Monsanto Plant Patent Case Winds On

srw writes "A follow-up to a slashdot story from two years ago: The Supreme Court of Canada is willing to hear the case of Percy Schmeiser -- a Saskatchewan farmer accused of violating Monsanto's IP by growing their patented canola. This article contains more background."

Comments

Obviously a frame-up

[Caractacus Potts]

Clearly, they planted the evidence...

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[infoape]

perhaps there was a mole

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[inode_buddha]

Maybe a frame-up, but still a great lube!

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[silentbozo]

Actually, the farmer says he never bought Mansanto seeds, the plants were growing in a ditch by the road, and that the plants contaminated the farmer's conventional canola (costing him the years crop.) If I were the farmer, I would have sued Mansanto for crop contamination.

Instead, it seems if some disgruntled seed saleman is pissed that you didn't want to buy their patented seed, he can just plant some on your property, and sue you for the cost after the fact. Now that's insane.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[poor_boi]

That's not insane: that's the law! ;-)

But seriously folks, better read the "pissed off seed company's" side of the story before getting up on the soap box.

I bet that farmer couldn't wait to get his eager little sweaty palms on that "Round-up Ready" canola strain. It sounds soooo tasty.

Eat less GMO :-)

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[BitterOak]

That's what makes this such a difficult case. If the court rules for Monsanto, what's to stop a seed company from genetically engineering an especially virulent form of a crop, which spreads like wildfire and eliminates all other form of that crop from the face of the planet. Soon, a few companies could control the entire world's food supply and you couldn't even have a vegetable garden in your own backyard.

On the other hand, if the court rules for the farmer, what's to stop farmers from stealing small amounts of seed from a neighbor who bought the patented crop and growing it for enough years to have a full crop and then claiming that a bird pooped the seeds on their field. This would effectively destroy IP rights of all seed companies.

Honestly, I don't know what the correct decision here would be. Either result could have disasterous implications.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Bold Marauder]

Your post gives me the seeds of an idea; maybe I should squirrel away a little something in case I'm ever visited by the IP police....

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

The crop is designed to be unable to reproduce, so you have to keep buying seeds every year. The only "transmission" vector would be the initial seeding "blowing over." Granted, this could still happen, but it's not quite the doomsday scenario you present.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[cheesybagel]

Actually, considering the world produces enough food for everyone already (it is just poorly distributed), the right thing to do is for Monsanto to sod off with their Frankenfood which requires heavy use of their own brand very poisonous pestitide RoundUp.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[PaulQuinn]

Honestly, I don't know what the correct decision here would be

OMG!!! You don't know what the correct decision is?????
Let's see, choose between:

Noone being allowed to grow a garden
VS
The profits of a company

Holy shit - you must be an American. Only a born and raised money bleeding capitalist would think that is a hard decision. Geez.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Tyler Eaves]

Not all capitalists are American.

Not all Americans are capitalists.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Chester K]

This would effectively destroy IP rights of all seed companies.

Those are the risks you take when you try to patent life.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[caseih]

Your point about a few companies controlling the world's food supply is very valid and should be of a great concern to all of us. There is a disturbing trend among of the companies that genetically alter seed to desire to produce grains (canola is an oilseed not a grain, but it still applies) that are sterile and do not reproduce. This could be seen as a good thing, since genetically modified plants then cannot "escape" into nature. However, as growing the GMO grains becomes more and more prevailant and traditional strains no longer grown (either because they don't produce as well, or are too tall or whatever), then that makes farmers have to pay for their seed every year, rather than hold back a portion and replant like they used to. Even more effected by this are third world countries who will be completely at the mercy of these companies. They are really worried the trends and "progression" being made by companies like Monsanto.

Just as Palladium, patents, and digital restrictions managenent do not bode well computer and software users, these types of genetic patents are no less negative. I personally have nothing against GMO food and technologies, but I think we should seriously consider the impacts of patenting and controlling such technologies.

I hope the courts rule in favor of the farmer. Until about 5-10 years ago in Canada, there were no IP rights for seed companies. Such rights are contrived and artificial, I believe.

Michael

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[berzerke]

...Either result could have disasterous implications...

Actually, only if the court decides in Monsanto's favor will it be a disaster. This isn't some inanimate matter patented, but life. And life will find a way to spread. Once released, if it doesn't die out, it will spread. Look at various insects (killer bees, fire ants, mosquitos).

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

No..but the annoying and stupid ones tend to be both, hence the problem with the world today.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[darkonc]

Actually, the farmer says he never bought Mansanto seeds, the plants were growing in a ditch by the road, and that the plants contaminated the farmer's conventional canola (costing him the years crop.) If I were the farmer, I would have sued Mansanto for crop contamination.

It's not quite that straight... Schmeisers story (the court documents give both sides pretty completely) is that he was spraying weeds with Roundup(tm) when he noticed that some of the canola in the area (which would have normally been killed by the herbicide) had survived --Finding that to be a bit weird, he sprayed a larger area and found a large patch that seemed to be roundup-resistant.. This appeared to be pretty much the area closest to the road.

The next summer, the seeds from the quarter section that he had sprayed were used to plant at least one of his quarter sections. This is the crop that Monsanto now claims to own. Part of the problem, however, is that the genetically modified seed has also contaminated the rest of his seed. If Monsanto wins a permanent injunction against Schmeiser ever using their seeds again, he'll not only have to turn over the seeds and profits from the mostly-monsanto patch... He'll also have to turn over any seeds with any monsanto contamination -- effectively, this will mean that he will have to destroy a couple of generations worth of breeding experiments because almost all of his stock now has at least a bit of monsanto seed in it.

Monsanto's claim was originally that he arranged (barter or sale) to have a monsanto-licensed farmer give him some of their roundup-ready seed (in violation of contract). Schmeiser claimed that it had appeared on his land, and he had the right to do what he wanted to with his crop. The (lower) courts decided that it didn't matter how the seed had landed on his land.. Monsanto had a patent on the seed, and nobody not licensed by them was allowed to use seeds with those genetics.

This decision could be especially problematic for some farmers because Canola is pretty much a weed. All sorts of farmers anywhere downwind from someone using Monsanto canola is likely to have at least a small proportion of genetically contaminated seed -- they could then have Monsanto going after them, as well.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, patenting life is illegal in other countries. So don't come whining.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[drinkypoo]

On the other hand, if the court rules for the farmer, what's to stop farmers from stealing small amounts of seed from a neighbor who bought the patented crop and growing it for enough years to have a full crop and then claiming that a bird pooped the seeds on their field. This would effectively destroy IP rights of all seed companies.

My understanding of Monsanto seed is that they insert a "terminator gene" which makes any seed sterile. Hence, you cannot grow it for enough years to have a full crop. You have to buy their seed every year. Consequently, the seed is cheaper than normal...

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Sique]

Monsanto's claim was originally that he arranged (barter or sale) to have a monsanto-licensed farmer give him some of their roundup-ready seed (in violation of contract). Schmeiser claimed that it had appeared on his land, and he had the right to do what he wanted to with his crop. The (lower) courts decided that it didn't matter how the seed had landed on his land.. Monsanto had a patent on the seed, and nobody not licensed by them was allowed to use seeds with those genetics.

Think this a little further. Think of a second company selling genetically altered canola seed to a farmer, and again some of the seed falls over to a neighbour. But this time this farmer isn't using his own seed but Monsanto's. Then you have a farmer with Monsanto seed contamined by another seed. Which decision should the court make now? Handing over the contamined seed to Monsanto (because it violates Monsanto's patents)? Or handing it over to the other company (because it violates their patents)? Or part it half-by-half and giving 50% to each company? Shall both companies now start to sue each other for violating patents?

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[silentbozo]

Here's where it gets really screwy - Monsanto is claiming ownership of a genetic sequence which, when grown in conformance with the natural lifecycle of the plant, WILL SPREAD. I don't mean in a laboratory, or an isolated test field, I mean if you throw the seed into a field, little vectors of genetic contaimination (pollen) will spread. You can't get a pure-bred version of the crop, because the plant evidently is sterile in certain situations, but given that the farmer is being charged with having seeds that are partially bred from Monsanto property, it means that the plants can pass on their genetic material to a certain extent.

So, am I supposed to now make sure your IP doesn't find itself into my materials? How? Am I supposed to test the genetic sequences of ALL the plants that I have? This isn't a case where I'm going out and collecting YOUR IP in order to grow new plants - this is a case where your IP is contaminating my plants as a normal course of operation.

For example, this would be like a company which writes a computer program, that during the normal course of operations, spawns a virus that infects other programs on your hard drive. One of the programs that it infects is your compiler. Can this company now sue to get revenues for the programs you write and distribute that are compiled with this infected compiler? After all, this infected compiler now incorporates their IP...

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Miguel de Icaza]

from another perspective you might find Palladium, patents, and DRM are actually positive things that foster innovation and artistic expression.

its the same with IP protection of GM food. If these foods actually do improve crop yields and feed more people for less effort - then the companies that develop biotech need to get a fair reyrn for the expensive R&D they provide (or other companies won't bother to do futher work)

you slashdotters seem to think science is still being done in garages - well its not, these days it costs billions to produce something radically advanced like a GM food, blockbuster movie, or .NET - risks need rewards

sorry for the rant there
love, peace, hope, dock

miguel

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[El Christador]

>Instead, it seems if some disgruntled seed
>saleman is pissed that you didn't want to buy
>their patented seed, he can just plant some on
>your property, and sue you for the cost after >the fact. Now that's insane.

It would be if the case you describe were judged to constitute patent infringement, but the Federal Court of Appeal has already ruled in this case that involuntary contamination does not constitute patent infringement. There is only patent infringement if the seeds were put there by the person accused of the infringement, and if that person had knowledge that the seeds were glyphosate resistant. See paragraphs 55-58 of the Federal Court of Appeal's
ruling:

[55] Counsel for Mr. Schmeiser submitted that a finding for Monsanto in this case would be highly prejudicial to any farmer who does not wish to grow Roundup Ready Canola. That is because glyphosate resistant canola can appear in a field without having been planted there, but a farmer cannot detect it without spraying Roundup, thereby killing any conventional canola in the field.

[56] There is considerable force to the argument that it would be unfair to grant Monsanto a remedy for infringement where volunteer Roundup Ready Canola grows in a farmer's field but its resistance to glyphosate remains unknown, or if that characteristic becomes apparent but the seeds of the volunteer plants are not retained for cultivation. It is often said that intention is not material to a finding of infringement: H. Fox, The Canadian Law and Practice relating to Letters Patent for Inventions, 4th ed. (1969), at page 381; Computalog Ltd. v. Comtech Logging Ltd. (1992), 44 C.P.R. (3d) 77 (F.C.A.). That principle was developed in the context of patents for conventional inventions: see, for example, Stead v. Anderson (1847), 2 W.P.C. 156, Wright v. Hitchcock (1870), L.R. 5 Ex. 37, Young v. Rosenthal (1884), 1 R.P.C. 29 (Q.B.), Skelding v. Daly et al. (1941), 1 C.P.R. 266 (B.C.C.A.). Clearly, in most cases of patent infringement, to allow a defence of ignorance or lack of intention to infringe would destroy the efficacy of the patent, because the actual content of any particular patent is known to very few people.

[57] However, it seems to me arguable that the patented Monsanto gene falls into a novel category. It is a patented invention found within a living plant that may, without human intervention, produce progeny containing the same invention. It is undisputed that a plant containing the Monsanto gene may come fortuitously onto the property of a person who has no reason to be aware of the presence of the characteristic created by the patented gene. It is also reasonable to suppose that the person could become aware that the plant has that characteristic but may tolerate the continued presence of the plant without doing anything to cause or promote the propagation of the plant or its progeny (by saving and planting the seeds, for example). In my view, it is an open question whether Monsanto could, in such circumstances, obtain a remedy for infringement on the basis that the intention of the alleged infringer is irrelevant. However, that question does not need to be resolved in this case.

[58] In this case, Mr. Schmeiser cultivated glyphosate resistant canola plants. His 1998 canola crop was mostly glyphosate resistant, and it came from seed that Mr. Schmeiser had saved from his own fields and the adjacent road allowances in 1997. Although the Trial Judge did not find that Mr. Schmeiser played any part initially in causing those glyphosate resistant canola plants to grow in 1997, the Trial Judge found as a fact, on the basis of ample evidence, that Mr. Schmeiser knew or should have known that those plants were glyphosate resistant when he saved their seeds in 1997 and planted those seeds the following year. It was the cultivation, harvest and sale of the 1998 crop in those circumstances that made Mr. Schmeiser vulnerable to Monsanto's infringement claim.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Pall Agamemnides]

And life will find a way to spread. Once relased, if it doesn't die out, it will spread.

Well, that's not necessarily true. Species do become extinct. But on the other hand, these genetically-engineered crops are generally designed to survive very well, with resistence to drought, pesticides, etc. So eliminating these may prove more difficult than usual.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

So, money bleeding American capitalists are the only ones who apply legal reason over purely emotional slashdot arguments?

This is a Canadian case going the the supreme court, so I think we can too.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[axxackall]

I wonder how they patent plants?

If the patent the property of seeds to resist pesticides then it creates a problem when other farmers use some amounts of pesticeds for years and eventually can get seeds more and more resistent to pesticeds. That could be another seeds, different then Monsanto's, just with the same property. And that eventually can come by itself - plants can mutate in time. Too bad, the patents should not cover properties. It's like patenting a physical law.

If they patent exact DNA then farmers must check every year their crops that they are not accidentally contaminated. Too bad for other farmers, such DNA exam is expensive and that can rulle many farmers out of business.

Instead, they should patent the technology of genetical modification, not plants. If the farmer use the same technology to modify seeds then - jail. If the way of modification was different, even with the same outoming seeds then - live free.

This case is a test of how far bad American patent system goes.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

There is enough naturaly grown food. Even more than enough. There is obecity etc. Those hungry countries don't have money or conditions to use GM foods. As for the West, there is no compeling reason to bankrupt farmers and increase unemplyment. The EU and Canada decision to ban growth hormone is partialy based on that wisdom. Even if all claims for GH "safety" are true - it sickens cows, introduces antibiotics in milk for kids, breeds resistent strains of bakteria. This is not science, this is BS.
As for the garages, hm, no one ever said anything about science being done in garages? Besides "bilions and bilions" does NOT mean good? Did you drink too much milk or what?

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[El Christador]

So, am I supposed to now make sure your IP doesn't find itself into my materials? How? Am I supposed to test the genetic sequences of ALL the plants that I have? This isn't a case where I'm going out and collecting YOUR IP in order to grow new plants - this is a case where your IP is contaminating my plants as a normal course of operation.

Under the status quo (i.e. the last ruling, by the Federal Court of Appeal) you are under no obligation to test your plants for the presence of any patented genes, and you can't be found in infringement of the patent unless you had performed some such test and the plants tested positive, but you took seed from them anyway and replanted it.

Of course, Percy Schmeiser's story is that he had in fact performed some such test, but went ahead anyway and took the seed from plants which tested positive for glyphosate-resistance, and planted it in his fields the following year. That's how he lost the appeal despite the Appeal Court's ruling. But you need not worry that farmers are in jeopardy of IP violations due to accidental spread of patented genes. That battle has already been won, in favour of the farmers. But it has no relevance whatsoever to the Percy Schmeiser case because Mr. Schmeiser claims that 1) his farming company planted the glyphosate-resistant plants growing in his fields in 1998; and 2) that the seed for these plants came from plants in his fields in 1997 which had been tested and found to be glyphosate-resistant.

He is not arguing that the plants growing in his fields in 1998 were a case of accidental contamination. He's claiming only that he originally got his hands on the seeds by taking advantage of some accidental contamination. He is arguing that he can do anything he likes with glyphosate-resistant plants he finds growing on his property, including harvesting the seed from them and planting it the following year. Possibly a reasonable point of view, but one with no basis whatsoever in Canadian law, which says that one may not grow a patented plant without getting a licence from the patent holder, and gives no exemption from patent laws just because the infringer owns the physical property in question. This may be why he's lost the first two legal rounds: he has not a legal leg to stand on.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Have Blue]

If the court rules for the farmer, it will destroy the biotech industry. Where is the incentive to genetically engineer anything useful if you can only ever sell one of them? Without the major companies, who's going to make the breakthroughs that require millions of dollars of equipment and research support?

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Realistic_Dragon]

It's not even like a _farmer_ can be expected to be able to readily identify GM seeds anyway - it could have just been a naturally occuring resistant mutation.

I can see them now, scurrying way with a seed sample to their subterranian gene sequencing plant (all farmers have one of these, didn't you know?) and cackling madly as they identify the seeds they found and work out the best way to rip of Monsato's IP.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[kurosawdust]

excellent argument...however, I think you could strengthen your position rhetorically if you spiced up your writing with "wtf" and "lol", as well as closing with "kthxbye!"

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

So now ANY farmer who finds a resistant plant has to submit it to every biotech company for genetic screening to see WHO created the strain so they can 'pay' the proper company. That's one of the reason genetic patents shouldn't be allowed, it's just too easy for them to unknowingly spread leading to people unknowingly breaking the patent laws(not to mention, it IS possible for a natural mutation to cause such resistances, or even create the same effect as genetic engineering)

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[cyberformer]

The greatest problem with the sterile seeds is that, because seeds tend to blow between fields, they might get mixed up with the natural, non-GMO, non-sterile seeds. A farmer who isn't intentionally using GMOs (like the one in this case claims to be) could find that the seeds he plants don't grow. In an area of the world where food is in short supply, that's even worse than being sued by Monsanto.

This risk is one reason why some countries don't accept GM food, even if people are starving and others are offering to give it to them for free: They're afraid that sterile seeds will cause an even greater famine next harvest. Though there's a lot of paranoia around GM food, this particular fear sounds valid.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Descartes]

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that Monsanto isn't being held responsible for contaminating Percy's field. I think clearly he made the decision to keep the Roundup resistant plants, but the Monsanto seed had essentially polluted his crop.

If I decide to patent toxic waste can I sue a farmer when it ends up on his field? It makes more sense to me to allow patents on higher organisms because they can't spread corporate IP rights as easily. If Harvard was given their patent on the mice, how would the courts react if they released them into the wild and started suing people for the content of their mousetraps?

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[budgenator]

Monsanto has developed a breed of canola that is virtualy indestructable, round-up doesn't kill it, and round-up kill just about every plant there is. Appearently the breed of canola also isn't a hybrid, so the seeds grown are fertile and reproduce new plants. So this farmer's own breeding program has been contaminated, that's destroyed, by being invaded by an plant that has been designed to be indestructable, and Monsanto wants to be paid alowing their monster to destroy the village because they own the patent on the monster.

personaly i think if you've patented something that reproduces autonomusly, you should be suprised that it reproduces, if that reproduction is causing damage, your liable. Don't forget that this farmer's seedstock is potentialy valuable, seed companies will pay big bucks to get orignial strains to work with.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[vv2]

And now we have the US trying to force the EU to let Monsanto sell GM seeds and produce. Obviously a good thing - I mean, how else are our farmers going to get the wonderful benefits of GM in return for selling what's left of their individual rights...

ps - anyone else find it ironic that it was a Monsato product the farmer was using to id these crops....

