try to place responsibility on the hive. After all, poor Eric was acting in the service of the hive and the queen bee. He was just an unpaid laborer and the hive wasn't even witholding Social Security taxes for him.
Erics dirt-bag lawyer will take to his Public Relations Weasel, who will quickly note that Eric and, in fact, all worker bees are female. He will quickly turn this into a political issue.
The Nation Organization of Women will note that the feminist-social-collective bee hive is battling against the evil patriarchal Monsanto Corporation, and send a small army of lawyers to assist poor Eric. They will file a counter-suit against Monstanto for civil-rights violations.
Meantime, Monsanto Corporation will be busy distributing bribes("education") to legislators, attempting to make property-owners responsible for the actions of any bees that live on their property.
Etc...
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
I wonder how long it will take before people will have to pay a licence to live - because their genetic gene pool happens to contain a patented gene.
James Bond had a Licence to Kill - now people will need a licence to live...
Just saying it like it are.
The guys is guilty as charged. I just read the whole pdf decision. The entire basis can be summarized by the last paragraph on page 53. And I quote:
That clearly is not Mr. Schmeiser's case in relation to his 1998 crop. I have found
that he seeded that crop from seed saved in 1997 which he knew or ought to have known was
Roundup tolerant, and samples of plants from that seed were found to contain the plaintiffs'
patented claims for genes and cells. His infringement arises not simply from occasional or
limited contamination of his Roundup susceptible canola by plants that are Roundup
resistant. He planted his crop for 1998 with seed that he knew or ought to have known was
Roundup tolerant.
Now, you tell me... if he statistically has such a high amount of crop contamination then how can he not be responsible? I'm all for eliminating patents on any form of biological organisms (whether human or other), but under the current law, THIS GUY DID IT AND NOT THE BUTLER!
pi=sigma{n:0-infinity}[(1/16)^n][(4/(8n+1))-(2/(8n +4))-(1/ (8n+5))-(1/(8n+6))]
What I am surprised by is that no one is offering to fund Mr. Schmieser for his legal defence. If you actually believe that Monsanto is wrong in this case then this what we need to do. I'd be willing to carry this forward if more people were interested in donating money in this cause.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
I actually just sang that outloud.
It was fun.
From the legal decision...
"As earlier noted, the defendants did not purchase canola seed from 1993 until 1999.
In 1999, because this action had been initiated, on the advice of their counsel the defendants
destroyed all canola seed held from previous crops and purchased an entirely new inventory
of seed for the planting of their 1999 canola crop, the source of which would be
unquestioned. However, volunteer plants of Roundup Ready canola were said to be found
within the 1999 canola fields grown by the defendants."
Ok, so essentially, if you or a neighbor ever grow the Roundup(TM)-Ready(TM) canola, then you and everyone around you has to continue to pay Monsanto until the "volunteers" quit growing, which would mean 2 years of buying non Roundup(TM)-Ready(TM) seed.
Um, I have 7 kids in my house, and *I* have not been the the hospital 10 times. In the last 365 days! The pediatric wait in saskatoon is about 30 minutes on a good day, the adult wards can be up to 4 hours, then you are seen by a resident that is so busy that they do an instant diagnosis, usually wrong, and leave immediatly. My brother broke his finger, and the bone shifted in two dimensions (obvious statement) but the doctor only took an extra and reset it in 1. So 2 weeks later, when it still really fucking hurt, he went back and found the swelling was caused from the bone ends not touching each other vertically. Too busy to do the jobs right. Welcome to Saskatchewan
I know allowing people to patent a plant alone is bad enough, but ignoring that:
Shouldn't the person who gave/sold him the seeds/starter plants to begin with be the one paying up?
NT
--
Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
'As soon as you realized that you weren't dead, you should have started paying the royalties...'
It's called "tithing". A 10% "voluntary" income tax payable to the (Christian - various denominations) church.
A large fraction of the population of Europe did it for centuries, and some people do it to this day.
Some non-Christian churches have a similar custom.
(I wonder how long it will take for patent holders to start claiming a divine right to royalties, by analogy with kings who claimed a divine right to rule as the next level below God in an "executive branch" responsible for temporal governance.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why doesn't some insurance company come out with a Catastrophe-Medical Insurance plan? In other words, I'll pay for routine Dr. visits (I never go), but if I break my leg or come down with Cancer, then I'm covered....
They probably would, but it's illegal in Canada to pay for healthcare. It's as crazy as it sounds.
Remember the old saying: You are what you eat.
Ah! So THAT explains the mental abilities of those new-age vegitarians.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If you said 15 years, you could sue. You don't even need the DNA sequence. Plant hybrids themselves, especially those that are NOT genetically engineered, are patentable and have been for over a century.
You would be able to sue if you had consistently made an effort curb infringements on growing of your hybrids or making like hybridizations. Of course, you wouldn't be able to people for your own plantings, but you could sue surreptitious cultivators of your hybrids. Strange but true.
The benefit of using Monsanto's crop is that you can use a herbicide called Roundup. Roundup usually kills just about all plants it comes in contact to, except this genetically modified canola that Monsanto has developed. This simplifies your weeding task, decreases cost, and (presumably) increases yield.
I'm not taking any kind of stand on this practice; who knows if it's better environmentally?
But on the matter of the court case, I believe the most important question is whether Schmeiser took advantage of Monsanto's plant in the way that licensed farmers do. Did he use Roundup, or some similar herbicide? Or was he just conducting his business as he normally would have, with normal canola?
This would establish two things: did he know that the genetically modified plant was present, and how much did he gain from the illicit use?
