Slashdot Mirror


Monsanto Wins Case Over Patented Canola

c writes "The Supreme Court of Canada says that you're liable if a plant with a patented gene infects your property. If you recall, Schmeiser claims (and research supports) that Roundup Ready canola seeds infected his own crops. Monsanto prosecuted him for patent infringement." Some other links: Monsanto's press release, Globe and Mail story.

12 of 599 comments (clear)

  1. Just a little factoid that may make a difference. by Thalia · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Schmeissers admitted that they were aware it was RoundupReady Canola (having tested it specifically), and then they saved the seeds & sowed it the next year in their fields. THIS is what they were being sued over, not the fact that the seeds that blew onto their property germinated on their own. It was the seed saving, of known patented seeds that was considered an infringement.

    And you may note, if you read the opinion, that the issue addressed was only the patentability of genetically modified seeds.

    Thalia

  2. For you city folk... by 0xA · · Score: 4, Informative

    Canola is the very definition of hearty crop. It is a 3 foot high plant with yellow flowers and once it is established in an area it is almost impossible to get rid of. One of my earliest memories is listeneing to my dad complain about what the canola field across the road did to our lawn. I have absolutely no doubt that this poor guy never touched "Roundup Ready" seed in his life, he didn't have to.

  3. A temporary setback... by canwaf · · Score: 5, Informative

    I followed this case quite closely. Despite our highest court ruling in favour of Monsanto, all it would take is this to become an issue in our upcoming federal election (will be called this Sunday), and our patent law will be changed. Once the law is changed, the Monsanto case's precedent will be tossed aside, and we will get back on the right track.

    Our (Canada's) patent law is quite out of date, it does not address the issues regarding patenting of genome, plants, organisms, and other living matter. Once it is brought up to date (not when, it would be political suicide for all parties not to protect farmers like Schmeiser), we will get things right.

    All parties which are running in every riding have to deal with this the correct way.

    - The new Conservative Party of Canada will stand to loose grassroots support if they do not protect the rights of farmers to save seed. Although I wouldn't vote for them because they have yet to release their platform... shuuush... they don't want people to know that yet.

    - The Liberal Party of Canada will stand to loose support in Ontario where Schmeiser was situated, although it is slipping because the provincial government did a 180 in the first budget.

    - The NDP hates GE food, says there is no viable market for the stuff, it should be labelled, etc etc. They would definitely protect the rights of the farmer to save the seed.

    - And the Green Party. This is a given, they don't like GE foods, they don't like GE anything, because it destroys biodiversity.

    This is just a temporary setback. The justices here did not fully comprehend the severity of their decision, but they were forced to work within the framework of the laws given to them by Parliament in 1985. Things have changed, and this act of Parliament will be apart of our next election, and will be dealt with the next government.

  4. Another corporate victory. by sekensirazu · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's refreshing to see slashdotters responding (for the most part) on the obvious absurdity of this situation.

    IM(not so)HO, Monsanto is crap.

    Their Roundup Ready agreement, required for people to use their seed, includes the following provisions:

    1) a $5/lb. "technology fee" for using the seed.
    2) the right for Monsanto to come onto your property, unannounced, and investigate your crops for three or so years after you start using their seed.
    3) a ridiculous liability for any damage due to violations of the agreement. The farmer is liable for 10s of times of damage actually caused. I think it is 100, but I'm not 100% sure on this point. This includes accidental cross-pollination of others' crops.

    (What's even funnier is that research shows these crops neither require fewer pesticides nor produce greater yields.)

    Additionally, because of the new trade regulations and the exporting of Western-style trade and intellectual property agreements across the world, six corporations (Cargill, Monsanto, etc...) virtually control the world grain trade. For example, most countries now, including the UK, there are seed registries from which a farmer must choose seed to grow. Trading of seed, a long-time tradition and promotion of biodiversity, is now illegal in the countries that subscribe to these agreements.