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[hazem]

Not all capitalists are bad.

The whole idea behind capitalism is that you, as an individual, own your own time, talents, and property.

You are free to use that time, talents, and property in any way you deem appropriate, including to gain more time, talents, and property.

There is nothing inherently bad about this. Like communism and socialism, it is a framework for economic activity and should not be used as a framework for ethics and morality. That is the purview of religion and philosophy.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[hazem]

This risk is one reason why some countries don't accept GM food, even if people are starving and others are offering to give it to them for free: They're afraid that sterile seeds will cause an even greater famine next harvest. Though there's a lot of paranoia around GM food, this particular fear sounds valid.

Amazing! These people, who have so little, seem to have an important sense of vision and planning for the future. It's so refreshing because it's not something that is often seen in this Western world of "plenty". There is hope for us all, afterall!

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[BuilderBob]

For example, this would be like a company which writes a computer program, that during the normal course of operations, spawns a virus that infects other programs on your hard drive. One of the programs that it infects is your compiler. Can this company now sue to get revenues for the programs you write and distribute that are compiled with this infected compiler? After all, this infected compiler now incorporates their IP...

Except for the virus part, that's pretty much what the GPL does for you, if you use a GPL'd compiler with GPL libraries (such that your code won't work without those libraries) then you must GPL your code. (question 2)

BB

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[FireballFreddy]

Please Hazem, remember that you are posting on Slashdot. There is no room for a voice of reason here. ;)

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

Canadian law specifically protects seed companies' IP.

For reference, please see the Plant Breeders' Rights Act (PBRA) passed in 1990.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Anonymous Coward]

that are sterile and do not reproduce

1. Monsanto's "Terminator" gene, and the equivalents developed by other companies, has not yet been used in any seed that they sell.

Furthermore, they will not have any reason to use it unless they lose this case and others like it.

2. For over a century people have been propagating mutant plants which are sterile, hybrid plants which do not breed true, and combinations of these, such as the navel orange.

This did not endanger the world's food supply. Instead, it increased and improved it dramatically.

3. In Canada, plant breeders have had IP rights since 1990. In the US, they have had IP rights since (IIRC) 1907. These rights may be contrived, but (for what it's worth) Canada did not jump into this blindly.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[gl4ss]

more to fear is that if the farmers are dependant on the constant supply of seeds from mosanto, what happens when somebody blows up mosanto.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Cyberdyne]

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that Monsanto isn't being held responsible for contaminating Percy's field. I think clearly he made the decision to keep the Roundup resistant plants, but the Monsanto seed had essentially polluted his crop.

If I decide to patent toxic waste can I sue a farmer when it ends up on his field?

You could if the farmer found your patented toxic waste happened to make great fertilizer, and started making and using his own copy of it, which seems to be what happened here: this farmer discovered the Monsanto plants were better, and started breeding them.

If Harvard was given their patent on the mice, how would the courts react if they released them into the wild and started suing people for the content of their mousetraps?

I suspect Harvard would prevail in court against anyone breeding Harvard's patented mice commercially without a license, which is what this farmer was doing with Monsanto seed...

If I were to find a copy of Windows "accidentally", am I then entitled to start selling copies without a license from MS? I don't think so!

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[TekPolitik]

Which decision should the court make now? Handing over the contamined seed to Monsanto (because it violates Monsanto's patents)? Or handing it over to the other company (because it violates their patents)?

This is one of the arguments that Schmeiser's lawyers have repeatedly made. It's not necessarily the best one, since given all other factors there's nothing particularly novel about seeds in this respect - an infringer could build, say, a software application, that infringes patents held by multiple patent holders (and almost any software application would do this), and if sued the court would have to figure out how to divide the spoils.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[TekPolitik]

He is not arguing that the plants growing in his fields in 1998 were a case of accidental contamination. He's claiming only that he originally got his hands on the seeds by taking advantage of some accidental contamination.

This misrepresents the situation. Yes, he knew there were patented genes in the crop, but he was doing what he had done every year for a couple of decades - taking seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. He believed his own crops were superior to others in the district because he was essentially running his own breeding program.

He never sprayed Roundup on the canola once it was planted, which it the whole point of the Monsanto modifications. In fact he was an organic farmer - he didn't even want the genetically modified stuff there. Thus he gained no advantage from the presence of the Monsanto patented genes, so there is no question of him "taking advantage" of the situation.

The outcome is that he was not permitted to go about his business as he always had - once he knew there were Monsanto genes in his crop, he could never use seeds from that crop again.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Blue Stone]

" The crop is designed to be unable to reproduce,"

Yeah, and so were the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[TekPolitik]

The crop is designed to be unable to reproduce, so you have to keep buying seeds every year.

This is not true. Monsanto doesn't use these terminator genes, which is in a way unfortunate since if the plant were designed this way there wouldn't be a problem. This case was specifically about second or third generation Monsanto genes.

In fact, on one farm in Alberta there has been found a subsequent generation crop that has all three major brands of herbicide resistant gene.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Reziac]

Look at it the other way around, too: Roundup resistant weeds could be a huge economic hazard. What happens if Montanto's patented canola genes get into the general species gene pool, thru simple windblown pollen exchange -- aside from the "all your crops are belong to us" aspect that they're pushing in the case in question, what about adjacent wheat farmers who don't WANT canola on their land and are using Roundup as their routine field-prep herbicide? Now they've got canola they can't kill off in their wheat crop, which reduces its market value (the more nonwheat seeds in your wheat, the less it's worth). Will they be able to sue Monsanto for reducing the value of their crop, however unintentional the contamination was?

Hey, what's good for the goose....

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Fesh]

Yeah, but the virus part is the crucial distinction because it's what determines the element of choice and control. You use the GPL, the "contamination" is your informed choice. Some company virally infests your computer in a scheme to bleed you dry, you have no control over the situation (you could hardly have been expected to know that the virus was lurking in their software).

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Fesh]

Which would indicate to me that the seed that this farmer grew cannot possibly be Monsanto's. Case closed!

*sigh* Yeah, right.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[The Mgt]

This would effectively destroy IP rights of all seed companies.

Good.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[GlassHeart]

Even more effected by this are third world countries who will be completely at the mercy of these companies.

It's worse than that. All Monsanto really wants is profit, so "mercy" in this case can simply be purchased with dollars. (Yes, I'm being sarcastic.)

The problem is a global monoculture of food crops. As smart as Monsanto's scientists are, they cannot predict every possible attack. Planting an entire country full of identical crops, however, is just waiting for disaster, either from nature or from a terrorist biological attack. We're talking mass starvation and subsequent breakdown of entire societies, not just economic dependency.

Can Monsanto save us from such an attack?

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Black Copter Control]

He is arguing that he can do anything he likes with glyphosate-resistant plants he finds growing on his property, including harvesting the seed from them and planting it the following year. Possibly a reasonable point of view, but one with no basis whatsoever in Canadian law, which says that one may not grow a patented plant without getting a licence from the patent holder, and gives no exemption from patent laws just because the infringer owns the physical property in question. This may be why he's lost the first two legal rounds: he has not a legal leg to stand on.

I take it that you're the local monsanto rep??
That's not really what the law says... It's really silent on patented life. Some of the (very serious) questions brought up by this court case are "Can you patent life?" and "what are the implications of such a patent?". My understanding of patent law is that it applies more to the process than the result.. Thus the owner of the patent-leather process didn't own all the patent leather shoes ever made. He owned the process of making the leather shiny.
Similarly, I feel that Monsanto should be able to patent the process of creating this roundup-resistance gene.. not the resulting plants.

Even given that Schmeiser had done a (accidental, originally, according to him) test which determined that some of the plants growing on his land were roundup resistant, Monsanto doesn't own the idea of glyphosate-resistance. They really only own the patent on specific genetic alteration which bestows that resistance.

• What if someone simply bred themselves some roundup-resistant plants, would Monsanto then have a claim on these plants simply because they're roundup resistant?
  Would a farmer lose his work simply because the breeding program succeed, in part, because some Monsanto-tainted pollen made it into his breeding field?
• Or what about somebody who accidently sprayed his crop and found that he had a 30% mix of roundup-resistant seeds in his quarter-section? Would he then owe that last 30% of his crop to Monsanto?
• Worse yet -- if a Monsanto GM strain were accidently crossbred with some other company's GM strain would a farmer who realized this now owe a copy of his crop to both companies?

There are all sorts of weird things which crop up if you're able to patent self-replicating entities. I doubt that I've even scratched the surface on that one.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Monkelectric]

You wish. I agree capitalism is the best system so far -- but the real idea is to trick people into thinking they have free will, thus making them happy to support the wealthy with THEIR labor who for all intents and purposes are the ruling class.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Chester K]

Where is the incentive to genetically engineer anything useful if you can only ever sell one of them?

Two things:

• Base your business model on charging for selling your genetically modified seeds, not for growing them, and
  
• If you really want to keep a tight control on growing, engineer the plant so it doesn't create new seeds of its own.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[El Christador]

I take it that you're the local monsanto rep??

Local!? Pfft! What an insult! That would be Assistant Vice-Overlord of Operations, Planet Earth, Sol System, Phase III, thank you. It is a considered a local position, but not on the spatial scales you had in mind.

That's not really what the law says... It's really silent on patented life

The Patent Act might be silent, but there does exist case law. Bottom line: lower lifeforms (plants and microorganisms) are patentable, higher lifeforms (oncomice) are not. That is not to say that's the final word on it, of course, and that there isn't life in the issue still. The judgments go into this in some detail, so they'd be a worthwhile place to look.

My understanding of patent law is that it applies more to the process than the result.

My understanding is that it prevents one from using the invention, and from reproducing the invention. I don't think there's any real question that planting seeds that are known to be from a patent plant constitutes use of the inventions, and also reproduction of the inventions which in this case are a genetically engineered plant, and also plant cells containing the inserted gene. The judgments go into this in quite some detail, too.

Maybe in the case you cite (patent leather shoes) the shiny shoe itself is not the invention?

What if someone simply bred themselves some roundup-resistant plants, would Monsanto then have a claim on these plants simply because they're roundup resistant?

No. Your point is correct, they only have a patent on certain types of plants that possess glyphosate resistance due to a specific inserted gene. Glyphosate resistance induced by any other means is not covered.

Or what about somebody who accidently sprayed his crop and found that he had a 30% mix of roundup-resistant seeds in his quarter-section? Would he then owe that last 30% of his crop to Monsanto?

I believe that under the current rulings
he wouldn't owe anything to Monsanto. He could harvest that seed and sell it, as that would not infringe the patent by using/reproducing the invention. He would not be able to take seed from that last 30% and plant it in his fields next year. If he did that, he would infringe the patent and then would owe something to Monsanto. I would note that a farmer who sprays his fields with Roundup and kills all his crops (at least, the ones not covered by the patent) is only a victim of his own incompetence, not of the patent laws. That is, if you kill all your plants (save a few glyphosate resistant ones), your resulting unfortunate situation is entirely of your own making.

Worse yet -- if a Monsanto GM strain were accidently crossbred with some other company's GM strain would a farmer who realized this now owe a copy of his crop to both companies?

The farmers don't actually owe the companies anything, though. They just can't replant the seeds without infringing the patents. I suppose they could infringe two patents at once, but you can do that with non-living, non-genetically-modified inventions too. Then you have twice as many lawsuits to fight.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[El Christador]

This misrepresents the situation.

Point taken. The phrase "taking advantage of" was subconsciously inserted by myself and represents my own suspicions about what happened. I will concede that it is not supported by the facts of the case as accepted by the court, which I am willing to take as the correct account of the events for the purpose of this discussion, and a more neutral term should be used.

Yes, he knew there were patented genes in the crop, but he was doing what he had done every year for a couple of decades - taking seeds from one year's crop to plant the following year. He believed his own crops were superior to others in the district because he was essentially running his own breeding program.

Well, that's the really odd thing. His actions as described in his own testimony seem awfully bizarre if this was the case. He knew there was a four acre swathe on his property where every single plant surviving was genetically modified, and not one of them was of his own strain. Yet he (or, more precisely, his hired hand operating under his general instructions) took the seed that was going to be saved for the next year from that same swathe. Note that he had plenty of other places to take seed from: he was growing 780 acres of canola that year, and the known contaminated region was four acres along a roadside, with a non-uniform spatial pattern of surviving canola suggestive of local contamination. It could have been a simple mistake. That's an awfully, awfully, awfully big simple mistake. He could have forgotten to tell the hired hand to avoid the contaminated area, but again, that's a pretty spectacular thing to forget given his claim that the glyphosate-resistant canola was so undesirable to him.

In fact he was an organic farmer - he didn't even want the genetically modified stuff there.though.

Again, harvesting the seed for next year from the one spot in his fields where he knew the only thing growing was genetically modified canola is extremely puzzling behaviour for an "organic farmer" who doesn't even want the genetically modified stuff. Even if done inadvertently through carelessness.

And what kind of organic farmer is this exactly? The lower court ruling says "Mr. Schmeiser testified that it is his general practice to use chemical herbicides as little as possible. However, he does use them when necessary for weed control." Sort of organic-lite?

The outcome is that he was not permitted to go about his business as he always had - once he knew there were Monsanto genes in his crop, he could never use seeds from that crop again.

It is only the seeds from the four acres of known contamination he couldn't use. He could have taken seeds from any of the other 776 acres of untested canola, and gone about his business as he always had.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[TekPolitik]

And what kind of organic farmer is this exactly? The lower court ruling says "Mr. Schmeiser testified that it is his general practice to use chemical herbicides as little as possible. However, he does use them when necessary for weed control." Sort of organic-lite?

He didn't spray chemical herbicides on the crops - he used them prior to planting crops, to fallow fields, and in other areas in which he didn't want anything growing at all.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Descartes]

If I were to find a copy of Windows "accidentally", am I then entitled to start selling copies without a license from MS? I don't think so!

Copies of windows don't tend to blow into offices of their own accord. My point isn't againt IP rights, I'm saying that Monsanto should be held responsible for cleaning up their messes. Which is why I think patenting a breed of plant is stupid, there's no way to keep it out of other farmer's fields.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[darkonc]

Local!? Pfft! What an insult! That would be Assistant Vice-Overlord of Operations, Planet Earth, Sol System, Phase III, thank you. It is a considered a local position, but not on the spatial scales you had in mind.

So, in all seriousness: What is your position within/for monsanto?

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Cyberdyne]

Copies of windows don't tend to blow into offices of their own accord.

They can and do arrive by mistake. How you obtained the material you copied is irrelevant - it is the copying which is wrong and illegal, and that's precisely what this character did.

My point isn't againt IP rights, I'm saying that Monsanto should be held responsible for cleaning up their messes.

This isn't a "mess" Monsanto made, though - the farmer found some of their patented seed, and started copying it. He thought "I didn't buy the thing I copied, I just found it by chance" would be a defence in court. It isn't.

Which is why I think patenting a breed of plant is stupid, there's no way to keep it out of other farmer's fields.

There is, actually, but Monsanto get even more whining from eco-nuts when they use it. (The "Terminator" gene, which ensures there are no seeds produced in the first place. No seeds, hence no seeds get into the wrong field.)

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Descartes]

I think the windows comparison is a false analogy, a better one would be a self replicating virus. If businesses had to go around the office every year and make sure a certian piece of software hadn't installed itself. But even that doesn't quite work because the pollen from the Roundup Ready canola plants can fertileze other canola plants and pass on Monsanto's IP.

I've seen Percy speak and I really don't think he intended to violate Monsanto's patent. It seems totally possible to me that some plants could naturally develop a resistance to Monsanto's weed killer, Percy was a farmer who had been saving the seed which had the most desirable traits for 25 years, why wouldn't he want to save those plants with such a valuable trait? The problem is it's quite hard to tell when you're violating IP rights when it's a patented gene, it's not like the Monsanto canola plant have a little sign on them.

Personally as an "eco-nut" I'd rather that Monsanto put terminator genes into their Roundup Ready plants, because farmers have been increasing their use of Monsanto's Roundup pesticde (i.e. polluting a hell of a lot more) since they started using the breed. Terminator genes are bad when sold to farmers in developing countries, however, because they foster a dependency on one corporation for their seed.

Re:Obviously a frame-up

[Rick the Red]

The freedom of gardeners VS the profits of a company? Aren't those the same choice? If Monsanto wins, noone is allowed to grow a garden AND the company profits.

Honestly, I don't understand what the fuss is all about. Won't this farmer buy more Roundup? Isn't increased Roundup sales the whole point of this frankenseed? Monsanto should give away the seed! (the Gilette/Poloroid business model)

Planting the evidence...

[poor_boi]

I'm going to move my DirecTV dish on to my neighbor's roof so he has to pay the bill. No GMO! No GMO! err... what did I just eat?

the problem?

[dirvish]

If she wan't selling the granola, what is the problem?

Re:the problem?

[poor_boi]

If she wan't selling the granola, what is the problem?

Don't you mean "If he wan't selling the canola, what is the problem?"

Readin da post...dun-dun-dah..

I owe my life to Monsanto

[yanestra]

Probably they have patentet me, and I'm their property?

Random mutation could have made my genes change in a way that Monsanto's later efforts are anticipated. So I am possibly Monsanto's property, some time in the future. Or, I would have to prove that my genes are older, so it would be prior art.

Re:I owe my life to Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm screwed. My name is George, not Art.

Guinea Pig

[MBCook]

Lyrics from a Moxy Fruvous song called "Guinea Pig". I'm not against geneticaly enginered food, but it just seemed apropriate.

dont ya tell me what youre putting in my lunch box dont
tell me what your feeding me today,
dont fill my head with trouble while im scarfin' down a cheese soufle

I wanna be a new, original creation
a cross between a moose a monkey and a fig
I'm ready Monsanto let me be your guina pig

cuz the seed we sew aint good enough
the earth we plow it aint good enough
the food we grow well its never been up to scratch,

the geezer with the beard and all the angels
made a few mistakes I dont know why
we dont need him anymore if geneticly modefy

so dont ya tell me what youre puttin in my lunch box
I got a crazy pioneering additude
dont bother me with labels gotta get a belly full of franken-food

gotta geta belly fulla franken-food

Re:Guinea Pig

[sunaj]

I can see the headlines now:

"Slashdot sued for publishing copyrighted lyrics on its web site"

Re:Guinea Pig

[farrellj]

Having met the Fruvous people, I think they would give permission, since it is both Topical, and Canadian.

And if you like Moxy Fruvous, you will probably like The Arrogant Worms, and Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.

"...Once I was the King of Spain (Now I eat humble pie)"

- M Fruvous

ttyl
Farrell

Re:Guinea Pig

[sunaj]

I already LOVE the Arrogant Worms!