--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Hmm, could this simply the introduction of "seeding" the market... (pun only halfway intened). If Monsanto flew over crop fields and dusted each farmer's crop with just a few seeds, then they could sue each farm until they own every farm on the continent.
Perhaps AOL might take a lesson from this, and sue everyone who touches an AOL cd for "mis-handling intellectual property"
- passion
Terminator never came out. Monsanto got too much flack for even considering it.
But cytoplasmic sterile hybrid corn was a BIG thing for years. It had the same effect: The seed companies kept the lines that could reproduce to themselves and made "mule" crosses that couldn't reproduce to sell as seed to the farmers.
(It wasn't JUST a scam to keep selling seeds. The hybrid didn't regrow as a weed the next year, when farmers practicing crop rotation switched to another crop to keep the field fertile.)
That largely ended when a corn blight came through in the early '70s. Seems the line that was crossed-in to make the seeds sterile also carried susceptability to the blight - and almost all the corn was wiped out that year.
They were really worried about the next year, too, because the companies couldn't come up with enough seeds from other lines to supply all the farmers in one year, so there was a lot of the susceptable stuff out there. (Fortunately the blight infestation was minor and well contained the next year.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Think "Irish Potato Blight". Genetic diversity good. Monoculture bad.
If you want a more recent example of "Monoculture Bad" think the "ILOVEYOU" virus. (mono-culture is monoculture).
or the recent outbreak of Hoof and Mouth desease in England.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Maybe US laws is different from UK law, but over hear the police have to show that you have been in possession of MJ to prosecute you. If it is found growing wild in your garden they have to show that you put it there, or were aware of it. Other wise it could just be er... a plant.
This is fortunate really. A friend of mine once had to dispose of a MJ plant as he was moving to a new house. In the end it planted in a herbacious border belonging to the local cop shop. It stayed there for several weeks before it disappeared. What its final fate was no one knows for sure.
Phil
Hey wait a second. Does this mean that if I find that I possess a gene sequence patented by some evil mega-corp, that I have to pay up or destroy myself?
Man....I thought the bad part of my day happened when I only got two creams with my coffee!
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
If you want to know what kind of a Corporation this farmer is dealing with, check out Monsanto's legacy
<A HREF="www.tv.cbc.ca/national/pgminfo/canola/"> here </A>.
Contact Monsanto
Hell, we don't want to eat the stuff, why grow it?
--jdp Maintainer of VisEmacs
The question on all the issues that crop up around here seem to be with loopholes.
On the one hand, a person has certain rights. On the other, granting that right shouldn't open the door to all sorts of objectionable things.
i.e. You Americans *love* your free speech - but you still can't say "I've got a bomb" in an airport.
Napster is great for sharing indie-band music, but you still shouldn't trade copyright material.
You can't be responsible for seeds blowing onto your land, but you can't use that as an excuse for having a crop of it.
For every right we grant, we open a door to abuse.
"I'm just going to start punching the air like this, and if you get in the way - it's your fault!"
He should get a counter suit going that claims that his "all natural conola" was spoiled by the engineered seeds, thus lowering the value to his target market, and that the company needs to pay him for gross negligence in allowing the seeds to grow!
it would seem that Canada is on the fast track to folliwing suit with Australia, following close behind is the UK, with America closing on the inside lane hoping to pass them all. France is coming up behind them all to lap them, with China still several laps ahead but showing signs of slowing, probably due to the extra weight of properity and wealth that all of its citizens are beginning to enjoy from earlier slow downs. In the pit are the Soviet Union as well as its puppet nations of Europe and Asia, many are gassing back up to enter the race full speed, even Russia seems to believe that this event would benefit from a Tag-Team Wrestling method, so Russia is veering over to consider subing out with Soviet Union.
Over in the winners circle, the winners of past races wait with eager anticipation of crowing this races winner, even thought it is a continous race with Vigilance always being the spoiler for an individual racer. Nazi Germany smiles benevolently with its confiscated gun in one hand, and its murdered politically declared "unclean" in the other... both will be awarded to this race's winner.
I seek not only to follow in the footsteps of the men of old, I seek the things they sought.
First it is interesting to see an anglo-saxon court going against Nature and Science. This is a very typical example as, no matter the hundreds of years that passed, courts are still bound to Middle Age concepts of property. It is not admirable to see people getting charged for things due to inertia, lawyers defending anti-scientific concepts, or widly known superstitions. Even a president gets killed by a "magic bullet" that violates every possible law of mechanics.
What if the seeds did came with the wind? Why the farmer should care to destroy them? Is there a clear (TM) on the top of every wind-blown seed? Why Monsanto didn't care to produce seeds that wouldn't blow by the wind? Or maybe the next step is to take Nature to court for robbing a few seeds?
Maybe Monsanto will care for the last one, when it screws up something. I really can't imagine what may happen in a situation when a genetically modified plant or animal gets into Nature. Consequences may be quite negative as humans aren't there to control any conditions or relations. A genetically modified plant to resist parasites may force the appearence of parasites that will be many times more resistent to pesticides and other means of control. In fact we may already seeing this. If the farmer is speaking the truth, then we may be facing the spread of plants beyond limits where we still could control any possible "oops".
So let's see. Maybe the next court case will be a revival of the "People of town N vs town's cock", where people blamed the poor bird for not singing in due hours... Only here it will be Monsanto vs. Nature for the last one blowing up their profits...
Teams of Monsanto Lawyers forced to go through a canola field, plant-by-plant, and remove each one that has their damn gene in it. Poetic justice.