    Also, after a "mysterious" adulteration too big for any one farmer to orchestrate in India, millions of livelihoods were lost because the government outlawed traditional mustard seed in favor of imported oils... All the while Monsanto is also engineering seeds that genetically terminate after one generation of crops, which would bankrupt the farmers in poorer countries bound by corporate legislation.

    In short, corporations have seriously fucked entire local economies with gestapo policies like the one this article is reporting. It's less than funny, and a little bit more than serious.

    If you want more information on this topic, I suggest Vandana Shiva's Stolen Harvest. She is a leading activist on these issues, and the book is a fascinating read.

  5. Re:Misleading headline by Zach+Fine · · Score: 4, Informative

    FWIW, Percy Schmeiser denies deliberately planting Monsanto seed, and states that Monsanto is lying outright about the percentage of his crops that were contaminated:

    http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Monsanto%20Lying.htm

    He said, she said?

  6. Both sides in the wrong by untermensch · · Score: 4, Informative

    I very strongly disagree with the idea of being able to patent genetically altered crops, and I'm very suspicious about the motives of companies like Monsanto, but Schmeiser is obviously lying here. A few seeds from your neighbours field blowing across the road can't grow into the volume of crop that he had.

    I'm from the same province as Schmeiser and I heard about him long before this whole Monsanto business. A friend of mine worked on a construction project around the area where Shmeiser lives, and Schmeiser was part of a coalition that was concerned about the effects of this project. He was completely uninformed about the entire project, and was an embarassment and liability to the people that were on the same side of the argument as him. Also, if you've ever seen any of the TV interviews with other farmers from around his area you can watch them roll their eyes and shake their heads in digust as soon as his name is mentioned.

  7. Re:So, it spreads itself... by sporktoast · · Score: 4, Informative

    Surprised isn't the word. Try pissed. For close to a decade, now.

    I would have thought that genetically modified crops would be unable to reproduce by some manipulation. I'm quite surprised to hear from the articles and research linked that this is not the case.
    You're thinking about Monsanto's PR-failing terminator seeds. The doo-doo started hitting the fan for them in 1998. They were the ones that would produce sterile seed unless treated with a Monsanto-owned chemical. The problem was that it was possible for the new gene to cross via pollen into neighbors crops. It's one thing to have your organic corn become valueless (and get a hefty legal judgement against you for "stealing") because the wind blows your neighbor's crop pollen your way. It is a completely different thing to discover what happened only next spring, when the only thing coming up in the back 40 is weeds because your saved organic seed *somehow* became sterile.

    To their credit, Monsanto DID voluntarily declare they wouldn't use the terminator genes. For an undeclared period. But they've have been granted the patents on them, so it's an ace they can still play.

    --
    In a related story, the IRS has recently ruled that the cost of Windows upgrades can NOT be deducted as a gambling loss.
  8. Percy by Cosine5000 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before I say this and start an attack on me let me preface with; I hate Monsanto, they are pretty much pure evil, I come from a farm near Percy's and have had to deal with Monsanto my whole life. That having been said... Percy Schmeiser is full of it, it's really a shame that this case was the first one to test these laws as it was a waste. Let me tell you what Percy did, he GREW Roundup Ready Rapeseed WITHOUT a contract to do so. Monstanto found out (through really really nefarious ways, more on those if anyone cares to know) and nailed him. He said that the seed must have BLOWN into his crop from the neighbor... the only problem there is it's a little tough to believe that an entire field's worth of RRR blew over at once, and planted itself underground, into nice, neat rows... and just enough for that one field with ZERO spillover into ANY adjacent field. I've seen the field, I know Percy, he's nice, if a little odd, but is totally full of it. I sheeepishly add once again... Monstanto sucks. Cosine

  9. Re:So, it spreads itself... by Zarquil · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's called the Terminator gene and was pulled from the commercial market by Monsanto in 1999, if I recall correctly.