Will now look for Moxy Fruvous and Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie

good job, people

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish the public could nail Monsanto to the wall for producing this horribly altered crop seed, then spreading it maliciously throughout the country. Other farmers have been afflicted with cross-pollinated GMO crap too, rendering crops unsaleable to the EU, for example.
I hope Monsanto loses this case badly, even if the farmer himself is a dick for growing the sh*t purposefully.

Re:good job, people

[Skapare]

It's common practice in farming to retain seed from each crop to plant in the next year. What Monsanto is effectively doing is denying the farmer the right to carry on a traditional practice. The only thing the farmer is doing purposefully, apparently, is growing from the seed harvested on his own land. That traditional practice needs to be fully protected in law.

And Monsanto is showing absolute and utter ignorance when it claims there is no way for their seed to have escaped in any way. While I can't say whether this farmer "expedited" any cross pollination or cross seeding, I do know from knowing people who have worked on farms in the rural area I grew up in, that such a thing was common. It varied depending on the type of crop. Some crop types could spread their genetics far more easily than others. I do know corn was one of those that was a problem in that area. But it wasn't a big problem in the sense that anyone might get sued because their field got infested from a neighbor's crop. They were more worried that their field might have a mix of different kinds of corn.

Re:good job, people

[Guppy06]

"Other farmers have been afflicted with cross-pollinated GMO crap too, rendering crops unsaleable to the EU, for example."

Europe passes a ban on selling genetically-modified food (something the US may soon be taken up with the WTO), and it's Monsanto's fault?

I've heard of fuzzy logic, but come on!

Re:good job, people

[El Christador]

It's common practice in farming to retain seed from each crop to plant in the next year. What Monsanto is effectively doing is denying the farmer the right to carry on a traditional practice. The only thing the farmer is doing purposefully, apparently, is growing from the seed harvested on his own land. That traditional practice needs to be fully protected in law.

Well, it's never really been a traditional right. For example, there has never been any right to harvest seeds from marijuana plants one finds growing on one's property and use them to plant a crop of marijuana in the following year. The right to re-plant seeds is a consequence of the right to do anything one wants to with one's property except where that violates a law. Ordinarily saving and replanting seeds does not violate a law. What Mr. Schmeiser did with his property, saving and replanting seeds from plants he had determined were glyphosate resistant, did violate a law, one that says that one may not grow glyphosate-resistant canola without a licence.

Note that I am not questioning your point that there ought to be such a law guaranteeing such a right. I will however note that the only purpose of creating such a legal right for farmers would seem to be to allow them to knowingly grow patented crops. Wouldn't a simpler way of effecting exactly the same thing be to simply not allow patents on genetically engineered plants?

I would say that Mr. Schmeiser's strategy of basing his defence on the existence of such a right in Canadian law, when there in fact is not nor has ever been one (not even traditionally) was not such a smart move, legally. It is not the job of the courts to deal with what the laws ought to be, but rather what they actually are. If you don't like what the law is, the smart thing to do is lobby parliament to change the law, not go to court to claim the law is on your side, when it isn't.

Re:good job, people

[Skapare]

The marijuana example is inapplicable. The laws don't focus on the rights to use the seeds; they focus on the fact that marijuana is a controlled substance and all aspects of it are affected by the law.

As for the farmer, he sure has a right to save his seeds and replant them. The fact that some are glyphosate resistant might be otherwise depriving him of the opportunity to save enough seed at all to have a full crop next year. To the extent that Monsanto's license is required, his rights have been taken away.

I don't think it should matter whether the farmer grows patented crops knowingly or not. What should matter is if he came by having these improperly, such as by stealing a sack of seed. If the genetics came to him on their own, then I think it is no different than Monsanto having come along and given him free seeds and a perpetual regrowing license. If a neighbor bought the seeds and let them leak, that's the neighbor's fault. I'm not against patents on genetically engineered plants. But I am against improperly enforcing such patents where care is not properly taken to protect the patent, and such "intrusion" by the patent affects the farmer (e.g. it reduced his yield of unpatented plants, and hence his yield of unpatented seeds).

I don't know if Canada ever considers traditional rights or not. But if something is a common, traditional, historical practice for years, decades, and even centuries (farming falls under this), then the right exists. The right might not be recognized by the law, but that doesn't change the existance of the right. A change in law should not be to grant such a right, but rather, to recognize that it exists (and always has). And courts (at least in that country south of Canada) can recognize such rights, too.

Re:good job, people

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's never really been a traditional right. For example, there has never been any right to harvest seeds from marijuana plants one finds growing on one's property and use them to plant a crop of marijuana in the following year.

You are incorrect. You no longer have a (legal) right to grow marijuana since it has been made illegal but to say that there has never been a right to do so is obviously untrue. You have the (legal) right to do anything that is not against the law.

Re:good job, people

[El Christador]

You are incorrect. You no longer have a (legal) right to grow marijuana since it has been made illegal but to say that there has never been a right to do so is obviously untrue. You have the (legal) right to do anything that is not against the law

Conceded. You are correct, my statement "there has never been any right to harvest seeds from marijuana ..." was indeed incorrect in the sense you point out.

Witch dunking

[Vainglorious Coward]

Interesting how they test for the plant - spray the crop and if it dies you're innocent.

And patents help who?

[argoff]

This is a classic micocausim of why all patents are bad in general, and why arguments like the "inventor has no inventive" ... and arguments like nobody "would invest in such and such research" and "no pharmacutical would spend R&D for cures" without a patent, are bullshit. (excuse the language, but I'm tired of being spoonfeed this garbage) People just assume it's true without even thinking about the range of consequences patents cause, and then try and ram them down everyones throat.

Re:And patents help who?

[drinkypoo]

Your post is a classic example of why /. needs a spellchecker.

It's not bullshit that we wouldn't have this research done without commercial incentive, and patents are there to create commercial incentive. It simply costs a lot of money to do this stuff, and if you aren't motivated by capitalism, you have to have it be government-funded, and then you end up with socialism.

Re:And patents help who?

[Pig Hogger]

excuse the language, but I'm tired of being spoonfeed this garbage

There is no spoon.

Re:And patents help who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post is blissfully devoid of any logical arguments.

Re:And patents help who?

[Anonymous Coward]

And your post is a classic example of the amazingly high level of bullshit that Slashdot has managed to accumulate over the years.

Go Europe!

[PaulQuinn]

Thank god the EU has some humanity and dignity left. I praise their stance on GM foods which is basically denying them completely, even wilfully paying fines brought by the WTO to not allow GM food trade.

Why would any nation allow, let alone a single farmer choose to use patented seeds under these restrictions? I'll answer my own question - GREED.

I hope Monsanto looses this one in a big, utterly devastating, way.

Re:Go Europe!

[cheesybagel]

Same here!

If they really wanted to improve crops they would make them require less pesticide and have less requirements.

The EU and the US already produce more food than they need and the EU trashes excess crops every year.
We do not need extra production of this lousy food which rips off farmers by forcing them to continuously buy new seeds and pesticide from Monsanto.

This is no advancement for humanity, just more money for the pockets of Monsanto.

Re:Go Europe!

[villoks]

Well,

EU does not have so clean hands after all. The European Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions is rather horrible and the majority of member states have actually refused to transpose it. Unfortunately the new member states from Central/Eastern Europe won't have the same luxury because they have to accept everything without furher conditions (with certain very limited exceptions). It's not going to be a good time to be a farmer in Poland or Hungary, I believe..

V.

Re:Go Europe!

[Jonathan]

hank god the EU has some humanity and dignity left. I praise their stance on GM foods which is basically denying them completely

And not surprisingly, a major export of the EU is *scientists*. What scientist in his or her right mind would want to work in a such a luddite environment? It amazes me that the Slashdot crowd, which is presumably in favor of technological advances in computer technology, would not be in favor of advances in other fields.

Re:Go Europe!

[zogger]

I've been following this case for a long time, because it also ties into various huge land grab schemes going on, along with creating global monopolies. Just to clarify on round up ready canola (rapeseed), the plants have been engineered to NOT die from the herbicide, roundup. That means the farmer can just spray big quantities of roundup all over everything, kill his "weeds" and it allegedly doesn't matter than.

Technically, it works, practically speaking, why someone ever thought spraying chemical poisons on FOOD is just amazing to me. We got this "war on terror" because "el bad queda someone" might have WMD, one of which is "nerve gas". Well, duh, a lot of the chemicals they use are so similar it don't matter, we got "terrorist attacks" daily, all over, the food supply got contaminated a long time ago.

I love farming, grew up working on farms, wish to retire to farming, but NO WAY do I use sprays. Just... ain't.. gonna.

The bad part about GM is--it's an unknown. We have NO idea what it will cause to human health down the road, they are throwing guesses at it being passed off as "research". sorry, there hasn't been several generations of human research, there simply hasn't been the time to really test it, and I volunteer the company employees, managers and stock holders as the "volunteer" testers, two generations, minimum.

this stuff, with zero doubt, will lead to monopolies, with AIR BORNE pollen, it will become impossible to save your own seed if anyone close by is growing that stuff. that's one of the major factors in this case, that it spreads and infects, and the proof is all over canada now, the stuff HAS spread all over and is pretty hard to get rid of. It was a BAD IDEA. We've already got it infected into most of the commercial corn crop as well, with "starlink" corn, that was a "whoops". I am CONVINCED that these companies will contiue to do accidental "whoopsies" until only their stuff can be grown. They'll just eat the toy fines they get (which to date have been there but joke sized)and keep saying they are sorry as they giggle their way to planet wide food control. It's not a joke.

Re:Go Europe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Four words: Research is not forbidden.

Another, perhaps even more worrysome case..

[villoks]

Hi,

This is not the only case going on right now - check this one out:

Farmer sent to prison over cotton seed

I'm personally not against GM-plants because they can help reducing the enviromental load, but this kind stories are very scary. A typical farmer has similar chances as a snowball in hell in to win a case against a Megacorp like Monsanto...

V.

Re:Another, perhaps even more worrysome case..

[Phork]

what exactly do you mean by "reduce the enviromental load"? The seeds in question are ones which monsanto calls "roundUp ready," which means they have had a gene inserted to make them immune to the pesticide roundup, which is made by monsanto's former chemical division(which has since been spun off as a seperate company). These plants do not fufil any of the pormises that monsanto and other make about GMO crops, they dont have higher yields, they aren't drought resistant, and they arent healthier. All they do is allow moroe of a chemical that has bee nshown to be harmfull to humans to be sprayed onto our food.

Re:Another, perhaps even more worrysome case..

[stang7423]

means they have had a gene inserted to make them immune to the pesticide roundup

If you are going to post a comment like this you can at least get your facts right. RoundUp is a Herbicide (=kills weeds).

monsanto's former chemical division(which has since been spun off as a seperate company)

the last time I checked my close relative that works at monsanto in their herbicide division still works for a company called monsanto.

These plants do not fufil any of the pormises that monsanto and other make about GMO crops, they dont have higher yields, they aren't drought resistant, and they arent healthier. All they do is allow moroe of a chemical that has bee nshown to be harmfull to humans to be sprayed onto our food.

do you have any facts to prove this? Are you a farmer or do you just grow roundup ready (insert crop here) in your backyard garden. if you are going to flame some companies product in a public forum you could a least cite some source or personal experience.

Futurama said it best . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

Address all complaints to the Monsanto Corporation.

intentional or accidental?

[sssmashy]

Monsanto said canola plants grown from its genetically altered seed had grown along a ditch on the Schmeiser farm in violation of the company's patent. Schmeiser contends the GM seed blew off a truck or came from someone else's field but Monsanto argued that's impossible. Schmeiser said he never bought Monsanto seed.

(...) At issue are the patent rights to Roundup Ready canola, a genetically modified strain resistant to a herbicide that would normally kill the plants used to produce cooking oil.

Beyond the obvious issue of whether genetically altered plants should be patentable, there is also a simpler, common sense issue at stake: who was responsible for the contamination?

If the seed blew in accidentally, contaminating the farmer's own breed of canola, there is no reason the farmer should be held responsible. Otherwise, what would stop an unscrupulous patent-holder from "accidentally" spreading their patented product all over the area, and then demanding compensation from the unsuspecting farmers?

There's one simple way to test whether the seeding was intentional: did the farmer use herbicides on his crops? If the answer is yes, he clearly knew that Monsanto's herbicide-resistant plants were growing in his field. If the answer is no, he got no economic benefit from growing Monsanto's plants and should be left alone.

Re:intentional or accidental?

[NetDanzr]

From the Web site dedicated to the farmer:

In his defense, Schmeiser showed his own farm-based evidence that the fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready. These tests were confirmed by independent tests performed by research scientists at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB.

It makes no sense to plant only a part of crops of a certain variety, and I think this makes a very strong argument in his favor. Actually, the court didn't dispute it. The ruling stated that "the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen -- but the judge says this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed." And I think it's this part that makes this particular case so nasty...

Re:intentional or accidental?

[El Christador]

"the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen -- but the judge says this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed."

What? No, in fact the judge ruled that plants which grow on the farmer's land, even if they are blown in or are carried there by pollen, are the outright property of the farmer and the farmer enjoys the same property rights over them that anyone enjoys over their own property. The catch is that one has no right to infringe a patent with one's own property. For example, I might own a semiconductor fabrication plant (I don't, in actual fact) and I might own a bunch of semiconductor materials, but if I were to use them to manufacture microprocessors which, say, infringed an Intel patent, I'd probably hear from their lawyers. And if I were to argue "but I owned all the physical property involved", it probably wouldn't carry much weight. This is why Percy Schmeiser's protest "but I harvested the seed from plants I found growing on my own property" has cut very little weight with the courts. It is a patent infringement case. It is not a "misusing someone else's physical property" case.

In his defense, Schmeiser showed his own farm-based evidence that the fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready. These tests were confirmed by independent tests performed by research scientists at the University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB.

Yes. Except that there were also independent tests which indicated the plants growing in his fields in 1998 had the gene for glyphosate resistance present at a much higher rate. The results you quote are the anomalous ones among the selection of tests performed.

I quote the first court ruling:

[105] A variety of tests were conducted on samples of canola from the defendants' field or from beside those fields. The evidence of these tests of Mr. Schmeiser's 1997 and 1998 canola crops may be summarized as follows.

[106] The 1997 samples, taken by Mr. Derbyshire from road allowances bordering fields number 2 and 5, were used for two grow-out tests, in 1997 at the University of Saskatchewan for Mr. Mitchell, and in 2000 at the university for Dr. Downey. In both tests, with the exception of one of six samples, of the seeds that germinated 100% of the plants survived spraying with Roundup herbicide, i.e., they were Roundup tolerant.
[107] The HFM samples of untreated and treated seed withheld from Mr. Schmeiser were provided
1) to Mr. Mitchell for Monsanto in 1998 and by him
a) were subject to a "quick test" which indicated to him that both samples tested were positive for the presence of the patented gene;
b) were subject to a grow-out test by Prairie Plant Systems in January, 1999 with germinating seed sprayed with Roundup and 30 samples of leaf tissue from surviving plants, tested by Monsanto US, proved positive for the presence of the patented gene in the DNA of the leaf tissue; and
c) a subsample was sent to counsel for Schmeiser in April 1999 and by him to Mr. Freisen at Winnipeg for a grow-out test, in which 95 to 98% of germinating plants survived spraying with Roundup;
2) to Mr. Schmeiser in July 1999 which he
a) used in part for a grow-out test in his yard, results of which showed 63 to 65% germinating plants survived spraying with Roundup; and
b) forwarded to University of Manitoba for testing by Mr. Freisen who recorded results generally similar to those of Mr. Schmeiser;
3) to Mr. Freisen directly from Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in April 2000 for grow-out test from which a very high portion, 95-98%, of germinating seed survived spraying with Roundup.
[108] The July 1998 leaf samples, by Mr. Shwydiuk, from the road allowance borders of Schmeiser's nine fi

The problem with a plant patent

[zakezuke]

You grow a plant in a field... plant grows...

Plants produce seeds, which get carried off by

1. Wind
2. Animals
3. Vehicels

then reproduce into other plants.

The answer is obvious

Sue the
Wind for illegal distrubution of IP
The animals for illegal distrubution of IP
The vehicel manufactor for creating a safe harbor for the distrubution of IP
Sue the plants them selves for reproducing without a license.

Re:The problem with a plant patent

[yanestra]

The main problem might be, that if that plant is injurious to your health (which may come out in many years), at a later time, all plants of that species might be, because they have interbred, and it's a giant advantage to be resistent against some kinds of poison.

Re:The problem with a plant patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Sue slashdot for exposing me to the word 'Vehicels'.

Re:The problem with a plant patent

[blerg]

The only problem with your arguement is probably this bit:

then reproduce into other plants.

As far as I'm aware most genetically engineered plantlife is purposely made sterile. It won't create seeds that will then grow into new plants.

By doing this they can ensure a farmer will return to them year after year for new grain rather than just buying it one year and cultivating all subsequent crops from that first batch. It's just not good business sense. On top of which, as people have said/insinuated in other posts, what would be stopping *everyone* from then getting their hands on the offspring and using it for their own crops? Pantents? Not if everyone is using it and saying "just blew in on the wind, honest!"

Re:The problem with a plant patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget distrubution.

But, yeah, vehicels is pretty horrible...It's actually really offensive.

I could forgive it if English isn't his first language. But, since /. is an American website, the default assumption must be that English is his first language.

Re:The problem with a plant patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just call it an "act of God" and be done.

Monsanto = Scumbags

[gestapo4you]

rBGH, Fox News and Monsanto: "Milk it does Monsanto good." fired journalist

"They could not understand what was happening and told David Boylan,
a Murdoch manager sent by Fox to Florida, that a valid, well-sourced
news story was being stifled. Boylan's reply broke with all the traditions
of the Murdoch empire.
In a moment of insane candour, he told an unvarnished truth which should
be framed and stuck on the top of every television set.
"We paid $3 billion for these television stations," he snapped.
"We'll decide what the news is. NEWS IS WHAT WE SAY IT IS."

Re:Monsanto = Scumbags

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nothing new there. People like to pretend that Fox invented slanted reporting.

"Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."
-- Richard Salant, President of CBS News forty years ago

"We are going to impose our agenda on the coverage by dealing with issues and subjects that we choose to deal with".
-- Richard M. Cohen, former Senior Producer of CBS political news

Re:Monsanto = Scumbags

[DNS-and-BIND]

And just in case the above quotes are too oldy moldy for anyone's taste, here's one more, more recent:

"While Dan Rather attempts to rationalize the network's heartless decision to air this despicable 'terrorist propaganda video,' it is beyond our comprehension that any mother, wife, father or sister should have to relive this horrific tragedy and watch their loved one being repeatedly terrorized," the family said.
"Terrorists have made this video confident that the American media would broadcast it and thereby serve their exact purpose. By showing this video, CBS or any other broadcaster willing to show it proves that they fall without shame into the terrorists' plan."
-- Mariane Pearl, May 15, 2002

Cool, a new business plan unfolds!

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly OT -

1. write and patent virus
2. secretly unleash it on world
3. sue owners of infected systems
4. Profit!