Instant DMCA violation. That would even work with Canada. They don't have the DMCA, but neither does Norway, and the DeCSS guy over there got arrested anyway, because the USA/MPAA wanted them to arrest him.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
I grew up about 20 kilometres away from Mr. Schmeiser's farm. I'm not a farmer, but I have previously asked a couple of farmers I know about this case. While they don't like Monsanto's tactics (it doesn't seem fair that you can't save the seed you grew yourself), they privately question the claim that the seed just "blew onto the field", as it just doesn't seem likely. Also, I know someone who knows Mr. Schmeiser, and I'll just say that they consider him more of a businessman than a "poor farmer". All I'm saying is that there are a lot more details to this case than can be summarized in one short article. Aside from the larger question of genetic manipulation, though, I don't think many farmers in this area are going to be losing any sleep over this particular case.
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
Could a farmer bill another for letting his seed contaminate his land?
If you read the judgement, there is a section towards the end where the judge mentions the "Stray Bull Law", which basically states: if your bull loose, and has its way with my cows, I own the offspring, but if it causes me any harm that your bull banged my cows, you owe me.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
In regards to Asparatame, their toxic sweetner, Monsata has this to say: "Nutrasweet breaks down into such common dietary products as phenylalanine, aspartic acid and methanol.
Shit, I don't know about you, but I don't get all that much methanol in my diet. I suspect taht the fine "scientists" at Monsato might, though.
Hopefully I didn't put any [] around my words.
I am seriously pondering the idea of starting an organization to pool some monetary resources and make repeated, legitimate attempts to patent the idea of patenting. If that's too broad, we could break it down to specifics: patent the idea of buying broad patents solely for the purpose of suing other companies, patent the idea of patenting genetic modifications in living things that, as far as we know, might make the adaptation themselves at some point, etc. Which brings up my second point: if cases like this persist, I'd like to see someone try the "I didn't do anything, these crops made the adaptation naturally" argument. I'd like to see some company try to disprove that defense. The entire world around us, in my opinion, makes that an impossible task.
----- sXe
I would have thought the solution to this situation was obvious: the farmer should sue the neighboring farm owner (and owner/operator of the trucks) for encroaching on his land in such a way that he necessarily incurred either the costs of locating and destroying the results of their careless planting/transportation -- or incurred the cost of this legal battle. (-8
Why is this not just a Luddite anachronism? Because of exactly the kind of thing Monsanto is doing. There is a wealth of genuine knowledge accumulated by Native Americans regarding how to raise the crops native to their area. There are strains of crops which have been passed down through generations which are tremendously sturdy and hardy.
Besides maintaining viable seeds of particular species, Native Seed/SEARCH also recognizes another facet that gets glossed over in a lot of these discussions: the importance of biodiversity. Monsanto et al, besides controlling a lot of farmers, are essentially working to homogenize the agricultural world. Anyone who's heard of the Irish potato famine can tell you why this is a bad, bad thing.
Anyway, they're doing some great stuff. The nature of the project kind of contains any particular effort to its immediate geographical area, but there's no reason this kind of coop couldn't be set up elsewhere with that region's native species. Anyway, check it out.
I grew up in South Dakota, and my dad is a farmer, so this story really struck me. If a piece of my dad's land was flooded, yes, he'd notice it. If it was overrun by Canadian thistle, yes, he'd notice it. If there were some stray canola plants in the corner of a field, bordering someone else's land, someone else who's planted Monsanto(TM)(R) Canola (TM)(R)(all your canola are belong to us)(etc), no, it wouldn't be noticed.
Volunteer crops (crops that grow from existing seed left over in a field, not deliberately planted, and usually not even known about) are by nature distributed in a patchy fashion. They're smaller, typically, than their cultivated counterparts, because they're usually at the edges of a field where wind and soil erosion are harder on the plants.
If indeed these were seeds blown in from another field, I can't imagine how Monsanto could see them as a deliberate affront to their license because it really doesn't make sense to harvest volunteer crops. They're patchy and small and just get crunched up by the combine.
The article is sketchy and i can't seem to find any details in the rulings...how MUCH canola was found on this guy's land? did he have a history of reusing Monsanto seed?
Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
This is truly fantastic, and it doesn't end with poor farmers.
Speaking of poor farmers, would this have been such major news had it happened to, say, some helpless fellow in the Philippines or Thailand? On the other hand, if it can happen to someone in Canada, it can happen to "one of us", so it has a chilling effect.
One thing I find very interesting is how much nationality plays a role in a story like this. Had Monsanto - a big proponent of globalization - done this to some farmer in the developing world, the only coverage it would have gotten would be in left wing student newspapers. It's unlikely it would have made
Had it been in the US, it would definitely have been headline news all over the place, and Dubya would have had to ask Cheney to write a statement of some kind. Americans would even be asking "What is a genetically modified food?"
If it had happened in Europe, the effect would have been tremondous, since they are extremely sensitive to GM issues.
South America - well, probably would have made the local news, but nothing major. We only care about their currency crisis or carnivals.
I guess it's a good thing it happened in Canada, since it actually made news.
w/m
Wouldn't be an original work the offspring of GM + natural seed? After all, it's not equal to the GM plant or the natural variant. How wold stand this on court?