    There were several arguments for and against the commercial use of the terminator gene.

    Pro: It would prevent the propagation of potentially dangerous or foreign genes in plants from being passed generation to generation. Theoretically it should have formed a method of controlling where genetically modified plants would be spread.

    Of course, this was argued as simply a way for Monsanto to sell new seeds to the farmers year after year, creating a reliance of the farmer upon Monsanto seed. (The thought of all future seed carrying the terminator gene is highly improbable.)

    "Brown bag" seed (seed from the previous year's crop) can actually be used to very good effect by farmers. The good ones know their land and their micro-environment much better than any Agriculturalist or lab tech in a Monsanto lab.

    There were also questions of efficacy of the terminator gene. A spontaneous mutation (let's pull a number out of my ass, 0.00001%) of plants can add up to an awful large number of viable seeds over an entire field of crops.

    More importantly, the selection process for those viable seeds remains as easy as leaving the land untouched for the subsequent year and harvesting any crop that re-grows.

    Probably for the best that we didn't put our hopes on the terminator gene commercially, although it does remain a very important tool in crop research.

    - Zarq

  10. The whole story of the Monsanto claim: by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Quite simply a farmer claims tht Monsanto's seeds had spread to his farms without his knowledge. The case was not whether or not he should pay for seeds blown on to his crop, but whether he acquired these seeds illegally or not.
    His crop was about 95% Monsanto wheat. That's why he lost.

    --

    Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
  11. Bullpucky story: Overstated/Incorrect implication by sudog · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the actual Supreme Court decision, which you can read at the following location:

    Here at Lexum

    Tests of their 1998 canola crop revealed that 95-98 per cent was Roundup Ready Canola.

    I hardly think that seed "infected" the farmer's crop. If more than 90% of the Canola seeds were genetically modified, it seems obvious to me (as it was to the courts) that the farmer knew or ought to have known that the seeds he was using were the roundup-ready variety created by Monsanto.

    I was shocked to consider the possibility that the Canadian Supreme Courts (whose opinions I find I've almost always agreed with after reading the decision) would do such a thing, and was relieved to find that Slashdot was, yet again, being Slashdot and over-sensationalising the issue.

    I would also like to note that the patent does NOT cover the plant, only the specific gene involved, and that, according to the decision, the farmer may have had available to him a useful defense of innocent intention. Read:

    Thus, a defendant in possession of a patented invention in commercial circumstances may rebut the presumption of use by bringing credible evidence that the invention was neither used, nor intended to be used, even by exploiting its stand-by utility.

    Seems obvious to me.

    The cool part was that the farmer didn't have to pay Monsanto's significant legal expenses.

    Move to Canada--we're free here, and our courts don't fuck us unless we fuck someone else first!

  12. Some choice quotes from the actual decision by Nagash · · Score: 4, Informative
    Some quotes from the actual decision:
    • Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. (from The Salient Facts, paragraph 6)
    • The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop (Mosanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118). (further along in the same paragraph)
    • Tests of their 1998 canola crop revealed that 95-98 per cent was Roundup Ready Canola. The respondents brought an action against the appellants for patent infringement. The trial judge found the patent to be valid and allowed the action, concluding that the appellants knew or ought to have known that they saved and planted seed containing the patented gene and cell and that they sold the resulting crop also containing the patented gene and cell. (from the beginning of the decision)
    • In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize from the outset that we are not concerned here with the innocent discovery by farmers of "blow-by" patented plants on their land or in their cultivated fields. Nor are we concerned with the scope of the respondents' patent or the wisdom and social utility of the genetic modification of genes and cells - a practice authorized by Parliament under the Patent Act and its regulations. (from Introduction, paragraph 2)


    The write-up is inflammatoy and flat-out wrong. Whether you are for or against genetically engineered/modifed foods, please get the facts right and don't mislead people about a very important legal decision.

    Woz