Potato: Patent Pending?

[airherbe]

I recently read a book that discussed agri-genetic engineering, specifically potatoes, and Monsanto's extreme measures to enforce their IP protection on these genetically engineered products. The author bought, grew, and studied some of these specially engineered plants.

The book combines a history of the plant with a prime example of how biotechnology is changing our relationship to nature. As part of his research, Pollan visited the Monsanto company headquarters and planted some of their NewLeaf-brand potatoes in his garden--seeds that had been genetically engineered to produce their own insecticide. Though they worked as advertised, he made some startling discoveries, primarily that the NewLeaf plants themselves are registered as a pesticide by the EPA, and that federal law prohibits anyone from reaping more than one crop per seed packet. And in a interesting aside, he explains how a global desire for consistently perfect French fries contributes to both damaging monoculture and the genetic engineering necessary to support it. There are many parallels with genetic engineering of plants, and the irresponsible proliferation of antibiotics (and the diseases that become increasingly immune to them).

If interested: The book is called Botany of Desire, by Michael Pollan. The book discusses four or five influential plants that have 1) shaped our history of humans and 2) that we have significantly altered theirs. I believe the plants are: potatoes, tulips, apples, and [interestingly enough] marijuana.

-J. R. Rogivue

Come on Bush fight the real terrorists at hand.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha! If Monsanto want's to be responsible for hell on earth, they know what they're doing and have it coming. Let's crank up the heating.

CBC links

[darkonc]

The CBC also has a link to the Schmeiser/Monsanto story it includes all sorts of backgrounder links including the full court documents from (at least) the original court case. It tells the story pretty completely from both sides, if you're willing to read the affidavits.

technology good, patents bad .

[Thinkit3]

You're fighting two camps here, the luddite camp that wants to fight genetically engineered foods, and the IP people, who want to fight logic.

Re:technology good, patents bad .

[Anonymous Coward]

" You're fighting two camps here, the luddite camp that wants to fight genetically engineered foods, and the IP people, who want to fight logic."

Not Luddite. Informed opposition. The EU is right. We've gotten ourselves into a bind where the bulk of the world is reliant on just one or two strains of each of the cereals and major vegetables.

Can you say "potato famine"? I thought you could. We are now in a position where just one or two plant diseases could wipe the bulk of humanity out.

There are NOT adequate safeguards to keep this (brown smelly substance) out of the human food supply and even more importantly, away from non-modified crops.

That's the rub ... Monsanto is suing this guy because THEIR frankenfood mated with HIS cash crop. THEY owe HIM ... big time.

Re:technology good, patents bad .

[Thinkit3]

Well at least the "luddite" camp makes some sense some of the time. But I say throw more technology at it. Design better pesticides! And if the bulk of humanity is wiped out...uh, isn't overpopulation the biggest problem anyway?

Re:technology good, patents bad .

[Blue Stone]

"You're fighting two camps here, the luddite camp that wants to fight genetically engineered foods, and the IP people, who want to fight logic."

I think that's a gross oversimplification: the idea that because you're against a particular technology, because of it's inherent (or claimed inherent) dangers, you're a "luddite."

What if I think computers are really cool, and solar technology is top stuff, but that GMOs, are satan's* plan for food ownership, and a real threat to life on this planet as we know it (seriously?)

* metaphor for greedy, posessive and power-crazed, corporations and those who run them.

Re:technology good, patents bad .

[Thinkit3]

Well it's like kinda like some relgious fundie idiots. They have this knee-jerk reaction to anything not "organic" like the religious have to anything not in their buy-bull. Transhumanists have to deal with both of them.

Finally~!

[Sophrosyne]

I included some info on percy in an essay I wrote- and all I have to say is finally.
I feel nothing but sympathy for him, Monsanto is a slimy company-- It'd be nice to see people move to organically grown foods to put this behemoth out of business.

Re:Finally~!

[ehushagen]

Sympathy? For Percy Schmeiser?

I used to live in the same area of Saskatchewan as this man, and let me tell you this, there aren't too many people that actually know the guy who are feeling *any* sympathy for him. He's a snake-oil salesman and a get-rich-quick bum. All his life he's done nothing at all productive, and now suddenly he's put on the "poor, overworked, underpaid, threatened-by-the-man farmer" act? Pfft. May he get what's coming to him.

I also realize there is a good chance this will secure me some bad karma, but I'm honestly not trolling :|

Re:Finally~!

[Sophrosyne]

You might be right, I don't know the guy- but I do know monsanto... not the greatest company on earth

Re:Finally~!

[MisterP]

YES! My father is an implement dealer in the area where he farms and a friend of mine works for Cargil in that area. Percy Schmeiser is a crooked son of a bitch.

Why isn't this a slam dunk case?

[PaulQuinn]

...for the farmer!?

If the farmer didn't buy Monsanto seed, why should he suffer from the natural consequences of wind, pollen, and chaos? In fact, why couldn't the farmer sue Monsanto for damages brought about by Monsanto (including this current lawsuit)?

And if this a case about accidental/natural seed contamination, why isn't every farmer on the planet trying to bring down Monsanto?

Re:Why isn't this a slam dunk case?

[El Christador]

And if this a case about accidental/natural seed contamination, why isn't every farmer on the planet trying to bring down Monsanto?

It's not a case about accidental/natural seed contamination. That question has already been settled conclusively: natural/accidental seed contamination does not constitute patent infringement. End of that story. (this is covered in the http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2002/2002fca309. htmlFederal Court of Appeal's ruling.) However, Percy Schmeiser is not arguing that the plants in question growing in his fields (in 1998) were an instance of accidental contamination. He is arguing that the came into his hands via accidental contamination (in 1997), but he does not dispute that once he discovered he had it growing on his property and had identified it as glyphosate resistant, seeds were harvested from it and used to plant his next year's crop. Note that the claim against him is "patent infringement" i.e. use of a patented invention without the patent-holder's permission. It is not "illicitly getting his hands on Monsanto's seed". There is no law against getting your hands on genetically modified canola seed. There is, however, a law against planting it and cultivating it unless you hold a patent to do so. Which is why he's lost the first two rounds of the case.

The following paragraphs from the first ruling may be illuminating as to what Percy Schmeiser's position actually is:

[38] As we have noted Mr. Schmeiser testified that in 1997 he planted his canola crop with seed saved from 1996 which he believed came mainly from field number 1. Roundup-resistant canola was first noticed in his crop in 1997, when Mr. Schmeiser and his hired hand, Carlysle Moritz, hand-sprayed Roundup around the power poles and in ditches along the road bordering fields 1, 2, 3 and 4. These fields are adjacent to one another and are located along the east side of the main paved grid road that leads south to Bruno from these fields. This spraying was part of the regular farming practices of the defendants, to kill weeds and volunteer plants around power poles and in ditches. Several days after the spraying, Mr. Schmeiser noticed that a large portion of the plants earlier sprayed by hand had survived the spraying with the Roundup herbicide.

[39] In an attempt to determine why the plants had survived the herbicide spraying, Mr. Schmeiser conducted a test in field 2. Using his sprayer, he sprayed, with Roundup herbicide, a section of that field in a strip along the road. He made two passes with his sprayer set to spray 40 feet, the first weaving between and around the power poles, and the second beyond but adjacent to the first pass in the field, and parallel to the power poles. This was said by him to be some three to four acres in all, or "a good three acres". After some days, approximately 60% of the plants earlier sprayed had persisted and continued to grow. Mr. Schmeiser testified that these plants grew in clumps which were thickest near the road and began to thin as one moved farther into the field.

[40] Despite this rsult Mr. Schmeiser continued to work field 2, and, at harvest, Carlysle Moritz, on instruction from Mr. Schmeiser, swathed and combined field 2. He included swaths from the surviving canola seed along the roadside in the first load of seed in the combine which he emptied into an old Ford truck located in the field. That truck was covered with a tarp and later it was towed to one of Mr. Schmeiser's outbuildings at Bruno. In the spring of 1998 the seed from the old Ford truck was taken by Mr. Schmeiser in another truck to the Humboldt Flour Mill ("HFM") for treatment. After that, Mr. Schmeiser's testimony is that the treated seed was mixed with some bin-run seed and fertilizer and then used for planting his 1998 canola crop.

Re:Why isn't this a slam dunk case?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's not a case about accidental/natural seed contamination. That question has already been settled conclusively: natural/accidental seed contamination does not constitute patent infringement. End of that story. (this is covered in the http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2002/2002fca309. htmlFederal Court of Appeal's ruling.)"

The appellate court ruling made no such determination. Rather, the Court addressed Schmeiser's claim of "The Innocent Infringer" as follows:

[57] However, it seems to me arguable that the patented Monsanto gene falls into a novel category. It is a patented invention found within a living plant that may, without human intervention, produce progeny containing the same invention. It is undisputed that a plant containing the Monsanto gene may come fortuitously onto the property of a person who has no reason to be aware of the presence of the characteristic created by the patented gene. It is also reasonable to suppose that the person could become aware that the plant has that characteristic but may tolerate the continued presence of the plant without doing anything to cause or promote the propagation of the plant or its progeny (by saving and planting the seeds, for example). In my view, it is an open question whether Monsanto could, in such circumstances, obtain a remedy for infringement on the basis that the intention of the alleged infringer is irrelevant. However, that question does not need to be resolved in this case.

Here, the court is clear that it is not addressing the question of "innocent infringer", because it is not the alleged infringing act in this case. The "innocent" act of supposed accidental/natural contamination was in 1997. However, as the court went on to say:

"It was the cultivation, harvest and sale of the 1998 crop in those circumstances that made Mr. Schmeiser vulnerable to Monsanto's infringement claim."

Thus, contrary to your claim, the issue of the rights of the patent holder versus the property holder in a case of natural/accidental seed contamination is anything but settled.

Re:Why isn't this a slam dunk case?

[El Christador]

Thus, contrary to your claim, the issue of the rights of the patent holder versus the property holder in a case of natural/accidental seed contamination is anything but settled.

Yes, your point is correct. I think what I had in mind when I wrote that was an unwitting accidental infringer. I will concede that the judge identifies a case where there could be "witting" accidental infringement, and that does remain unsettled.

Would you agree with my assessment/interpretation that in the case of unwitting and accidental contamination, the farmer would be in the clear, according to the courts' rulings?

Simple solution?

[Mr_Tulip]

The only way I can see out of the conundrum you've proposed is to grant a broad patent to "Mother Nature Inc". Perhaps granting a perpetual patent on all biological living species would be a good idea - companies would have to 'license' the use of genetic engineering by agreeing to use their innovations in an ethical and responsible manner.

Re:Simple solution?

[Anonymous Coward]

watched the ring ?

Monsanto and their ilk are a plague

[WIAKywbfatw]

I'm sorry, but I'm sick to death of biotech companies experimenting on us with GM foods, etc for no better reason than profit.

They'll willingly gamble with all of our lives, betting the pot that their crops are safe to us and the environment yet they'll be the first to walk away and just shrug their shoulders if something goes wrong.

I recently watched a programme about how Novartis was screwing Korean leukemia sufferers over the cost of their Glivec/Gleevec drug treatment. The very patients that were part of the company's clinical trials are now being fleeced by the company, blackmailed into paying tens of thousands of US dollars a year for a drug that they themselves helped bring to the market! This for a drug that costs pennies to mass produce.

In fact, the whole Glivec issue is such a big deal in Korea (ask any Korean that you know) that although it's a life-saving drug, the name Glivec is now synonymous with death - that's how much Novartis's greed has pissed off an entire nation.

(For more, check out this Google search: novartis glivec korea.

These assholes seriously piss me off. Profits are one thing, but profits before people isn't just immoral and unethical, it's disgusting.

Re:Monsanto and their ilk are a plague

[Anonymous Coward]

god i can just can not stand completely uninformed people like you, who only seek out "facts" that support their own position

Re:Monsanto and their ilk are a plague

[WIAKywbfatw]

Why don't you check out the facts? The fucking URL of the Google search is just there for you to click on.

Re:Monsanto and their ilk are a plague

[juuri]

I suggest you really read up on GM crops and found out what they are. It seems like you have some evil vision in your head of something that is no different than evolution at an accelerated rate.

I think Monsanto is evil here, they can't control their crops and I firmly disagree with allowing patents on process/creations such as these but GM foods are not some evil boogy monster, any more so than modern farming techniques.

Re:Monsanto and their ilk are a plague

[shepd]

>I'm sorry, but I'm sick to death of biotech companies experimenting on us with GM foods, etc for no better reason than profit

GM foods are tested far more stringently than any other kinds of foods. In fact, of all people, it is greepeace experimenting on us. I have them on tape with one of their head personnel LYING, saying that GM foods are untested. This is patently false. All foods are tested for safety, including GM foods, which generally have to pass more stringent guidelines than any other kind of food.

In fact, without GM crops 2 billion people on earth would have to DIE today for the world to be able to support everyone. This is straight from the mouth of Norman Borlaug, a highly respected scientist who has won a nobel peace prize for his work ensuring everyone has enough to eat (and at the same time saving more lives than greenpeace has ever done).

You are extremely misinformed on this issue. I highly reccomend you watch the Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode named "Eat This!". It will open your eyes to the bullshit spread by anarchist associations like greenpeace (and many others).

The worst part about this misinformation is that greenpeace (et al) have indirectly murdered thousands, if not millions of Zimbabweans by denying them the food these starving people need so much.

To the mods that modded him up: Please, please, PLEASE look into what greenpeace (and others) are telling you. When it comes to GM foods, apart from a few rare cases (such as this one) it's all lies. You'd figure that out for yourselves with less than a few minutes of research.

>The very patients that were part of the company's clinical trials are now being fleeced by the company, blackmailed into paying tens of thousands of US dollars a year for a drug that they themselves helped bring to the market! This for a drug that costs pennies to mass produce.

Bwahaha!

So, I guess since it costs only pennies to produce windows, pirating it should be legal, right?

And hey, once the equipment is bought, heart surgery doesn't cost a dime if everyone donates their time. I guess that means that when a doctor quits because they aren't getting paid, they're actually killing their patients, right?

If you have invested time and money into producing something, you have the right to get back whatever the market will bear.

If this stuff is so cheap and easy to produce, why don't these lukemia sufferers get some help together and make it themselves?

Re:Monsanto and their ilk are a plague

[GlassHeart]

profits before people isn't just immoral and unethical, it's disgusting.

This is a beautiful sentence. It really is.

You imply that "disgusting" is worse than "immoral and unethical". Molds in your refrigerator are disgusting. Immoral and unethical should be much worse than fungal growths, which after all give us penicillin.

The problem is that it isn't. I know you don't mean it that way, but your sentence almost reads as if it's okay if you're immoral and unethical, as long as you're not disgusting. Which is exactly what's wrong with the world.

What's the problem?

[Dthoma]

This is only a problem because the plant is patented. Virtually every other plant on earth is "public domain" so there's no problem about those when they grow on someone else's land. Why not just say that it's stupid and irresponsible to try to patent species of plants, not let anyone do it, and then leave the issue be? Companies will have the freedom to create these GM crops (thus placating the GM advocates) but have little incentive to do so since they will be available for free (thus placating the anti-GM campaigners).

Re:What's the problem?

[Reziac]

Actually, there'd still be plenty of incentive -- after all, the whole object of GM crops is to get better production (whether that's from higher yield, disease resistance, herbicide specificity, or whatever). If your seed consistently outperforms generic seed, farmers will still buy your seed to maximize profits. Farmers have been willing to buy better-performing seed since forever; patents, or their absence, don't change that!

If you failed to include a terminator (sterility) gene, that's your problem. If you did include it, farmers can choose whether to use your seed and have to buy it every year, or use generic seed and be able to plant from homegrown reserved seed. (It's usually more cost-effective to buy seed, unless you're personally researching or breeding for some particular production traits.)

No patents required in either case. And I agree, it's insane to allow patents on naturally-occurring DNA. If you built it entirely yourself from raw materials, maybe then -- but not if you just mixed around DNA that was found as natural mutations.

Re:What's the problem?

[nerdlyone]

The idea that since farmers will still want to buy GM seeds so there will be incentive to make them misses one fact: the makers of GM seeds will no longer have incentive to make/develop them. Existing GM seeds would still sell, but no company in their right mind would attempt to develop new ones because once they do, anyone can sell their modified seed. Monopolies are not granted as incentive for (e.g.) farmers to buy seeds. The incentive is intended for the seed developer (in this case). No IP rights means no investment. No investment means no development.

That said, I hope the court can find a middle ground on the Percy case. It is not an easy decision. Bad implications either way you go.

And I agree, it's insane to allow patents on naturally-occurring DNA. If you built it entirely yourself from raw materials, maybe then -- but not if you just mixed around DNA that was found as natural mutations.

Nearly all patents in any technology are merely novel combinations of known elements.

Re:What's the problem?

[Reziac]

There was plenty of incentive to buy the best performing seed long before patents and DNA manipulation entered the scene. One has to wonder if the current restrictive IP practices may have themselves damaged their own market; otherwise, there'd be no need for a patent (ie. limited monopoly).

Nearly all patents in any technology are merely novel combinations of known elements.

Yes, but with DNA we run into a different set of problems: if patents are allowed on naturally-occuring DNA (even if recombined in the laboratory), this means you extract a gene from one strain of wheat and patent it -- but how do you know that no other strain of wheat happens to share that same gene? You could wind up with a situation where unmodified wheat falls under patent. (Oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

Re:What's the problem?

[nerdlyone]

There was plenty of incentive to buy the best performing seed long before patents and DNA manipulation entered the scene.

I don't believe the issue is about creating incentive for farmers to buy. As you say, they already have natural incentive to buy the "best" seeds. The incentive created by IP laws is for the developer, not the consumer. That incentive is meant to promote development in new technology. Without that incentive, companies will not invest in the technology. Then the farmer will not have the option of buying modified seeds (in this example).

Yes, but with DNA we run into a different set of problems: if patents are allowed on naturally-occuring DNA (even if recombined in the laboratory), this means you extract a gene from one strain of wheat and patent it -- but how do you know that no other strain of wheat happens to share that same gene? You could wind up with a situation where unmodified wheat falls under patent. (Oversimplification, but you get the idea.)

First, patents are not allowed on "naturally occurring" DNA. Patents are only granted on isolated molucules--genes removed from their natural state by some procedure. While this practice itself can be questioned, it should not be confused with patenting something as it occurs in nature. The isolated genes are necessary for other research, so they have value. And it is not cheap or easy to find and isolate new genes. Anyway, the point is, no patent will ever cover a naturally occurring gene in a naturally occurring plant. In other words, if I take a wheat kernel and isolate the plant's DNA, then try to patent it, I can only get a patent on the isolated gene. I will never ever be able to get a patent on the wheat plant possessing that gene, because they already exist in nature. Note the distinction between this and inserting a novel gene into a wheat plant--then you create a plant that does not occur in nature, and such a plant could be patentable. However, I just wanted to point out that unmodified plants will never fall under anyone's patent under current law.

What I'm Gonna Do...