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
There's no case here. I'm against gentically altered food. Monsento.. or whover they are have been negligent with their conola seeds. Sue the manufacurer of the seeds. I prefer farming the old way, and you don't need a license to grow, during harvest you reserve some of the food for seed the following year. I grow huge non gentically engineered tomatoes. I take the largest beefstake tomatoe that I grow, save some seeds, plant those the following year.. and continue. If some seeds blow into my nighbors yard I won't sue... gee. If a farm was near my home that used genitcally altered seed and it blew into my yard, I'd sue them. I don't need a moth-eel-tomatoe growing in my yard. If I want to repel bugs I plant marigolds.. that keeps most of the pests out.
Some freaky things are going on here folks-
First, you've got biotech companies like we see her suing farmers for *piracy* for growing F1 generation seed. Farmers which even purchased the seed originally are not allowed to plant their own crop's seed. So, this is even worse to them, they see it as "brownbagging," buying or stealing another farmer's F1 seed. That would be like making CDs of Photoshop *and* selling them.
How do they tell? Pour RoundUp on them soybeans and see if they shrivel? Nah. They have signature sequences within certain genes that they assume do nothing. Christ! They're just writing there little names into genes that potentially do something. I mean, we don't know what ever single gene does in soybeans, corn, &c. It just doesn't seem safe...
Maybe I'm "new age" TM, but I shop organic because I don't want to eating random GM crap like this or encouraging monopolistic and tyranical business like this that strive to put the farmer in a worse place than they already are.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
If the genetics companies are so concerned about people replanting this seed (accidentally, as it would seem in this case, or deliberately), then why is it not their responsibility to sell only plants that cannot produce seeds?
If the software/music companies are so concerned about people reproducing this file (accidentally, as it would seem in this case, or deliberately), then why is it not their responsibility to sell only files/CDs that cannot produce copies?
w/m
Where did you get these MP3's?
Umm...they blew off a passing CD onto my hard drive.
What about this "One-Click"(tm) website you are running?
I think the Feature Fairy left it there.
Do you have a license for that copy of Windows?
Windows? How did that get installed? Musta been my cat. She likes Solitaire.
--
324006
I'd like to see someone prove, beyond a doubt, that plants can't mutate by themselves to be Roundup resistant. Diseases can do it, why not plants. It seems fundamentally wrong for a corporantion to be able to patent something that could result from a natural process.
c.
Log in or piss off.
I know it's poor form to reply to one's own post, but I left out something...due to crop rotation, and the fact that different farmers/ranchers grow different things, the odds are not always that volunteer crops in a field will be of the same kind as the ones that are supposed to be there. One will often see sunflowers in a corn field, for example. Were that the case, the canola would have been a good deal easier to spot; but it would still be a volunteer crop. Still be smallish and patchy like I said in my previous post. How Monsanto could even spot it in the first place, or see it as a violation of their license...huh.
Either Monsanto's off their rocker completely or this guy was actually mucking with seed illegally.
Angry IT woman in big clompy boots. And talking lint!.
OK, here's the plan. I write a computer virus that installs itself on systems and then propagates. It doesn't do any damage, so most people don't really notice it. I patent it. After a few weeks, when a large number of computers are running my virus, I sue everyone who didn't remove it from their systems. I'm in the money
Life is life . . . everything else is just a stupid T-shirt slogan.
Yo momma is so fat, she fell down the stairs and broke her leg, and gravy started seeping out.
cat
IMHO, The farmer deliberatly performed a selection on a field edge for Roundup resistant lines.
Easy to do: Spray Roundup, harvest what's left which will be Roundup resistant.
Basically it's the equivalent of a Armored car spilling it's cash all over your property: You don't own it just because it landed on your property.
Again, IMHO, I think the farmer's argument that the seed just blew over and contaminate all my crops IS BULL. He had >90% Roundup resistant crop in his field! (Even by his account it was ~60%) Sorry, contamination will NOT overwhelm a field in that manner!
Nevermind what you think about ownership issues of biological entities, the farmer either performed very poor farming practices, or deliberately used what he knew was Roundup resistant canola that had blown on the edge of his field to plant *whole* fields in subsequent years.
You can find a link to the court's papers at that CBC link.
W9x:Thanks for the make-work project Bill.
So could I get my DNA patented? And if so could I charge a premium at sperm banks or if I got a women pregnent could I sue her for infringing on my patent? Could I get someone else DNA copywrited and sue them for copywrite infringement when they decide to have kids?
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
What's really interesting about the canola situation in Canada is that, especially in the area where this case is being tried, the plant is an extremely opportunistic volunteer weed. Just like you said, it grows along roadsides, in with other crops--anywhere it can. What makes the situation even worse is that with Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" canola, now there are canola plants out there that are resistant to current herbicide technology. These engineered plants are every bit as hardy as un-engineered canola AND we can't kill them without killing every other plant in the vicinity.
So now we've got megacorps patenting, marketing, and selling technology that they really can't control; turning farmers against their neighbors by encouraging them to "report" one another; BREAKING THE LAW by trespassing on privately held land and stealing crops to test for "violations" of their precious patents; and then USING the law to get away with what they do when someone has the balls to speak up.
I can't wait to see what happens next.
Right on the money. Most of the people posting here clearly have not read the decision.
1) The farmer could not help but be aware of Monsanto Canola. He's been a farmer for a long time.
2) He sprayed glyphosate to fallow a field and found a big swath of resistant canola growing there.
3) This has happened on other farms. The farmers call Monsanto, who comes in and cleans it up at their own expense.
4) This farmer chose to harvest the seed and incorporate it into the planting for his next crop.
5) He absolutely knew or should have known that he was likely violating patents.
Yeah, a corn plant the doesn't produce seeds (i.e. CORN) should sell really well.
The plant produces seeds, but it produces sterile seeds that cannot reproduce.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Well, I actually meant in the States...since that's where I live. But, that is a bit absurd for the poor Canucks.....
Then I can sue Ben and Casey Affleck for using my genes.
...
It's only fair
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I wonder if I can patent marijuana or E ...
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Since the biofirms like Monsanto insert entire gene sequences, what would happen if a hacker created a retrovirus to turn rust-resistant wheat into Killer Wheat?
...
Would Monsanto have to pay damages for all the farmers killed by it?
What if the hacker was from Iraq, Afghanistan, or another country that we had no extradition treaty with?
Makes you think
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
"[93] I do not agree that the situation is comparable to the "stray bull" cases that recognize that the progeny of stray bulls impregnating cows of another belong to that other, and that the owner of the straying bull may be liable in damages that may be caused to the owner of the cows. Further, the circumstances here are not akin to those cases that the defendants urge are part of the larger law of admixture, where property of A introduced by A without B's intervention to similar property of B from which it is indistinguishable, becomes the property of B. Monsanto does have ownership in its patented gene and cell and pursuant to the Act it has the exclusive use of its invention. That is an important factor which distinguishes this case from the others on which the defendants rely."
In what way are the situations dissimilar? Does he really think that simply stating their dissimilarity is sufficient?
"Research in the 1960s and seventies revealed PCBs and other aromatic organochlorines to be potent carcinogens, and also traced them to a wide array of reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders (see page _). Their high chemical affinity for organic matter, particularly fat tissue, is responsible for their dramatic rates of bioaccumulation, and their wide dispersal throughout the North's aquatic food web: Arctic cod, for example, carry PCB concentrations 48 million times that of their surrounding waters, and predatory mammals such as polar bears can harbor tissue concentrations of PCBs more than fifty times greater than that. Though the manufacture of PCBs was banned in the United States in 1976, its toxic and endocrine disruptive effects persist worldwide."
Hey, anyone affected by this is expected to pay royalties!!!!
We have more to fear from Monsanto than just about any other corporation out there.
For more info:
Monsantohttp://www.monsanto.com/
Anti-Monsanto
http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Business/Allegedly
seems this is a job for the Earth Liberation Front
http://www.earthliberationfront.com/main.shtml
Last year a few people took The Canadian Wheat Board to court over the fact that farmers are FORCED to sell their wheat to the Wheat Board. In the [Canadian] praires, it is ILLEGAL to sell your wheat that grows on your land to ANYONE else other then the Wheat Board.
2 6721.p.en.html
How nice to see our rights getting to$$ed as soon as there is money to be made. What a $ick and disgusting society.
They lost the case, as you read the transcript here:
http://www.fja.gc.ca/en/cf/2000/vol4/html/2000fca
(You will have to scroll down to Section 102, 103, and the DISPOSITION)
This is how it works: Monsanto requires the farmers who buy "Roundup Ready" canola seeds to enter into a contract. The farmer must buy new seed every year from Monsanto. They are not allowed to reuse seeds from last year's crop. This is how Monsanto makes it's money. The articles at CBC and the National both reference the procedure.
Can you reference your source for the infertile seed modification? I haven't seen that anywhere yet. It's a dangerous idea.
Right. So as long as someone spent a sufficient amount of money producing something, we should allow them to do as they will. I better start saving, because I want to be above the law and supercede ethics too!
You could have been right, except that Schmeiser doesn's spray his crops with Roundup. He uses other herbicides instead. He actually has testified that he does not like Roundup. He used it for some spraying around the edges, as you said, but never on his entire crop. So he has no reason to take advantage of this particular property of the seeds.
I remember a similar case, except it involved Roundup resistant crops, and the Farmer said it was blowing across from other fields. He won, if I recall correctly.
---
--
Insert Witty Sig Here
Note that the name canola is a marketing thing. It was created to avoid using the proper English name which is "Rape Seed"!!!!!!!
It won't be long before some company patents a manipulated (or even engineered) human virus which spreads like an epidemic but with the only consequence that everybody has to pay royalties who got infected.
...
Oh, high latency and thus not well attackeable with antibodies
So what's the problem, patents or judges?
This is not a problem associated with genetic engineering but with farming in general. Where there used to be hundreds if not thousands of different grains grown in North America there are now but a fraction of those available. Those that produce are reproduced and the others go extinct taking with them their genetic traits. We've imposed evolution based on profitability - not the species' ability to survive.
If anything GE well help preserve genetic diversity because at least we know the seeds will be available in some lab if required in the future. Not a good solution but better then letting they die out completely like we've done for the last hundred years.
Willy
If you find a large sum of money on your lawn wrapped in plastic that say "federal reserve back of new york" and instead of returning it to the rightful owner you spend it, you would be quilty of theft, how is that any different?.
The difference is Monsanto canola and non-altered canola look identical to one another. The only way to tell them apart is DNA testing or spraying the plant with Monsanto's Roundup herbicide to see which one doesn't die.
That's why it's so unfair for Monsanto to sue unsuspecting farmers for patent infringement, when the seeds unknowingly contaminate the farmers crops. Farmers have a hard enough time as is these days without having to spend their retirement savings fighting a large corporation in court over the free use of their fields.
Monsanto can't even recognize their own plants by a visual inspection. The "jack-booted thugs" who audited Schmeiser's field had to take samples back to a lab to determine if he had Monsanto plants. They also took a sample of Schmeiser's seed from the local seed processing centre to see if he would be passing the DNA into next year's crops as well. The problem here is that they grabbed his seed without Schmeiser's permission or knowledge. That's extremely dodgy and heavy-handed on Monsanto's part.