[MisterMook]

I bet if I patent my unique and viable sperm then I can finally enter into contract agreements for use with my spouse....

The other side of the story?

[TubeSteak]

All we've heard is that the GE plants were growing in a ditch & they contaminated his crops. Here are the court decisions. My basic understanding is that they're arguing about different things... so yes Monsanto should keep it's IP rights (whether this is a good thing or not is a different discussion) and yes, farmers shouldn't have to suffer from contaminated crops.

Monsanto failed to protect IP

[PaulQuinn]

Monsanto (and any 14+ IQ surface dwelling organism) would know that wind blows seed. Thus seeds move in wind, thus wind moves seed. Seed+Wind == Wind+Seed == Seed laden wind == Repositioned seed.

Knowing this ahead of time, probably even before they invented their Roundup surviving freak-seed, Monsanto should have known that in order to protect their IP, they would have to stop the afformention equation. To do so would mean any Monsanto seed buying farmer must build a biodome around their entire field. This way, no cross-pollination could occur.

And since these biodomes were never installed, nay, never even suggested! Monsanto is proven entirely neglegent in protecting their IP, thus the patent is invalid.

QED.

Fire morally neutral

[Exatron]

Obligatory Simpsons quote.

reminds me of The Young Ones

[myster0n]

NEIL : We sow the seed... nature grows the seed... we eat the seed... and then! We sow the seed... nature grows the seed... we eat the seed... and then! We. Sow the seed!
(btw:was this ever shown in the US?)

Re:reminds me of The Young Ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, on BBC America. So happy about that too. I moved from Ireland to Canada, switched on the TV one night, and felt all warm and fuzzy when Rick killed Neil with the shovel... :-)

Re:reminds me of The Young Ones

[Anonymous Coward]

Pah, the level of intellectual and sophisticated comedy in "The Young Ones" is going to be far, far over your average Americans head.

A new way to make money...

[Anonymous Coward]

1- Genetically engineer a highly contagious but harmless virus.
2- Let it spread.
3- Sue everyone who is infected because they are illegally copying and distributing your (patented) work. And optionally sell a cure at an extremely high price, since it's not a life-threatening situation.

woah there...

[Unordained]

First off, this isn't to defend companies like Monsato. However ... when you complain that they're "experimenting on us with GM foods" you're implying that in nature, things never change, and are always safe. You do realize, right, that -many- plants we eat are partially poisonous? Random mutations, which we assume happen all the time, could just as easily start a new strain of human-killing wheat, without the help of Monsato. We don't know, for sure, what's growing in those crops -- one little plant could be sitting there "plotting" the demise of the world, without anyone knowing about it, even -without- GM plants and companies. Solutions:
a) force farmers to eat some of every plant on their grounds, before selling any of it. (not effective at all.)
b) scan crops to make sure every last plant has the same DNA as a known-good plant (md5 hash, anyone?) before allowing the crop to be used. (again, not effective.)

In conclusion, nature could "decide" to kill us at any time, without our help. Yes, Monsato et al. should test their crops in a controlled environment (closed, sealed, and locked) before releasing them into full-blown fields for harvesting ... but we're still at risk, regardless.

Re:woah there...

[Sique]

Random mutations, which we assume happen all the time, could just as easily start a new strain of human-killing wheat, without the help of Monsato.

There is just one difference: While it is true that mutations and interbrew could generate potentially poisonous plants, they are not the only plants. But genetically altered seeds are mostly used in monoculture, on many fields at the same time. So instead of a small number of plants growing locally and maybe killing a dozen people because of their poison, you have thousands of acres with poisonous plants being transported everywhere and sold in the stores across the whole country.

The problem mit genetically altered food is not the general danger that comes from unexpected effects of the change. It is the large scale at which those changes affect us. Basicly those tests required by the reglements are nothing else than a shortened version of the natural distribution. First a closed biotope, then a small region, then a country... And at every stage you have to check for the dangers occuring.

Re:woah there...

[Unordained]

i agree. GM foods will tend to appear en-masse, for marketting reasons. we don't just modify one plant, and leave it out to multiply. the difference is one of speed, not logical possibility. as such, of -course- we should watch what Monsato, and other, are up to. the point was only that we can't blame them as the only possible cause of problems.

Canola by any other name

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if they choose to call it canola, the farmer is still getting raped.

So, logically...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the plants weighs the same as a duck, it's made of wood!

You just broke the law.

[BoomerSooner]

You shouldn't post copyrighted material without express written consent.

I love the world we live in. Mooching every last cent possible from the almighty consumer.

Monsanto Is To Microsoft...

[istartedi]

What the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant is to Moe's Bar.

Both are corrupt in their own way, but the scope of the potential damage, the feasibility of remedying the problem, and the immorality (if any) of Microsoft pales in comparison to Monsteranto. The latter has been on so many people's hit lists for years before Microsoft even existed, and for many good reasons. Just google around, you'll see what I'm talking about. This is by no means the first case where they've tried to pull something like this. If there's ever a "new American revolution" Monsanto should be the first corporation to lose its charter. Boston corn party, anyone?

On Monsanto:

[drinkypoo]

Copied from e2, (idea) by vectormane, without permission. I hope he doesn't mind. I didn't want to link to e2 because it can't handle the load.

Among the multitude of products and technologies invented and/or sold by Monsanto, or a company that later became a part of Monsanto:

• "Control of Plant Gene Expression"

  The 'terminator seed' was jointly developed by the USDA and the Delta and Pine Land Company in 1998. It is a process in which a plant is genetically engineered to produce sterile seeds. Delta and Pine announced this technology in March of 1998. Monsanto bought them out in May.

• Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Aroclor, Pyroclor)

  Most of the PCBs in the United States were manufactured by Monsanto until they were banned in 1976. PCBs are nonflammable and do not conduct electricity. They are linked to cancer, birth defects, and other negative health effects.

• rBGH Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

  A genetically engineered hormone that makes dairy cows produce more milk. It also shortens the cows' lives, can lead to udder infection (which must be treated with antibiotics). BGH-treated cows' milk contains elevated levels of the hormone IGF-1, which is believed to be linked to increased cancer risk in humans. rBGH is banned in Canada.

• Agent Orange 2,4,5-T

  The herbicide used in Vietnam to destroy the foliage cover that the Viet Cong hid under. Often times Agent Orange was contaminated with 2,3,7,8-TCDD Dioxin). The TCDD is linked to cancers and birth defects. It is banned in the United States.

In other words, Monsanto is criminal, arguably evil, certainly negligent, and generally a bunch of right bastards. GM foods FUD notwithstanding, these guys are bad people.

Re:On Monsanto:

[Anonymous Coward]

The most frightening is the production of sterile seeds. It is so evil as to be beyond the pale.

Re:On Monsanto:

[cfuse]

I can't believe I'm about to say this, but: Have Monsanto actually done anything good?

Maybe they are a pure manifestation of evil after all?

Re:On Monsanto:

[drinkypoo]

Not really. They apparently own/sell Roundup pesticide which is woefully overused, and they make crops (including corn and soy) which are resistant to it meaning you can spray roundup all over your crops without harming them. This of course leads to overuse of herbicide. Of course nature is mysterious and one day these traits may spread from their supposedly sterile plants into other plants, which means we'll have to use nastier herbicides. Also, I'm not fond of anything being sprayed on my foods, though I'm not a stickler for organic, I just don't want farmers to feel like they can hose crops down with chemicals indiscriminately.

Random geek tie-in follows: It seems like Monsanto would be the model for Basco in Stephenson's Zodiac. PCBs, biotech offshoot...

Re:On Monsanto:

[jmorris42]

> Control of Plant Gene Expression

You admit they didn't have anything with creating it, they just bought out the company that owned this tech.

> Polychlorinated Biphenyls (Aroclor, Pyroclor)

These were very useful compounds, and nobody knew of any risks. And the 'risks' were probably overstated since those sort of scares were all the rage back in the 70's. For that matter they seem to be pretty popular even after we have lived through enough that we should know better. (Lawsuits against McDonalds. Lawsuits against Nabisco. Etc.)

> rBGH Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone

Ok, this one was a good idea, but if the proper testing had happened it would never have made it to market. One evil point for Monsanto.

> Agent Orange

Safe for use in the US and safe enough to use in a war zone are two completely different things. Balance the risks of using Agent Orange vs the risks of being shot by the VC hiding in the jungle and I thing I'd say "Spray em!" if I were a soldier in Vietnam.

Monsanto is neither good or evil. They are a corporation. Some of the people working there are evil, some good, most just praying they don't get rightsized. Which is why corporations as we have them are a bad idea, no accountability.

Re:On Monsanto:

[Anonymous Coward]

rBGH Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone
Ok, this one was a good idea, but if the proper testing had happened it would never have made it to market. One evil point for Monsanto.

You say this as if we re playing cricket... Monsanto did tremendos legal and political maneuvaring on both federal and state level to pull this off. News oganizations harassed by lawers, etc. It shows what Monsanto is up to. Talking about it in a playful manner does not make it less dangerous.

Re:On Monsanto:

[drinkypoo]

Control of Plant Gene Expression

You admit they didn't have anything with creating it, they just bought out the company that owned this tech.

It's the use to which it is put. Monsanto sells seed to depressed farms at what would be a substantial discount except that any seed from it is sterile, meaning you have to go to Monsanto again for seed -- And people think Microsoft locks people in.

As for PCBs, the risks are not overstated. PCBs are bioaccumulative and carcinogenic to the extreme, and also lead to various other health problems.

Agent Orange

Safe for use in the US and safe enough to use in a war zone are two completely different things. Balance the risks of using Agent Orange vs the risks of being shot by the VC hiding in the jungle and I thing I'd say "Spray em!" if I were a soldier in Vietnam.

Obviously you're not familiar with your history. Agent Orange was sprayed directly on troops, VCs, and jungle alike. US troops were told that it was perfectly safe to get a certain amount of that stuff sprayed on them, and not only was that amount frequently exceeded (the govt's fault there) but it was also contaminated with Dioxin, a PCB.

So in other words; Monsanto was incompetent and didn't know they had contaminated their agent orange, OR they knew that it was contaminated and that it was being sprayed on people, and didn't care. It's been well known that PCBs are toxic as hell for a long, LONG time, though the mechanism by which they cause cancer is a fairly new development. Either way, they are straight up killers.

Re:On Monsanto:

[Reziac]

Except that same soldier in VietNam is now suffering assorted ill effects from Agent Orange exposure. Whether Agent Orange is the actual culprit in all the health issues the Veterans Admin sees, who knows, but it's still costing you tax dollars for their medical support.

Re:On Monsanto:

[Reziac]

To be fair -- what *beneficial* products has Monsanto developed? I'd like to see that list as well.

Also, I'm not sure I'd equate evil, and the desire to minimize R&D costs thru corner-cutting the in-depth research. Most companies deny responsibility for their products ill effects until they've been dragged thru court a few times, so that's nothing so different.

That said, if Monsanto didn't use a terminator gene and their canola DNA got into the common gene pool, that should be just tough for Monsanto. It shouldn't give them rights on every crop that gets contaminated by their patented DNA, whether the farmer knows about the contamination or not. (Not that DNA should be patentable in the first place, but since that's already in place...)

If you throw money to the winds and some drifts over my fence, and I pick it up and deposit it in my bank account where it earns interest, that shouldn't give you rights to all my money and earnings! But that's pretty much what this case is doing.

Re:On Monsanto:

[Anonymous Coward]

About GM seeds, it looks like the sterile seeds pollute the pool for viable future crops and so should be restricted to a small fraction in any one region. To my way of looking at it, it's the nature of the invention otherwise to be free, and to make it an owned thing is too great a burden in general to freedom. In other words, I'd say there's no point in the manufacturer raging over spilt whatever.

On the dioxin, how does one discern the origin of any contaminent here, anyway?

Go Brazil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Reuters
Brazil militants invade Monsanto biotech test farm
Friday May 16, 6:31 pm ET
By Inae Riveras

SAO PAULO, Brazil, May 16 (Reuters) - Militants of the Landless Peasant Movement (MST) in Brazil invaded a Monsanto Co.(NYSE:MON - News) test farm on Friday in a bid "to expel" the U.S. biotech giant and set up an organic farm on the site.

ADVERTISEMENT
The incursion by some 80 members from the MST and other landless groups onto an experimental farm in Ponta Grosso, Parana was aimed at stopping Monsanto from using farming methods unpopular in the state, according to the group.

"The government of Parana says it doesn't want transgenics and we producers don't want it," said MST leader Celio Rodrigues. "Thus, it is not right for it (Monsanto) to have a technical center here."

Parana is a large farm state in southern Brazil where Monsanto tests conventional and genetically modified corn and soybeans.

Rodrigues said the objective of the occupation was "to expel" Monsanto from the state and convert the 43 hectares (106 acre) farm to organic production.

The commercial planting of GM crops in Brazil has been banned since 1998. But a thriving black market in Monsanto's trademark Roundup Ready GM soy has developed in southern Brazil. The GM beans are thought to be smuggled in Argentina and Paraguay were RR soy is widely planted.

As much as 30 percent of Brazil's total soy output was estimated to be illegal GM, according to the seed producers association Abrasem, and illegal planting in the south, where the climate is favorable to the Argentine and Paraguayan varieties, is much more wide spread than in other regions.

Monsanto said it has always condemned the illegal planting of GM soy in Brazil.

Experimental GM planting, however, is legal and much of the company's research is conducted jointly with the government crop research arm Embrapa. Monsanto said test planting on its farms was in accordance with Brazilian law.

Monsanto is one of Brazil's biggest producers and sellers of conventional soy, corn and other crop seed stock, as well as farm chemicals and fertilizers.

"They can go back to the United States, Argentina or Canada, where transgenics are liberated," said Rodrigues.

The Ponta Grossa farm was invaded on May 9 by 800 militants who destroyed some laboratories and burned down corn fields.

Monsanto said it has asked authorities to prosecute those responsible for "acts of violence against its staff, property and research and development in Brazil."

"We have big assets of biodiversity in Parana and Monsanto represents a threat," said Antonio Volochen from the Forum of Rural Workers in Parana, that participated in the occupation.

LOL, good joke

[dh003i]

LOL, that's one of the funniest things I've read on /...that is, if you're joking.

If not, then you obviously have a pretty sorry understanding of evolution and mutation. Plants are harvested en-mass. That means thousands or millions of them at once. The probability of such a mutatation as you describe occuring in one plant infinitesimally small. The probability of that same mutation occuring in enough plants in a harvest to have any significant effect is essentially zero. Also, for plants that are being maintained in huge numbers by humans, the forces of natural selection act quite interestingly. Namely, those plants which exhibit phenotypes that make us plant more of them will be selected for. (hence, the ensured survival of marijuanna plants as long as humans are around).

Re:LOL, good joke

[Unordained]

you're missing the fact that, in general, we complain that we -don't- know what GM plants will do to us. maybe cancer ... in fifty years. how many generations of a plant is that? we might not have any reason at all to know better, and weed those modified plants out. why should we? we're fine right now ... so natural selection may not be -possible-, because no detectable change has occured, until too late. this is the case in any of these situations. in the time it takes us to notice (run federally-funded research five times to get a result we believe,) other properties of the dangerous plant may have helped it spread ... or maybe it even tasted better, while also leading to some unknown disease later in life? natural selection could work against us, such that this plant, in an extreme situation, actually gains an advantage, wiping out those who eat it. it wouldn't be the first time a plant had, over time, become poisonous to its natural predators. (yes, you'll find me in the fields stalking the plants ... they won't see me coming.)

i'm not saying this is likely. but i am saying that GM mega-corps aren't solely responsible for -possible- dangerous foods appearing in our bowls. while we may have the means to control those corps, we may -not- have the foresight to catch other dangers.

and ... unless you'd like to, while you're at it, go ahead and say that darwinian evolution through mutation is total crock (you're welcome to, i don't mind) then you have to admit for the possibility that random mutations do, over time, happen and spread. "sharp teeth could never have happened, as other predators would have taken out the offending proto-tiger" ... right. of course.

now, if you wanted to argue that there -are- no mutations that, over time, may spread and eventually snowball into a new species ... then yeah, sure, GM mega-corps are the only threat to us. -obviously- current crops of wheat, naturally grown, aren't dangerous. they haven't killed us off yet ...

Re:LOL, good joke

[dh003i]

Nope, you miss the point. The threats you speak of are minute and implausible. The threats from biocorps modifying food are much larger and more significant.

Re:LOL, good joke

[Reziac]

Actually, plants are relatively mutable. That's why ordinary flowers come in lots of different colours. Roses were bred for all sorts of colour and growth types long before anyone ever heard of DNA -- and all those different varieties came from natural mutations. It doesn't take much seed to generate a viable gene pool -- just enough for some sharp-eyed human to notice and cultivate, and that can be as few as one plant. After all, with crop plants the object is a homogenous gene pool so results are predictable. You don't WANT genetic diversity, so you don't need a large gene pool to work with.

Remember, every variant phenotype represents at least one genetic mutation somewhere in that chain of DNA history.

European boycott of US crops

[iabervon]

Meanwhile, the EU has banned GM crops, in part due to health concerns, but also due to fears that their crops might be contaminated by crops with IP restrictions, which would lead to farmers being sued by seed companies. It looks like this is going to contribute significantly to a US trade deficit in the near future and a major loss of revenue for the US agricultural industry, as well as companies like Monsanto.

Intellectual Property: the best way to use lawsuits to drive yourself out of business.

(My new job is teaching me all sorts of things. You learn a lot if you have a commute by car on which to listen to NPR)

Re:European boycott of US crops

[Ricdude]

You learn a lot if you have a commute by car on which to listen to NPR.

Better yet, turn off your TV, unplug the cable TV line (or dish), and get *all* your news from NPR for a few weeks. Then watch an hour of CNN. Will you be able to tell which news source is part of an entertainment media conglomerate? You sure will. The useful thing about CNN is their corporate bias is fairly evident, and relatively easy to filter out.

Then, ignore any magazine you can see from the grocery store line (except maybe the Weekly World News). Subscribe to Utne Reader, or maybe even the Nation. Watch your disgust with the current excuse for a president grow by orders of magnitude.

Stockpiles of WMD? Did we say stockpiles? We meant residual evidence.

It's fun. You know you want to.

Re:European boycott of US crops

[iabervon]

What are these other media outlets you speak of? I sometimes see newspaper headlines or local news show previews, but that's about it. I guess google sometimes carries CNN online stories...

Re:too bad

[Anonymous Coward]

up yours, asshole!

Patents are not free market

[argoff]

It's not bullshit that we wouldn't have this research done without commercial incentive, and patents are there to create commercial incentive. It simply costs a lot of money to do this stuff, and if you aren't motivated by capitalism, you have to have it be government-funded, and then you end up with socialism.

Arrgh!, this is exactly the kind of nonsense I'm talking about. Patents are not free market any more than any other artificial government imposed monopoly. Is it free market if the government gives some company a monopoly on making cars? Maybe (insert big3 auto maker here) does not have an incentive to make (insert great feature here) unless the government marches in the troops to shut down all the competition. So what! It's plainly stupid and so are patents.