Nominated for the coveted Golden Modem award, Best Post of the Year, by the Academy of Slashdot Trolls and Flamers.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The way this works is that Roundup inhibits the plant form of a gene involved in amino acid synthesis (according to this message, anyway). The "Roundup Resistant" plants have a version of the same gene that instead comes from a plant-infecting bacteria, which is not so sensitive to the chemical in Roundup, and continues chugging along producing the necessary biochemical products.
Here's an analogy - imagine the WWF didn't learn from the experience with the XFL and decides it wants to make it's own version of another sport - auto racing. Let's imagine that the rules of "Xtreme racing" specify that you must use Plymouth Neons as your car [perhaps they bid the highest for the ad rights...], but that you can make minor modifications and replacements.
Now imagine that you've developed a fuel additive that manages to clog every fuel injector manufactured in america, but for some reason doesn't bother Honda fuel injectors much. You replace the fuel injector in your car, otherwise identical to all of the other Plymouth Neon's in the race, with a Honda fuel injector...then spray your fuel additive into the racetrack's communal fuel tank.
The day of the race comes, and all of the cars with the standard fuel injectors die, while your car with the "foreign" fuel injector continues chugging along...just as the plants with the Agrobacterium gene keep chugging along while the plants with the off-the-shelf version of the same gene die.
Pretty straightforward and harmless. The overused "Frankenstein" analogy really doesn't fit here. It's a "labor saving" device allowing a farmer to spray a field rather than going through and more carefully weeding it.
I do worry, though, about the tendency towards lazy and harmful farming practices. Flood irrigation in California is slowly salinizing the soils, and those sprinklers spraying the water high into the air in the middle of summer end up wasting a great deal of water as it evaporates before it hits the ground...but both are cheaper and easier than installing and working with drip-irrigation systems.
While the herbicide resistance isn't itself much of an issue, if all farmers insist on using the same strain of plant from the same provider because they're cheap and easy, you're worries about having a disease come along that particularly likes the specific strains that Monsanto uses for their "roundup-ready" seeds can be a serious concern. The problem isn't "biotechnological" at all, but cultural. The solution is to discourage "monoculture" farming.
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
It was also suggested that Monsanto had buzzed his field repeatedly in a low flying plain and dropped the engineered seed so that they could come back and sue him later. As crazy as it sounds, the farmer believes this
Check your facts. The farmer from the article, Perry Schmeiser, claims the Monsanto seeds contaminated his crops through cross-pollination and wind. It blew in from other farmers' fields and seed trucks.
The farmer couple mentioned in the National article who claim their field was buzzed by Monsanto, said the Monsanto agents dusted herbicide to see if their crops would die or not. The exact statements made were:
The Kram family in Raymore say planes and a helicopter have buzzed their fields. The couple says agents dropped weedkiller on their canola field, to see if the crops had the Monsanto's gene.
Monsanto says they had absolutely nothing to do with it.
You cannot compare the seed industry to software. All that i have read so far is people saying that you can't control seed; it's like software that reproduces! I'd be surprised if 1/8 of slashdot has ever been on a farm, let alone been on one.
/. is anticorporation, but where do you think we would be without corporations? They are the ones that foot the bill for most of the research.
Companies spend millions of dollars and many years to come up with just one hybrid. I know the majority of
For Monsanto to sue this guy, he would have had to be growing more of their special canola than just a few seeds that blew off a truck. Those famous trucks that people have been saying Monsanto planted, probably belonged to his neighbors. It is not very likely that seed blew off of a company truck. They take a little more care than that. This just happens to be one farmer that tried to cheat the system and got caught.
As for the hybrids, these are highly protected. One seed company was just sued for theft of a few hybrids that happened over twenty years ago. One bag of seed cannot be sold without royalties being paid to the biotech company that provided the technology to make that hybrid organism/pesticide resistant. There are many hybrids that can't be bought without prior approval and a contract to sell the product back.
Lots of money is spent in the ag community. How many people do you know would write a $20,000 check just for some dried pieces of organic matter? The same people that pay over $200,000 for a machine to harvest that product.
[ ]
Damn, where are my moderator points when I need them. Can anybody spare a "+1 insightful"? :-)
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
In this case, Monsanto requires the farmer to enter into a contract, whereby the farmer must buy new seed every year. The seeds are obviously viable and not altered to be sterile.
What I wonder is what does the Monsanto-approved farmer do with the seeds the crops produce every year? Perhaps these farmers aren't disposing of them properly, and they escape the farm on the wind? Perhaps this seed then lands in another farmer's fields, oh like maybe Percy Schmeiser's? Maybe it's the responsibility of the seed owner (read Monsanto since they own the patent) to ensure the genetically altered seeds don't escape.
Oh come on! So now you would have to genetically test all of your plants to make sure that they are not patented? What if there some sort of mutation involved? Imagine the precedence that this would set. If patented fertilizers are carried with the rain onto your field, would you have to destroy your crops or pay? We can see where the patent holder comes from with this, uncontrolled use could bring their plants everywhere for free, but couldn't this just be a sign that plants are just unpatentable? Also, Don't most companies genetically engineer their plants to be infertile (or sterile, or whatever the proper word is)? If so, then just wait a bit and the dangerous plants will be gone with no offspring.
Yes, if you know that you're growing something illegal, you have to destroy it whether you grew it intentionally or not.
These kinds of laws are mostly of the LAW_REGULATION_OF_PUBLIC_WELFARE rather than LAW_PUNISHMENT_FOR_HARM_TO_OTHERS, since everyone knows:
enum crimes = { LAW_PUNISHMENT_FOR_HARM_TO_OTHERS, LAW_PROMOTION_OF_CONTROL_AND_ORDER, LAW_CENSORSHIP_OF_IMMORALITY, LAW_REGULATION_OF_PUBLIC_WELFARE };
It's true that in an ideal society, all you need is the first category, but many societies (and ESPECIALLY not the U.S.'s) aren't capable of handling that kind of freedom. The key to being free is proving you're responsible enough to handle it, not whining about what you can and can't do.
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
I bought a 'patented' houseplant at a local "Frank's" last week - I have to go fish the tag out, but it roughly declared that propagation was not allowed under law... since ignorance of the law is no exception, if this sucker puts out roots by itself (which if I remember my botany, a lot of plants use...) are they going to come arrest my houseplants? The plant can't read, but that's never been a reason to acquit before... Thank GOD it's friday - hearing stories like these on a Monday would not bode well for the rest of the week...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Okay, so it's funny (if you're a farmer), but somebody should have offered a link (for those of who aren't).
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
So does this mean Monsanto could simply load a plane with their patented seed, spread it all over the country side, and then simply wait until it grows and sue everybody?
WWJD?
JWRTFM!
Now, take a similar idea, IP, which can be copied, and redestributed, but if it is to be kept secret, it must be kept at risk by the owner.
bash>Idea_merge GE.crops IP.ownership=
You are responsible for whatever happens from the unintentional (mis)use of your product.
I say Monsanto should replace his crop, or pay for it, if they can't prove he outright stole the seeds, and everybody happy again? If he did steal seed, he gets what he deserves, but it needs to be investigated by independent sources!
I just don't like it when someone is blamed negligently when it was a 'collateral incident'.
The farmer has a right to make a profit, I hope he wins, otherwise it will lead to heavy handed closures anywhere their neighbors plant a cross-polinate. ;P
I can't forget the StarLink/Taco Bell fiasco
This mind intentionally left blank.
The KKK a bunch of sheetheads? You decide!
Did anybody find out if the Monsanto crop on his farm was just randomly scattered? It may be that it was neatly planted, in its own section, cordoned off, or some such. OF course, I think Monsanto sucks, so I'm siding with Schmeiser and hoping he's not just a wily old goat. Of course, in 20 years, when clonal technologay has advanced to the point of people having home sequencers, there will be court cases between the GIAA (Genetic Industry Associates of America) and Plantster over piracy of genetic modification algorithms. College students will claim that download the dorsal fin alteration is really a way of getting back at "The Man", and not just a free way to get really cool cosmetic surgery to look like a shark.
Things you like to hear from geeks: Thank you You're welcome
In sterile crops, there are seeds. They just don't germinate.
~^~~^~^^~~^
That's like saying that there is no such thing as natural German Shepherds, because they are just modified dogs.
Canola is simply a nicer sounding name for rapeseed, so that consumers will buy it. Sure not all strains of rapeseed are used for crops, but not all breeds of dog are used as pets either.
http://www.google.com/search?q=canola+rapeseed
Free unix account: freeshell.org
In unrelated news, many MS Outlook users have received court orders for opening and spreading the Melissa virus within the last year. It turns out the Melissa virus writer had a patent on the replicating agent and is demanding just payment for its use.
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Um, keep in mind Canada is where they tax blank computer media to hand over to Celine Dion, prevent free speech, prevent the right to self-defence, have reverse onus crimes (e.g. you are guilty until proven innocent). In Canada you do NOT have the right to remain silent... and if you mail someone something there's a chance it might be opened, photocopied with a copy to be sent to the Government Department that interfaces with that big Big Brother database... just for the hell of it. Keep in mind you aren't allowed to own property of any kind in Canada, not even the shirt you wear, but you ARE forced to pay more than 50% of your income on taxes for it. The Prime Minister can hand himself $215,000 of public money through a shady hotel deal in backwoods Quebec, and is above the law if caught. Don't assemble and protest peacefully, you might get maced and beaten.
And you wouldn't move to Canada because of canola seeds??????
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
mark this up
Here in Australia, there is an ongoing debate as to whether farmers should us genetically modified crops, including canola, or whether they should just use normal crops. This is a debate that has special significance to the farming community especially. The current view is that GM crops shouldn't be used and on of the main reasons for this is because the EU has banned the importation of GM crops, and therefore the farmers would be losing a potential market. When you consider the size of the European market, especially in financial terms, it makes a lot of sense to not use GM crops. If other markets including the US and Middle East follow this trend, then Monsato will hopefully have a patent that is useless.
I have 6 tomato plants growing out on my back porch (super beefsteaks or somesuch), each had a little blurb about propagating said plant as being against the law, yadayada.
I might just propagate them myself just to piss people off...
Worldcom - Generation Duh!
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
That's what should be happening anyway. If I was him, I'd counter sue.
If he's lieing about the seeds being blowen over. It dosn't matter 'Cause it's bound to happen sometine in the future anyway.
A few years back a reporter (in Florida IIRC) won a judgement against the Fox affiliate that she worked for, for unlawful termination. The reason? They squashed a negative story she had produced about Monsato. Monsato got wind of it somehow and their old boys called up Fox's old boys and it was quashed. She protested and was fired.
Good ol unbiased American media...
I'm sorry if I'm easily amused, but the idea of farmers being lumped in the same category as software pirates seems like such an absurd situation that it brings me to laughter.