Re:Patents are not free market

[drinkypoo]

You are entitled to your belief that all patents are lame, but I disagree. Patents are useful things. Their current duration is ridiculous, and so is the ease of getting a patent. As we have seen, simply tons of patents are handed out nonsensically. They simply are not specific enough. If part of a design is obvious (part of nearly every design is obvious) then only the non-obvious portions should be patentable. The problem is that there's a lack of intelligent trustworthy people willing to review patents for free, so the patent office is simply overworked.

The solution? Dedicate more of our resources to patent-combing, perhaps going so far as to spend some actual tax money on it, if we aren't doing so already. Develop a very strict classification system for patents to make it easier to check for duplication between them to minimize patent conflicts.

Patents can protect the big fish and the small fry alike, but our current patent system is broken. It's possible to get clearly conflicting patents and still have to duke it out in court, which nearly always results in defeat for the so-called little guy. So there are problems. I do not believe, however, that they are insurmountable, nor that patents stifle innovation.

Re:Patents are not free market

[argoff]

Well, I can agree that it's a lot harder to point to patents being bad when the whole system has gone to hell. If they had their act together ... at least it would be easier to make conclusive observations. However, I think the patent office is bad because patents are bad - just like government tends to naturally go sour as soon as they get authorities that they shouldn't have, I see that as happening to the patent office also. Their failures are a symptom not the cause.

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[PaddyM]

It's not capitalism. It's infantile-capitalism.

Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[dan.hunt]

"Schmeiser barely had heard of Monsanto before 1998,". What? A 72 year old farmer? He said that?

Let me translate that from "Saskatchewan-farm-boy" language into "/." for you: "Before last year, I had barely had heard of Microsoft" or "You mean there is another operating system other than GNU/Linux? Microsoft? Really?"

I doubt that the seeds fell of a truck and grew in the ditch, and I doubt that anyone in 1998 did not know all about Monsanto. You see, you could not open a newspaper, or turn on a radio, or drive into a city without learning all about Monsanto.

A quick Google,
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr= &ie=UTF-8 &selm=ddfr-3E428B.11550004042002%40sea-read.news.v erio.net

Next Up

[kanelephant]

Writer of I love you virus sues for copyright infringement.

"People just kept distributing copies of my IP" the author claimed earlier today.

Re:Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what are you, some kind of farm-boi faggot?

The bottom line is this...

[confused philosopher]

Obviously Monsanto is at fault here. They are honestly trying to argue that seeds can be controlled by humans. Heck, humans can't even control the seeds in their own loins, much less ones growing wild in the wind and water.

Monsanto can't prove that they didn't contaminate his field, and they are shaking in their large, multi-billion dollar boots because a farmer from Saskatchewan is about to bring part of them down.

Re:The bottom line is this...

[El Christador]

Monsanto can't prove that they didn't contaminate his field

I don't understand why they'd have to. Percy Schmeiser has already testified in court that the glyphosate resistant canola seeds growing in his fields in 1998 were 1) planted there by an employee of his; 2) were taken from plants growing in his fields in 1997 which he had identified as being glyphosate resistant. The court took his account of the facts as being the canonical one. They ruled that even with the facts as he stated them, his company infringed the patent by planting glyphosate-resistant canola seed, that was known, or should have been known to be, glyphosate resistant.

So,they have nothing to prove, and wouldn't be allowed to try if they could. The fact-finding in the case is done; it can't be reopened at the appeal level. Percy Schmeiser won it. His version of the facts stands. And so far the courts have ruled in Monsanto's favour even with his account of the facts.


they are shaking in their large, multi-billion dollar boots because a farmer from Saskatchewan is about to bring part of them down.


I very much doubt it. They won the first two rounds and legally, their case sure looks pretty ironclad (IANAL, though). Legally, Percy has not a leg to stand on. He used a patented invention. He admits it. Says he knew what it was, too. Not a lot of wiggle room there. That's why he not only lost, but got assigned costs, which is the court's way of say "you really lost, and please stop wasting our time".

The following excerpt's from the first court ruling might clarify my claim's about Mr. Schmeiser's account of the facts:

[38] As we have noted Mr. Schmeiser testified that in 1997 he
planted his canola crop with seed saved from 1996 which he believed came
mainly from field number 1. Roundup-resistant canola was first noticed in
his crop in 1997, when Mr. Schmeiser and his hired hand, Carlysle Moritz,
hand-sprayed Roundup around the power poles and in ditches along the road
bordering fields 1, 2, 3 and 4. These fields are adjacent to one another
and are located along the east side of the main paved grid road that leads
south to Bruno from these fields. This spraying was part of the regular
farming practices of the defendants, to kill weeds and volunteer plants
around power poles and in ditches. Several days after the spraying, Mr.
Schmeiser noticed that a large portion of the plants earlier sprayed by
hand had survived the spraying with the Roundup herbicide.

[39] In an attempt to determine why the plants had survived the
herbicide spraying, Mr. Schmeiser conducted a test in field 2. Using his
sprayer, he sprayed, with Roundup herbicide, a section of that field in a
strip along the road. He made two passes with his sprayer set to spray 40
feet, the first weaving between and around the power poles, and the second
beyond but adjacent to the first pass in the field, and parallel to the
power poles. This was said by him to be some three to four acres in all,
or "a good three acres". After some days, approximately 60% of the plants
earlier sprayed had persisted and continued to grow. Mr. Schmeiser
testified that these plants grew in clumps which were thickest near the
road and began to thin as one moved farther into the field.

[40] Despite this result Mr. Schmeiser continued to work field
2, and, at harvest, Carlysle Moritz, on instruction from Mr. Schmeiser,
swathed and combined field 2. He included swaths from the surviving canola
seed along the roadside in the first load of seed in the combine which he
emptied into an old Ford truck located in the field. That truck was
covered with a tarp and later it was towed to one of Mr. Schmeiser's
outbuildings at Bruno. In the spring of 1998 the seed from the old Ford
truck was taken by Mr. Schmeiser in another truck to the Humboldt Flour
Mill ("HFM") for treatment. After that, Mr. Schmeiser's testimony is that
the treated seed was mixed with some bin-run seed and fertilizer and then
used for planting his 1998 canola crop.

Re:The bottom line is this...

[confused philosopher]

"[39] In an attempt to determine why the plants had survived the
herbicide spraying, Mr. Schmeiser conducted a test in field 2. Using his
sprayer, he sprayed, with Roundup herbicide, a section of that field in a
strip along the road."

So in his testimony he admits that Monsanto contaminated his field. And this is their defense, that he stole the seed that they grew on his field without his permission?! Weak, very weak.

Re:The bottom line is this...

[El Christador]

So in his testimony he admits that Monsanto contaminated his field. And this is their defense, that he stole the seed that they grew on his field without his permission?! Weak, very weak.

"stole"? But he was not charged with theft. He was sued for patent infringement. I am puzzled why people feel the fact that he took the seed from contaminating plants he found on his property makes it any less of an example of patent infringement. There is no exemption allowing one to infringe patents provided one uses one's own property to do so. This is the case with all patents. It is not something special to this case. Why is there this belief that he shouldn't be found in infringement of the patent unless he somehow illicitly obtained the seeds? It's not like there's a corresponding requirement in any other patent case.

The underlying reasoning seems to be that "you can do anything you like with your own property". Except of course, that you can't. Canada has a wide variety of laws prohibiting things you can do with your own property. There are many examples. Here are some:

*I may own pieces of metal and metalworking tools, but I may not fashion the pieces of metal into submachine guns.

*I may own piperidine, cyclohexanone and phenylmagnesium bromide, but I am not allowed to mix them in such a way as to produce phencyclidine (aka PCP).

*I can not use my own property to reproduce a patented invention without a licence from the patent holder. (This is the one of particular concern in this case.)

*I may own blank CD's and a CD burner, but if I burn a certain pattern of bits onto these blank CD's and sell them, I can be found liable for copyright infringement.

Re:The bottom line is this...

[TekPolitik]

I don't understand why they'd have to. Percy Schmeiser has already testified in court that the glyphosate resistant canola seeds growing in his fields in 1998 were 1) planted there by an employee of his; 2) were taken from plants growing in his fields in 1997 which he had identified as being glyphosate resistant.

As the sections of the judgement you quoted demonstrate, the seeds were taken from a field that was known to have Roundup Ready Canola in it - there was no systematic attempt to gather specifically Roundup Ready canola.

Re:The bottom line is this...

[confused philosopher]

"There is no exemption allowing one to infringe patents provided one uses one's own property to do so. This is the case with all patents. It is not something special to this case."

So you are saying there is no prescedent for this case. It is a special case, because it is about food, property rights, and genetic engineering/contamination. Then it is perfect that it goes to the Supreme Court so they can set it.

Re:The bottom line is this...

[El Christador]

As the sections of the judgement you quoted demonstrate, the seeds were taken from a field that was known to have Roundup Ready Canola in it - there was no systematic attempt to gather specifically Roundup Ready canola.

Agreed. I would not claim otherwise. That is to say, the evidence doesn't strictly rule out a systematic attempt, but it certainly doesn't include anything positive indication there was one, so I think for the purposes of this discussion we should certainly presume there wasn't.

It sounds, to me, like Percy Schmeiser's story in court might have been that although they knew there was glyphosate-resistant seed there, they didn't particularly think of it when harvesting seed i.e. they started driving the combine at that side of the field, and kept the first load and gave the presence of the glyphosate-resistant canola no particular thought. I would note, though, that "carelessness" is not a defense against patent infringement.

It is also consistent with the paragraphs I quoted that Percy Schmeiser may have not been personally aware that the seed his hired hand kept was the seed from the edge of the field: i.e. maybe he never said "what part of the field did you take the seed from?" and never thought about the possibility that it might have been taken from the contaminated region. With regard to this last point, note that it is actually Percy Schmeiser's farming company, not Percy Schmeiser the individual, that was found liable for patent infringement. The judge found that Mr. Schmeiser is presumed to have available to him information that is available to an employee carrying out his duties in accordance to Mr. Schmeiser's general directions. So, even if he didn't appreciate that the particular seeds going into the ground were the glyphosate-resistant ones, the information was still available for him and he was responsible for being aware of it, and for the purposes of this case is deemed to have been aware of it. (Again, note that we're dealing with civil liability of a corporation for its actions, not liability of an individual, whether civil or criminal.)

I would note though, that in view of Percy Schmeiser's claims that glyphosate-resistant canola was an extremely unwelcome contaminant, and that he has been greatly distressed by the loss of his own personal strain of canola, which represented his life's work, it is profoundly odd that, knowing there was a 4 acre swath where the only thing growing was foreign canola not of his strain, he did not make a point of avoiding taking seed for his next year's crop from there. The quoted paragraphs suggest it appeared to be localized contamination along a roadside at the edge of one field. In that year (1997) he was growing 780 acres of canola. Thus the known contaminated tested area represented slightly over 0.5% of the total area he had growing. If indeed the loss of his own strain of canola was such a hardship and so upsetting, it is an oversight of fairly incredible proportions not to say to the hired hand "make sure you don't take the canola seed for next year from the contaminated strip. Take it from elsewhere preferably as far from the contamination as possible."

Re:The bottom line is this...

[ChrisMaple]

I haven't seen anything that proves that the farmer KNEW he was using MONSANTO's roundup resistant plants. He could have assumed he had a wild mutation.

It's a weak argument, but the goal is "innocent until proven guilty" (beyond a reasonable doubt.)

The proper sequence of events would have been for Monsanto to have proven by genetic analysis (not merely by roundup resistance) that the plants were Monsanto's, then obtained a restraining order to prevent the farmer from making further use of Monsanto's product. What actually happened sounds to me like a failure of due process.

Re:The bottom line is this...

[El Christador]

Your general point is accepted: he had never specifically tested the plants in his 1997 field for the gene, and their Roundup resistance could in principle have been due to a spontaneous mutation, in which case the patent would not have been infringed. However, such a spontaneous mutation would be profoundly unlikely, and Percy Schmeiser certainly was aware of that. In particular, if such a mutation did occur, it would be an extremely remarkable coincidence for it to show up in crops all along one roadside, and declining as one moved away from the roadside, which is the spatial pattern of glyphosate resistance observed by Percy Schmeiser. Given that Percy Schmeiser was a professional canola farmer, he would certainly have been aware that 1) glyphosate-resistant genetically engineered canola had just appeared on the market and was being grown in the area; 2) the only glyphosate-resistant canola presently known to humanity derived its resistance from the presence of the inserted gene for glyphosate resistance; 3) spontaneous mutation of a plant to evolve glyphosate resistance is relatively improbable. I think we can reasonably conclude that he would have been quite aware that the overwhelmingly most probable explanation for the appearance of glyphosate-resistant canola along the roadside edge of his field was contamination with genetically engineered canola, rather than a spontaneous mutation.

That is, I think he would have said "oh, darn it, this is likely genetically engineered canola contamination" (well, ok, probably not those exact words), although you are correct, he would not have known it for a fact without actually testing for the gene (or maybe testing for the protein produced by the gene).(I'm going to completely disregard the possibility of spontaneous emergence by natural mutation of the exact same gene for glyphosate resistance, because that is astronomically unlikely.)

(Furthermore, his claim is that the genetically engineered canola was profoundly unwelcome in his fields, as (according to other contributors) he was an organic farmer, and attached great value to his own personal strain of canola. If his story were true, wouldn't the known high likelihood that the observed glyphosate-resistance arose due to contamination with foreign, genetically engineered canola be enough to make him avoid taking his seed from the contaminated region?)

It's a weak argument, but the goal is "innocent until proven guilty" (beyond a reasonable doubt.)

Actually, that's only the standard in criminal cases. In civil cases it is "balance of probabilities", and the requirements relating to the existence of knowledge and intent are also completely different between civil and criminal cases. If he were accused of a crime of growing genetically engineered canola, not that there is one, then that might be a defence. Even in a criminal case, the evidence could still well meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; likely the onus would be on him to persuade the court he genuinely did not suspect that the glyphosate-resistance was due to the gene, and failing to persuade the court (i.e. if they thought he did suspect it but was lying about it) would likely be taken as meeting the "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" requirement. Generally, if you commit actions knowing that they are likely criminal but have a slight possibility of not being criminal, that's the necessary intent. I believe (IANAL, obviously) that the facts need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but the proof of intent doesn't require e.g. telepathy on the part of the jury; it is arguments like "you knew X and did Y, therefore you must have had the intent".
But really more can not be said without further knowledge about the nature of this hypothetical criminal law.

Furthermore, in a patent infringement case, such as this one, there
is in general no requirement whatsoever that the accused infringer had any intent to infringe the patent

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[istartedi]

You're mistaking capitalism for monarchy. Monarchies arise out of lawlessness when feudal lords accumulate enough power to form city-states, which then coalesce into nation-states, of which they are the monarchs. Now, in the US, we are laissez-faire enough so that we are almost lawless sometimes. Thus, it has been possible for corporate monarchies to arise, forming the market-states. Monsanto rules the agricultural market-state, RIAA the recording market-state, and so on. An ineffective government could allow the market-states to coalesce into a nation-state just as traditional monarchies did. Some argue that this has already happened--that our republic which arose in the wake of a monarchy has been completely co-opted by a loose association of monarchist market-states.

Capitalism, OTOH, is where the government establishes a framework in which a sufficient number of individual actors compete to provide goods and services, but without forming enough power to become market-states. Those who argue that capitalism needs to be replaced, when confronted with the question "replaced with what?" usually have one of two responses: 1. A blank stare, or anger followed by a re-affirmation that capitalism needs to be replaced, or 2. Socialism/Communism/Leftism/"the people". Invariably, "the people" is a euphemism for their people who are almost always Socialists/Communists/... etc.

The truth of the matter is that capitalism doesn't need to be replaced--it needs to be reinstated.

Re:Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[dan.hunt]

Text from the Google Groups Link:

"I've changed the title, since this is really a separate thread and has been for a while. I thought it might be worth summarizing the current
state of the argument as I see it.

The case seems to me to raise two separate issues:

1. What legal rule was the judge trying to lay down. This seems to me quite unclear, since he appears to be simultaneously saying that
Schmeiser does and does not own the same crop. I think there is a possible intepretation that makes it a sensible rule, but I can't tell if that is the one he intended.

2. What actually happened:

Schmeiser's version, accepted by his supporters:

Schmeiser doesn't want roundup ready canola growing in his fields, doesn't normally use roundup on canola. RR canola showed up in his fields either because pollen blew into them from the fields of other farmers who used RR or because some seed spilled in the road next to his fields and sprouted and pollenized his canola.

This account appears unbelievable for two different reasons:

A. According to Monsanto's testing, the tested plants were over 90% RR, according to Schmeiser they were 60%. Either way, the idea that a field
of RR several miles away would provide 90%, or 60%, or 1% of the pollen floating around a 300 acre field of canola is implausible. The idea that
accidentally sprouting canola from seeds that happened to fall out in the road could provide 1% probably isn't absurd, at least for plants
close to the road, but it's hard to see how they could provide anything close to 60%, given that they are, again, competing with a solid mass of
hundreds of acres of canola that has been deliberately planted, presumably watered, etc.

It's worth noting that although the Monsanto testing was of plants right along the road (because they could get them without trespassing),
Schmeiser's own testing was not so limited--and he reported 60%.

So Schmeiser's account appears strikingly inconsistent with either side's claim about how much of the canola he was growing was RR. To
avoid that, you have to argue that the tiny fraction of RR explained on his account somehow rapidly out competed the ordinary canola. But since Schemeiser wasn't using roundup, and RR's only advantage, apparently, is superior resistence to roundup, it is hard to see how that could happen.

B. According to the testimony at trial, if I understand it correctly, Schmeiser (and his employee) took the following series of actions:

1. They sprayed part of a field of canola with roundup; 60% of the plants survived.

2. They took the seed from the surviving 60%, stored it, used it (along with enough other seed) to plant the whole area he was planting with
canola the next year.

That makes perfectly good sense if Schmeiser was deliberately trying to breed his own strain of RR. The only inconsistent element is that it would have made more sense for him not to mix the two seeds, but to use the RR seed for part of his area and the non RR for the rest. But it isn't clear that he didn't--"mix" may merely mean "use some of each."
And in any case, doing that would make it even more obvious what he was doing, whereas this way he could produce a high RR crop in one year,
repeat to get higher the next.

But it makes no sense at all if he objected to RR, as he claims he does.
If he doesn't want it, why does he deliberately use the seed that he knows is high RR--from the plants that didn't die when sprayed with
Roundup--instead of deliberately avoiding using that particular seed and planting his next year's crop with seed from other parts of his field?

Looking at both A and B, the obvious explanation is that Schmeiser is lying. Either he planted RR seed bought without license from a neighbor
who was growing it--presumably what Monsanto is trying to prevent--or he deliberately tried to breed his own RR canola, or both.

So far, nobody here has offered any other explanation of these facts, although that doesn't prove that no other explanation is possible. Nor
has anyone shown that I am misreading the reported facts of the case, although that too is possible.

--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/"

Monsanto and PCBs

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys should go to google and search for monsanto + PCBs (poly chlorinated biphenyls). You'll find out a little bit about monsanto's crooked history, in fact you'll find out a lot about their crooked history. First they became a monopoly in PCB production, and then they went to no end to shut up scientists, politions, etc. who were studying the toxicity of PCBs. Monsanto has a very unethical past, a past that they have unlikely outgrown.

Not exactly

[DDX_2002]

Actually, the court found that the overall resistance was so high that the only explanation was that it was the roundup resistant plants which had been deliberately planted and it was the non gm canola which had accidentally contaminated the crop. The Court found there was no way the GM crop could be explained as accidental contamination. Now, I suppose someone could have snuck onto the guys property at night, taken an unseeded field and planted it with GM canola just so they could then proceed to sue him, but that strikes me as a weeee bit unlikely.

Re:Not exactly

[mcheu]

If you're going to those lengths for your conspiracy theory, I think it would simply be easier to swap the farmer's seed with the GM seeds. Then the farmer would do the planting for you. Realistically, I'd imagine the GM and natural seeds would look identical. It's not like the farmer's going to have a genetic fingerprinting lab in the shed.

Re:Not exactly

[TekPolitik]

Actually, the court found that the overall resistance was so high that the only explanation was that it was the roundup resistant plants which had been deliberately planted and it was the non gm canola which had accidentally contaminated the crop.

This is simply not true. Monsanto tried arguing this, but very quickly dropped it because the evidence they had couldn't support the claim. The judgement was made on the presumption that there was no systematic effort to incorporate the Monsanto gene into the crop.

Re:Not exactly

[Reziac]

And what about a naturally-occurring mutation that Monsanto had nothing to do with? It's not outside the realm of possibility.

You'd have to prove thru genetic sequencing that it wasn't Monsanto's gene in your crops, despite having the same phenotypic trait.

It's not in Monsanto's interests to sneak-seed a farmer's fields (a farmer who goes out of business due to lawsuits buys no GM'd seed) but it could well be within the scope of unscrupulous fellow farmers, where a market is narrow enough that it'd be in their financial interests to reduce competition.

Back in the Olden Days, I recall tales of wheat ranchers seeding rivals' fields with rye, to reduce the value of their crop (rye is considered a contaminant in a wheat crop). Who knows if they were true or not, but point is, the concept isn't unthinkable.

(Note to wannabe usage purists: Yes, if you have a honkin' big spread dedicated to growing wheat, it *is* called a "ranch", not a "farm". At least on the high plains.)

Re:Not exactly

[DDX_2002]

Yes, they tried arguing this and WON. Read the FCTD decision at Excerpts:

[44] In early 2000 Dr. Downey arranged for a grow-out test of the sample provided by Mr. Mitchell from seeds retained from the 1997 sample. Mr. Schmeiser and his counsel were invited to be present at commencement of the test. There were differences in the testimony of Dr. Downey and Mr. Schmeiser about the presence of cleaver seeds among the sample seeds. All seeds in the sample provided to Dr. Downey were planted. The grow-out test of the seeds resulted in about 50% of the seeds germinating. The subsequent application of Roundup herbicide left surviving all of the plants which germinated from the seed, demonstrating they were glyphosate tolerant. This led Dr. Downey to conclude that the seeds provided to him from the 1997 sample taken of plants growing along the road allowances of fields 2 and 5, demonstrated that the canola plants growing there were not the result of pollen movement into those fields, or out crossing between glyphosate-resistant and susceptible plants. Rather, in his view, the high percentage of glyphosate-tolerant plants, among those which had germinated, indicated they were grown from commercial Roundup Ready canola seed.

[146] I find on a balance of probabilities that the growing by the defendants in 1998 of canola on nine fields, from seed saved in 1997 which was known or ought to have been known by them to be Roundup tolerant, and the harvesting and sale of that canola crop, infringed upon the plaintiffs' exclusive rights under Canadian patent number 1, 313, 830 in particular claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 45 of the patent.

Re:Not exactly

[TekPolitik]

[146] I find on a balance of probabilities that the growing by the defendants in 1998 of canola on nine fields, from seed saved in 1997 which was known or ought to have been known by them to be Roundup tolerant,

This is not the same as finding that he was intentionally growing a Roundup-Ready crop. The finding was only that he, at a minimum "ought to have" known, that there were Roundup-Ready seeds in the stock planted.

This led Dr. Downey to conclude that the seeds provided to him from the 1997 sample taken of plants growing along the road allowances of fields 2 and 5, demonstrated that the canola plants growing there were not the result of pollen movement into those fields, or out crossing between glyphosate-resistant and susceptible plants. Rather, in his view, the high percentage of glyphosate-tolerant plants, among those which had germinated, indicated they were grown from commercial Roundup Ready canola seed.

The "road allowances" are the area between the fields and the roads. These were all the plants that Monsanto had access to, since they would have to trespass to get access to plants in the fields. The finding was that these had probably fallen of the back of a truck carrying Roundup Ready seeds along that road. Notably, the court found that there was no infringement in 1997, which is the crop year to which that evidence referred.

Um, farmer don't plant for your benefit.

[Anonymous Coward]

He plants because he thinks he can make money at it. The inflow into his bank account is what matters to him, not your need to stuff your fat ass with food.

not more worrysome...

[Anonymous Coward]

this fella lied

Not even close

[A nonymous Coward]

This farmer destroyed evidence, intentionally lied, all because he doesn't like Monsanto. Whether or not Monsanto deserves to be disliked, this farmer intentionally messed with them and the law, especially where he destroyed evidence after he was told not to.

This has nothing in common with the Canadian case.

Re:Not even close

[torpor]

Nevertheless, two wrongs don't make a right. Monsanto is most definitely *not* in the clear themselves in the lying/tampering department, either.

Both sides have a lot to lose, from each perspective.

If Monsanto's issue here gets brought to public light, and truly *sane* (not profit-driven) decisions are made about an issue which could, potentially, do more damage to the ecosphere than we could *possibly* imagine, then all the more reason for all truths in the case to be exposed, as well as lies.

Perhaps the GM industry *NEEDS* Government regulation - who are we to truly say? In 200 years, Monsanto Inc. may still be around, whereas The Nation of United States of America and its police forces, may not! What could *that* do to our eco-sphere? IF we put gov't regs into effect on the GM trade that *severely* reduce the profits which can be derived from fucking with the genepool now, then we may be saving things from catastrophe further down the line, in ... say ... 200 or 300 years time.

The genepool can do some pretty heavy things in 200 years. Those Wheat, Inc. (tm) branded stalks growing in someones field, blown off a truck flatbed, *could* be the enemy of the future. We just do not know.

Hopefully, the Canadian Supreme Court (or whatever it is), will serve justice at a public policy level where other courts failed.

Too many times, corporations get away with things like this because there simply hasn't been public policy for the technological proceedings, and lower courts treat cases on a black vs. white basis - who broke what laws we already have on the books, not might one day have.

Cases such as this - mega-corp vs. little guy - are good to know about, regardless of 'liars vs. liars' issues. Dismissing them on moral grounds such as this will cause you to lose sight of the big picture...

Re:Not even close

[A nonymous Coward]

First, my comment refered directly and only to the non-equivalency of the two court cases.

Second, you have an interesting bias.

and truly *sane* (not profit-driven) decisions are made

Interesting that you consider profit driven decisions to be insane. Tell me, have you always made buying decision with complete disregard for price? Have you ever taken a job and ignored pay? Would you keep your current job if your pay was cut in half?

Over the top rants like yours almost make me want to become a megacorp lover.

Re:Not even close

[torpor]

Lets just put it this way on the revenues issue: when it comes to Genetic Law, I would rather corporations were not writing them.

Mother nature did the framing

[poptones]

But "life" mutates, which means you cannot expect the relevant genes to be predictable over several generations. Monsanto is saying, however, that the slightest presence of a gene they stuck there - by any means - is grounds for a suit.

This is fundamentally different than the old battles where a farmer fought to keep seeds from last season's hybrid cotton crop and then wondered why the new crop wasn't as good as last year's that was grown from first generation seed.

There is also evidence this gene has been passed onto weeds and (wild) rape, which means farmers now not only have herbicide resistant canola, they also get to do battle with wonderful new herbicide resistant weeds.

All we need now is for this gene to get into the kudzu (imported from china by our own government to fight soil erosion) and we can write off the southeast US entirely.

And God sues us all.........

[PS-SCUD]

Because he has to patent to life. Monsanto just modified existing life, he didn't create it.

Re:Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[dan.hunt]

Text from this link: http://www.producer.com/articles/20000615/news/200 00615news07.html Farmer's story lacks credibility, says scientist The world's most prominent canola scientist has testified that Percy Schmeiser's story doesn't make sense. Keith Downey, one of the men who invented canola, said he doesn't believe it is possible that cross-pollination by wind and bees, or seed blowing off trucks, transformed Schmeiser's 900 acres of canola in 1998 into commercial grade Roundup Ready canola. "The points made by Mr. Schmeiser in the examination for discovery do not reasonably account for how the quantity of Roundup Ready crop found on his fields actually got there," Downey states in a report given to the federal court judge presiding over Monsanto's lawsuit against Schmeiser. "Such quantities are only consistent with the placing of Roundup tolerant canola seed on the land in question at or after seed bed preparation." Schmeiser has not yet testified and his lawyer, Terry Zakreski, had just given his opening statement at press time. But in pre-trial testimony, Zakreski presented Schmeiser's explanation for how 900 acres of his crop came to contain the Roundup Ready gene. Schmeiser said in 1999 that his 1997 crop was planted from conventional canola seed he grew and saved in 1996. During the 1997 growing season, he hand-sprayed weeds around some power poles on the edge of one of his canola fields, and discovered that most of the volunteer canola growing there did not die. He then used a sprayer to spray Roundup on a three- to four-acre section of the canola crop, Schmeiser said. About 60 percent of the canola survived the Roundup. Schmeiser harvested this canola and the canola around it, and kept it in an old grain truck. The rest of the crop was stored separately. The next spring, Schmeiser said he took the 8,014 pounds of seed containing the Roundup tolerant material to be seed treated. He then seeded 900 acres with the treated seed plus some bin run seed he had on the farm. Schmeiser said he did not spray Roundup on the crop in 1998. Downey said Schmeiser's story is not plausible. If Schmeiser's canola had been the result of cross-pollination, then 25 percent of its seeds should still have been susceptible to Roundup because of mixed parentage. Each flower on a canola plant is separately pollinated, so plants can have differing mixtures of genes in their seeds. Instead, the seeds grown out from Schmeiser's canola proved to be 100 percent Roundup tolerant. "The Roundup tolerant plants observed growing in (the field where Schmeiser collected his 1998 seed) must have arisen from a crop planted with Roundup Ready pedigreed seed and not from outcrossing," wrote Downey. In another field, all of the seeds grown out of samples gathered by the investigator proved to be Roundup tolerant, Downey said. The chance that the investigator managed to randomly choose one cross-pollinated tolerant plant with no susceptible seeds at all was only one in 10,000. The chance that he could pick six plants that all had 100 percent Roundup tolerant seeds was only one in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000. "I consider such odds to be highly improbable," said Downey. Schmeiser also appeared to have used Roundup much more generally on his fields than he claimed, Downey said, which showed Schmeiser knew his crop was Roundup tolerant. Zakreski questioned Downey on where he received the information on which he based his opinion. Downey said Monsanto had supplied most of his information. Downey often seemed bemused by scenarios Zakreski presented to show other ways that Schmeiser's fields could have become Roundup tolerant. Zakreski suggested uncovered passing trucks, whirlwinds, passing farm machinery, strong winds and rolling swaths could have brought Monsanto's gene into the fields. Downey replied that it was possible to spread canola pollen and seeds in these ways, but not in the quantities that had appeared in Schmeiser's 1998 crop.

Sorry, but you seem to be ignorant of the facts

[WIAKywbfatw]

I suggest you really read up on GM crops and found out what they are. It seems like you have some evil vision in your head of something that is no different than evolution at an accelerated rate.

I think Monsanto is evil here, they can't control their crops and I firmly disagree with allowing patents on process/creations such as these but GM foods are not some evil boogy monster, any more so than modern farming techniques.

I know exactly what GM crops are thank you. I was just providing another example (albeit in a different sphere) of just how greedy biotech companies are, even in life or death situations.

GM crop development isn't about speeding up natural or artificial selection. It's about taking the qualities you want, perhaps from two different plant types, perhaps from more, to develop a more "desirable" product.

So, you could be talking about taking one type of plant and transplanting genetic code from a totally different type of plant into it to give the first plant some of the genetic properties of the second plant.

Want wheat that doesn't fall down so easily? Take the relevant genetic code (the bit that says "make this plant's stalk strong" from a totally different plant and replace the corresponding code in the wheat's DNA. Want longer lasting apples? Replace the relevant genetic code with some from a plant that bears fruit that doesn't go rotten as quickly.

Obviously, with natural or artificial selection, it's possible to do this to a degree, but it isn't possible to take the properties of two completely different species and combine them - you can't cross breed an apple and an orange through traditional methods but with genetic modification you can - that is what GM crops and products are about.

There is no way that modern farming techniques could ever produce the kind of seed that Monsanto has made, because it is modified at the genetic level using genetic code from several totally different plant species. Please don't suggest that it's "evolution at an accelerated rate". That's just plain ignorance.

Perhaps, as you seem so ignorant about the facts, you should do some research. Here's a Google link to help you out: GM foods.

The third link is particularly helpful, so I'll include it here for your benefit: HowStuffWorks - What are genetically modified (GM) foods?.

By the way, for someone who's criticising other people for what they do and don't know, your lack of basic knowledge on the subject is stunning.

Re:Sorry, but you seem to be ignorant of the facts

[juuri]

*sigh*

What is macro-evolution if not the combination of unforseen things in new and exciting ways?

Does it really matter if farming couldn't produce them if we can? Your only argument seems to be that it isn't natural. This is a typical luddite reaction to misunderstood things. This is showcased that you quote sites such as howstuffworks.com as your base of knowledge on GM crops.

GM crops are not evil. Corporate control, with no provisions for falling into the public domain, of GM crops is. There is a huge difference, please don't bother to reply if you are going to come back with the same anti-science rhetoric.

Re:Sorry, but you seem to be ignorant of the facts

[WIAKywbfatw]

Hey, I subscribe to New Scientist. I read Astrophysics at university. I'm a journalist by profession. I not ignorant when it comes to science and I'm not ignorant when it comes to spin either.

Anti-science? Luddite? That's a laugh.

I know what I'm talking about, and I don't need howstuffworks.com to tell me what GM foods entail. The basic, hold-your-hand howstuffworks.com link was for your benefit, buddy, not mine.

Re:Sorry, but you seem to be ignorant of the facts

[juuri]

Then again please tell me exactly why GM crops are the evil you believe them to be? Because they aren't from nature? Surely you have other more powerful reasons. Please share them.

Re:Sorry, but you seem to be ignorant of the facts

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many places all around talking about that. I am not the original poster but you need to spend the time yourself - no one here has it to educate you. Transfer of genes and unforseen combinations is what comes to mind. Think SARS and AIDS. Both of these came because of increased speed and opportunity for adaptation of animal bakteria to humans. Some things are better done slowly. Besides GM foods are NOT NECESSARY, not worth the risks. If people new them, they would avoid them - just to be on the safe side. But you probably don't know that farmers are FORBIDEN to advertise their milk as free of synthetic growth hormone... There is a LAW against saying the truth. THIS IS THE REAL PROBLEM, WE ARE LOOSING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS FOR CERTAIN THINGS.

Re:Sorry, but you seem to be ignorant of the facts

[Exatron]

GM crops have the potential for incredibly harmful side effects because they often have genes from completely unreleated species. Human understanding of genitics is too primitive to say that GM crops are completely safe.

Re:Sorry, but you seem to be ignorant of the facts

[WIAKywbfatw]

For one thing, I don't like the fact that these products aren't being tested in biospheres or other sealed environments - from day one the biotechs have tested these products out in the open and their figures for how far GM seeds could possibly travel under their own accord are laughable - a few hundred metres maximum was one quoted figure.

For another, I don't think that these products have been thoroughly tested before being thrusted upon the general public as a fait acompli. Do you know what how GM crops could mutate over the next 5, 50 or 500 years? No, you don't. And neither do the biotechs.

This isn't a new car tyre we're talking about. This isn't a new AIDS drug. As vital as those are, they only affect a small subset of the population, and leave the environment unchanged. And, if they're defective or deadly, they can be recalled or destroyed. Tell me, how would you recall a deadly or environmentally detrimental GM seed variety once it's out there?

I have my reasons for being skeptical about GM products, and my reasons are all based on science. Tell me, what reasons do you have for putting your faith blindly in the hands of corporations who are more loyal to the bottom line than the buying public?

defending yourself involves adaptation

[kardar]

There is, obviously, lots of "spin" put on this story. I did not know that the farmer was producing Roundup ready canola. I think this is where the problem starts. It's not an organic crop, it's not a biodynamic crop, it's a Roundup ready crop. Making the farmer look like a saint or something, if it's true he was trying to produce a Roundup ready crop, is telling a half-truth.

If he was in the business of producing organically grown seed, we would be looking at a different situation. Looks like the characteristic of being resistant to Roundup was something the farmer was looking for; and this is a characteristic that was engineered into Monsanto's crop. So in this case, the contamination produced a desirable effect, not an undesirable effect, as far as that farmer was concerned.

But the thought of Monsanto suing someone whose crop they contaminate with undesirable characteristics is awful, and a complete injustice. Besides, if a crop was compromised in this way, with undesirable characteristcs, this would result in a financial loss to the farmer whose crop was contaminated, and the financial situation would be reversed, so it seems unlikely this would occur. Probably the greatest threat would be contamination with the "killer gene", that doesn't allow seeds to reproduce. Regardless, the most important thing is for people who care about the quality of their food to keep pumping out quality food.

While it is important to fight against injustice, if you want to be healthy, you have to chill out. Being relaxed is very important for your health. I sincerely doubt that Monsanto is going to go after individuals growing food in their back yards as a hobby. This type of contamination will present a financial problem for larger conventional farmers who are looking for the same characteristics in their crops that Monsanto engineers into its crops, it is a good question if this will happen with larger organic farmers who dread the thought of contamination with genetically modified genes.

One of the best ways for any community to become self-reliant, something that is especially important in lower-income areas of the world, is for that community to grow its own crops, providing itself with the food it needs to survive. It has been shown that a family of four can fulfill all of its nutritional needs throughout the year in an area of land that is approximately 1000 square feet. Successful gardening a skill, much like working with Linux, or UNIX is. If you don't know what you are doing, and just go along with what the people at the garden store tell you, you too, will have weeds and poor growth that will support the market for fertilizers and pesticides and all kinds of things. If you know what you are doing, compost is all you need.

I once heard someone say that these people who support, eat, and argue for the proliferation of genetically engineered foods will all just die off anyway - they are stupid, and they don't realize that they are full of manure. So the best way to get around that is to "grow your own". Yes, it takes skill to grow your own, but it's worth it in the end. Like a $600 refund check from the IRS? You can save at least that much money from 5-15 minutes a day gardening in your back yard, community garden, apartment balcony/roof, etc... I figured it out one day - if you are gardening to maximize yield, it works out to at least $25 per hour or so. Think of it like getting paid $25 per hour, or more, depending on what crops you decide to grow, to go to the gym or something. That's even a better deal than working for a company that has free exercise rooms! Shiitake mushrooms, for instance, grown on logs, fetch $12 a pound; leeks are about $2.00 per pound; organic winter squash is 80-90 cents per pound - one squash can be $10 - squash is extremely care-free; just plant the seeds in a tight pattern so the sun don't shine where the weeds would otherwise grow, come back 3 months later, and you will have a couple hundred dollars of squash on your hands.

Fair Use

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people are missing the more important issue here and in related cases.

Farmers are growing seeds on what in any "licensure" of Monsanto seeds remains the farmer's property, maintained by the farmer's equipment and chemicals the farmer purchases, and harvested with equipment owned by the farmer. Monsanto is attempting to enforce a license agreement which denies the farmer the right to do as he wishes with what is produced by the seeds he has "licensed" from Monsanto.

I'm sorry Monsanto, but when I grow something on my land, by the work of my hands and the work of my family, it sure as hell is mine and ours. It is not yours.

Yes you can raise it. Yes you can kill it. But you can't give it to me and tell me that you own whatever I produce from the mixing of my labor with it.

How far will we let this go? This is artificial scarcity at its worst. They are telling the lie that what is free and plentiful is theirs and scarce.

There is no greater lie than this. It is told by the proprietary software industry. it is told by the music industry. It is told by the movie industry. It is told by the publishing industry. It is told by Monsanto.

When will this end?

When will we draw the line and declare that what is free is free and what is plentiful is plentiful? When will we do this and feed those who need it? When will we draw the line and declare that a man ought to own the product of his hard labor - the things of blood and sweat?

Things are not as they should be.

They are far from it.

Re:Fair Use

[hackwrench]

Except this is where it gets confusing because, see, those genes are the product of Monsato's hard labor, and here you are telling them that they don't own it.

And therefore....

[Anonymous Coward]

...a witch!

Re:Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[oogoliegoogolie]

"Schmeiser barely had heard of Monsanto before 1998,". What? A 72 year old farmer? He said that?

Why is that so hard to believe? Almost all family farmers use their own grain for planting so they won't interact with Monsanto in that situation. When they buy weed spray they buy products like Roundup, Treflan, and Avadex and they don't look at the label just to memorize that it was made by Monsanto. And when they buy fertlizer they want the cheapest 24-24-30 fertilizer and they don't care if it comes form the Wheat Pool, Cargil, or Co-Op.

And this has WHAT to do with the parent post?

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

Ridiculous

[tkrotchko]

You shouldn't be able to patent life forms.

The implications of this are staggering taken to its logical conclusion and man's increasing ability to generate variations of life.

I think the concept is abhorant, but then, I don't consider corporate "rights" to be an object of religious veneration.

Don't be silly

[tkrotchko]

"you have to have it be government-funded, and then you end up with socialism."

Socialism isn't the opposite of capitalism.

Particularly in the real world where there are no capitalist economies and no socialist economies.

Monsanto should loose.

[theLOUDroom]

This is a pretty clear example of why you should NEVER be able to patent DNA.

At least one developing nation (South Africa, I think) has already outlawed GE crops, because of the IP concerns involved. What would happen to S.A. if these crops spread on their own and became the dominant species?

The developing nation would no longer be able to grow any food without paying royalties to Monsanto, which they couldn't afford. People would starve. Look at what happend with S.A. and AIDs drugs. I think that showed pretty clearly how little respect some companies have for life.

You should be able to patent a process for modifying DNA. You should never be able to patent the actual organism. If this means that you can get corporate funding for X, oh well. Apply for a grant.

Hell, what happens if someone else patents your DNA? Do you have to pay them royalties if you want to have kids? This is stupid.

BTW, someone else patenting your DNA isn't as unlikely as you might think. It's not like Monsanto developed the DNA for all their crops from scratch. What happens when you participate in some successful cancer/AIDS/whatever research, where they find you have just the right gene they need?

Re:Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[Cyno01]

I've never heard of Monsanto before this article, and i've read tons of magazine articles and stuff about GM foods, i'm sure the name has come up, but not in any memorable context.

an alternative

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchy After Leftism

Patents to Gene Therapy

[behemot]

Now that there is growing talk of gene therapy for humans, these cases will be of more consequence than IP and agriculture alone.

Suppose your body has been subjected some years from now to patented gene therapy.
a) what kind of usage restrictions would companies dare to claim on their IP? Will it be possible that they'll ask you to remove the patented gene from your body if, for example, you stopped paying them monthly treatment fees?
More likely,
will they introduce combinations of "gene therapy+required antibiotics" similar to what happens with crop seeds [when you buy a GM crop because it is resistant to an, also patented, herbicide]. The implications would be that your survival could be at risk if you stop taking the supplemental medications that make it possible for you to live with the "therapeutic" gene. By raising the prices of the supplement a pharmacorp could "drive out of business" gene therapy patients who no longer could pay for the supplement or (more likely) loot the treasury if the patients are on Medicare. Would any representative dare to vote against dishing out funding for the supplement if this vote threatens lives of current patients?
b) What if the therapeutic genes find their way into your children (even if they weren't supposed to). Would your children have to pay fees to the pharmacorp? Would you have to pay a license fee to have children?

In case-based judicial systems current developments in GM patent cases will set the stage for what scale of wrongdoing will be allowed in the future when GM touches us even more personally.

Is It Just Me...

[Esion Modnar]

...or does this seem like the plot to the next big John Grisham novel? (and/or Robin Cook genetic thriller?)

A comment in a pdf

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.soilfoodweb.com/phpweb/pdf.php?pdf=Feb0 2.pdf

The last 2 pages talk about Monsanto.

Re:risks need rewards

[hackwrench]

I'd rather people take risks that come with their own rewards than creating rewards. It seems to me that I see too many created rewards and not enough inherent.

Dreg

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto is pure evil, they are so desperately trying to get people to use their GM crops that they contaminate farmland with their patented seed, then turn around test the farmers crops then want money because they say the farmer is using their seeds, this is one company that needs to be burnt to the ground.

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[Realistic_Dragon]

A wise man once said:

When capitalism works, you can't tell the diference from communism.

The problem is that both systems are open to huge abuses - just it's slightly harder to abuse capitalism in a manner which will stop it perpetuating (as has been demonstrated rather well). In a long run you need a liberal mix of both systems to form a sustainable and fair system of government.

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[Tiro]

You're mistaking capitalism for monarchy. Monarchies arise out of lawlessness when feudal lords accumulate enough power to form city-states, which then coalesce into nation-states, of which they are the monarchs.

Read Hendrik Spruyt and Immanuel Wallerstein.

As Spruyt argues, the best early example of the sovereign state came in France when the Parisian king aligned with the bourgeois city-dweller merchant class in order to vest power away from the feudal lords. The feudal lords did not build or control the city-states; the city-states were something of an anti-system movement.

According to Wallerstein, the dominance of the modern world-system of sovereign states came from its spread by European imperialism, which was very much driven by the capitalist forces in the European core of the world-system.

Read Utopistics for Wallerstein's very insightful account of what the next world-system should be like. We are in the midst of the end of the current capitalist system, as capitalists have run out of markets and face declining profits from industrial production (due to increased competition).

Bookmark

[TakenName]

Mod down, ignore, sorry.

If this is accurate..

[Kwil]

..then I don't see what the big deal in the Court is.

It sounds like Monsanto's beef should be with the guy they had the contract with initially if their claims are true. I mean, it's ludicrous to think that Schmeiser has a home grown gene lab on the back 40, went and read Monsanto's patent, and then just popped into the shack and whipped some up. So how the hell could he "infringe on the patent"?

easy

[Uberbah]

you patent the engeneering process for whatever you're making. So Masanto (or whatever) could still create their modified seeds but couldn't sue some farmer into the ground for collecting seeds that blew onto his land.

Insanity. Just imagine...

[GojiraDeMonstah]

50 to 100 years from now when company "X" is granted a patent on blue roses. Some start growing in your garden one day, that'll be $19.95/month please, or we'll have the ATF come burn your yard down (and kill your family if you resist or live in Waco).

Mendel's descendents (OK, he was a monk, so relatives' descendents) will be sued retroactively for IP theft, every farmer with a spreadsheet will be put in Federal Prison for life in violation of the DMCA.

I voted for these guys when, exactly?

Pure unadulterated bullshit

[lpq]

Monsanto should have to pay the farmer for damages because their genetically modified cra^hop has contaminated his land. Now he can't grow a normal crop that isn't tainted with their seed and who knows what effect their genetics could have even on other crops. Could their canola pollen cross pollinate with other species? I've seen flowers in my garden a dark rose single layer
petal rose and a light pink multi layer rose cross pollinate over a year through no effort of myself and the next year I had a black multi-petal rose.

I was utterly fascinated how easy it was for them to cross pollinate. Now if a company comes along and has artificially genetically altered crops that contaminate mine -- that have _tresspassed_ on my land, Monsanto should be paying full damages.

If Monsanto wants the crop destroyed, I could live with that, but I also say that they have to pay the farmer full price for what the farmer's land would have produced and give the farmer non-contaminated seeds to restart their crop. I could see Monsanto being liable for potentially years of lost profits if they want to force the farmer to destroy his crop.

I don't like the idea of forced destruction --- but if that's the decision, monsanto should pay full restitution until the farm is back to normal production. They can't have it both ways.

How is it that there is so much injustice in the world?

Re:Canola by any other name

[Anonymous Coward]

LOL I don't think the majority of slashdot readers are going to understand that joke. Canola is better known as "rape seed."

"Burn her, burn her!"

[torpor]

He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

The patent is the cause

[haraldm]

It is utter crap to patent these seeds at these conditions to begin with. You have to deal with the causes not the symptoms. The US judicial systems has begun to first and foremost feed the lawyers, which is why such cases can come up at all.

Re:The patent is the cause

[Anonymous Coward]

The case is in Canada, not the US.

It's nice of you to bash the US when the only thing involved is Monsanto being a US Company.

Good Luck Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact, the genes are made to be dispersed in nature ( via pollen, birds, mouses,... ). In my garden there are lots of wild plants which came from everywhere. That's the way life works.

Monsanto is trying to establish a law that forbids nature to do its job. Good luck to them

Furthermore there is a bug that will hit them sooner or later:

1 - Someone, e.g. from a competing company, finds a field with "Monsanto" GM crop
2 - He wait for the seeds to be mature...
3 - And takes some samples
4 - Then he disperses them *everywhere*

Re:Good Luck Monsanto

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto could even be sued for polluting Bio labelled crops

IP

[WhiteChocolate42]

OK, this is one of the only websites where I see the abbreviation "IP" and can never be immediately sure if we're talking Internet Protocol or Intellectual Property. How about we cut down a little on the abbreviations, so that I DHTTAFITM (Don't Have To Think At Five In The Morning)?

Montsanto is guilty

[Rayder]

Anyone of you remember the horror movie "The Omen" ?

It's an old movie from 1976, where the antichrist arrives to earth and tries to dominate the world through a company that monopolices world's food production.

Surprisingly Montsanto is trying to use the same path to world domination..., Maybe they saw the movie also.

I'm not saying Montsanto is the antichrist, but they methods are somewhat devilish.

On the next Jerry Springer Show

[whitehat]

Which of these sterile seeds is the father of my crop? Did the doctors tell you that you can't have children or do your papers say it?

Well, the doctors lied! You are NOT sterile and your patent is void.... Step outside and pay your child support!

Is this funnny.... Or insightful ?

[aepervius]

Frankly how a farmer can loose against a company because possible natural effect brought seed from a field onto his own ?

AFAIK in france if one of your plant leave seed/fruit/whatever on the neighbourgh field, you loose all right on those which become the other people propriety.

Re:Is this funnny.... Or insightful ?

[zakezuke]

if one of your plant leave seed/fruit/whatever on the neighbourgh field, you loose all right on those which become the other people propriety

I can see that being an issue in france, as they have a decent wine industry, an industry that is dependent on diffrent varities of grapes.

Assuming a seed can be protected under typical IP laws... one could in theory plant this seed protected under IP laws on respective farms and force farmers to pay you royalities on this seed that was brought in through no fault of your own.

Unfortunatly, this may be reality... though personaly I don't think it would be very enforcable in reality. Assuming seed was brought in via natural means, a farmer really has no choice in the matter. It would be diffrent if respective plants could be non-distructivly tested to verify they are free from copyright.

Unless the copyright holders have a means of actually identifying the plants on a massive scale, and provide the man power to remove the plants, as it's their own damn fault for allowing IP being distrubited via wind and animals, I personaly feel that these cases should be thrown out of court. It's a fucking plant.

When dealing with Satan, read the fine print

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

The impression I get is that perhaps, sometimes, it's better to die.

But when do you know? How can you tell? Ten years of court cases later?

Re:Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[dan.hunt]

Everyone who farms reads "The Western Producer" or "Grain News", watches T.V. or listens to CBC radio and or CJVR radio. In the spring and in the fall, you cannot help but learn more about Monsanto and all of their products. You may not care that Kraft makes a lot of your food, but you can't say "I have barely heard of Kraft" All the 72 year old farmers I know could not say that they had not heard of Monsanto. I could take a poll this morning but they would laugh, and may make a comparison to a dog's hind leg. This case does not need to be reviewed. I don't want Roundup sprayed on our food prior to harvest, but I am not going to stop eating bread.

Re:Who's Monsanto? Who is telling the truth?

[dan.hunt]

I live sixty miles from Bruno Saskatchewan, in a small town. I bet I have owned half a dozen ball caps from Monsanto. "Brown bagging" seed is a problem, and it is not going to go away. If you do something illegal and you get caught, you pay the price. If you admit you are wrong, you don't get famous.

pesticide resistent crops become superweeds

[DABANSHEE]

all of a sudden they'll feralise into the natural enviroment & take over forests 'n national parks, like aquarium plants from South America & garden ornementals from Africa do In Australia.

& there will be no controls to take 'em out

The correct decision

[ShieldW0lf]

Destroy the IP rights of seed companies. Sorry, find another business model, end of story.

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[GlassHeart]

Capitalism, OTOH, is where the government establishes a framework in which a sufficient number of individual actors compete to provide goods and services, but without forming enough power to become market-states.

That isn't enough, and we're beginning to see hints of what's lacking in our culture.

Even in competitive Capitalism, the end goal is to maximize profit. Profit is not a bad thing, but the maximization of profit often brings about bad side effects. Companies dumping toxic waste into the river, lying executives, laying off many and overworking the rest, etc. Many of these are not only harmful to its employees and neighbors, but to the long term viability of the company itself. The need to look good in a quarterly report can drive an otherwise sane company to near suicidal stunts like shipping products before they are ready.

I'm not intelligent enough to have an alternative. I just would like to see a more moderate version where corporations can be content with some profit, and not have to squeeze every near-term dollar out of its employees, customers, and neighbors.

Patend Killer Bee,s

[Anonymous Coward]

ok i think putting a patend on killer bee,s is needed. and is any one gets stung by one of my patened bee,s i,ll sue them for miss useing them.

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[istartedi]

So what you're really saying is that you want stronger environmental enforcement, regulations that favor less strenuous work-weeks, and corporate executives that think long-term.

The first two are political issues that have been hashed out among mainstream political actors for well over a century. If you really care about them, join one of the many groups that work to push these issues in the direction you seek, but be mindful of the fact that there's an equilibrium that's been collectively decided among many participants. Less work? Fewer nice things. Sometimes efforts to avoid damaging the environment can lead to more damage. How do you discourage pollution from heating oil? Tax it? Put expensive emission controls on heaters? Guess what happens? You end up having to subsidize more people, or people end up burning wood which is even worse for the environment. Many of us hate to admit it, but much of the system as it is has been fine-tuned to the point where wholesale change would do more harm than good. That's not to say more tuning won't help; but it's tuning--not an overhaul.

As for executives not thinking ahead, well... time should take care of the ones that don't... unless it turns out that people can't actually predict that far in the future, in which case "thinking ahead" is really just bunk.

Last, but not least, if the current system really bothers you that much, join a commune or "slack". I slacked for a while. Eventually I decided that $10k/year and a bike was not really any better than $50k/year and a car. That's what happens to most idealists... except for the ones that manage to attract a following and lead it to mass suicide. :)

Free will

[ChrisMaple]

"trick people into thinking they have free will" ... So you didn't use free will to write your comment? You were forced to write it, or tricked into writing it? You don't believe what you wrote? ANY argument against the existence of free will is self-contradictory.

Patents don't last forever

[ChrisMaple]

After about 20 years he should be able to plant these seeds freely.

Profits

[ChrisMaple]

A company that cannot make a profit will go out of business. A person who cannot make a profit will die (or live by theft).

Capitalism is

[ChrisMaple]

a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. (Ayn Rand)

What are your sources?

[DrMorpheus]

There are several problems with your reply.

1. What is the source of your quotes? For all we know you just made those quotes up, care to provide the actual publication(s) that the quotes came from?
2. Even if these are actual quotes the fact that they are forty years old hardly makes them relevant to CBS now.
3. O.K., that's maybe one television news program that's slanted. One. Maybe.

Finally, conservative critics all seem to forget one important fact that is inescapable:

The Media is only as liberal as the corporations that own them.

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[GlassHeart]

So what you're really saying is that you want stronger environmental enforcement, regulations that favor less strenuous work-weeks, and corporate executives that think long-term.

No, I'm really not. What I'd like to see is a more moderate form of capitalism, coming not from external pressures and regulation, but from internal philosophy. I'd like to see profit remain a goal, because economic growth really is important, and competition really does keep companies on their toes and makes things better.

The problem I have is that today, profits need to be maximized. $13B in profits is infinitely better than $12.5B. So much better that it's worth laying 30,000 people for. I'm talking about capitalists - most of them, at least - becoming more content with the returns on their investments.

I'm not only talking about the rich people. When we sign up for your 401(k) (US pre-tax retirement investment plan), and we only look at the ROI number, we're part of the problem.

Last, but not least, if the current system really bothers you that much, join a commune or "slack".

I don't want to do that. I enjoy working and making a good living. I just don't want to be pursuing the last dollar or cent I can get my hands on, ignoring everything I have to do to get it.

Re:This is what you get when you support Capitalis

[istartedi]

What I'd like to see is a more moderate form of capitalism, coming not from external pressures and regulation, but from internal philosophy

So become a preacher.

I just don't want to be pursuing the last dollar or cent I can get my hands on, ignoring everything I have to do to get it.

So don't.