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
While I totaly dissagree with that. It is still flawed anyway. In the fact that who ever owned or spilt the money, would have to pay to clean it up. A proper anualogy would be more like "If an oil tanker spills its oil on your lake, then the oil company should clean it up, and compensate for contamination or your lake."
Their truck spilt the seeds, they clean it up. It's not his responsibility to clean up there mess. Especialy when they made the mess.
Even if this guy is guilty. It could easly happen to someone else. Especialy now that they won the case. What's stopping the company from throwing seeds onto someones farm, and them suing them?
Imagine if that applies to animals and humans as well.
;)
Maybe in the future some people are not allowed to have children without Corp X's permission, since they have Corp X's special DNA. BTW DNA can be inserted by viruses, that could happen by accident...
Whoopee.
And here was I thinking that all life comes from God. Some of you may think that's a stupid concept, but hey it's sure better than Monsanto's version!
I'd say if seed falls on any soil and grows there it's a blessing from God.
Turning it into a curse is disgusting.
Cheerio,
Link.
They shouldn't have it EITHER way.
No sterile seeds and NO gene patents.
If not you better go patent yourself quick. Then at least your children might be allowed to have children by just cross licensing. Ick. If not in the future if you or your significant other go for medical (DNA) treatment you may not be allowed to have children without permission. Or you get DNA contaminated by some virus.
This is so screwed up. It's so disgusting.
They are making Life a curse.
Bah.
Link.
Hey, I heard from someone that the situation is even more cynical.
;). e.g. "Remember the poor nations" vs "Remember the R&D costs blahblahblah".
Basically the drug companies would like to sell generic versions of of other companies's drugs.
At the same time they would like to stop other companies from selling generics of their own drugs.
So their lawyers present either side of the argument depending on who owns the drug
They don't need any help that's for sure.
Cheerio,
Link.
"fuck that"?
e =1 COR+3:5-7&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off
e =L EV+25&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off
Well in the future you better be careful: coz you may not be allowed to breed if you undergo certain DNA treatment.
Everyday I see more and more evidence that some people are perverting things more and more.
Whoopee. What a wonderful world.
1 Corinthians 3:6-7
"I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God made it grow. So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow."
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passag
Excerpts from Leviticus 25:
Consecrate the fiftieth year and proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you; each one of you is to return to his family property and each to his own clan.
The land must not be sold permanently, because the land is mine and you are but aliens and my tenants. Throughout the country that you hold as a possession, you must provide for the redemption of the land.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passag
This 50 year reset idea prevents strangle-hold monopolies. And kind of encourages a certain level of humility.
Cheerio.
Link.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: All rights and copyrights to my genes belong to God. The genes can not be reproduced without the Author's permission.
This just in: Lawyers for Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are rumored to be preparing a lawsuit against both parties in this case for infringing on their patented "Chocolate in my Peanut Butter" algorithm....
Cultivate GM seeds from some farmers fields. Plant said seeds in competing farmers fields (make sure it's a larfe farm). Turn in the farm to monsanto, write letters to the editor about hos Monsanto is going to bankrupt farmers. Repeat until monstanto lawyers are too busy to sue anybody else. Voila a DOS attack on monsanto and a clever culture hack to align the farmers against Monsanto. If nothing else it would add one more fuse to the powderkeg known as the inland west.
War is necrophilia.
Here's something none of those stories told you. The people who took the samples for testing from Schmeiser's farm took multiple samples and each sample was 70 to 90 % Monsanto seed. Schmeiser's story of 'they blew on to my land' is complete and utter crap. Sure, maybe some, but not enough to plant the majority of his entire crop.
But the other side of the story has its points too. Why would it only test 70 to 90 %. Why would he mix normal seeds with Monsanto seeds? He'd never be able to use Round Up in the final stages.
But regardless, Percy tried to get away with something, and got caught.
I don't like some of Monsanto's ideas, but I do believe they have the right to benefit from their ideas, nonetheless.
Men! Patent your DNA now! Then impregnate as many women as you can and sue them. It's their responsibility to abort the fetus or pay royalties.
DS
Realplayer format: http://sask.cbc.ca/clips/ram-audio/Woloski010330_1 0.ram
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
2] The farmer had tested the plants, and knew they were round up resistant.
3] He planted 1000 acres with seeds from the one field that he knew was resistant.
4] If you let Monosaturats know your field is contaminated they will clean it up at THEIR expense.
5] The judge stated that he would not have been awarding in favour of Monosaturates if it was just some wind blown seed.
The only way to fix this is to change the patent laws. The judge's hands are tied, he has to rule on the existing law, he can't just change it.
Anarchists never rule
Your idea might be alittle overboard but if the courts agree that the plants are the companies property then it was up to them to destroy it.
It is very hard to sue a billion dollar corpuration when the corps have teams of lawyers who are paid 400 an hour. If the famer just says look the plants are their property and it is not up to me to destroy THEIR property.
http://saveie6.com/
And therefore I can sue anyone and anything using solar energy... I'll start sueing my cat.
Bizar technology?
How can Monsanto grow non-germinating but otherwise healthy-seeded plants in a commercial setting? Lab-engineered plants are really expensive--once you get a few good plants, you need cheap, natural breeding to make them into a million plants.
You could make glyphosate-resistant plants sterile maybe by some funny cross-breeding, but that would be so complicated you'd need to contract out seed-crops to farmers anyway. That defeats what you were trying to do in the first place.
I emailed an acquaintance of mine who is a researcher in the plant sciences department of a university in the canadian prairies. I asked him to clarify some points that seem to me to be the source of a lot of confusion here. Here is his response: