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.
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.
I imagine the purists who want full organic food may be surprised that thier food may be cross-polinated with a genetic crop.
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
I guess this proves that we south-side folks aren't the only ones whose judiciary occasionally suffers from recto-cranial inversion, as shown by these two statements from Monsanto's own press release:
Monsanto originally pursued this case in the Federal Court of Canada because Mr. Schmeiser knowingly infringed Monsanto's patents on Roundup Ready technology by planting 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola without paying the required license fee for using the technology.
Ok, you say he purposely planted a strain of seed whose sole claim to fame is that Monsanto's herbicides don't kill it. But then:
However, the Supreme Court determined there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Schmeiser intentionally made use of the benefits provided by Monsanto's technology by spraying his crop with Roundup.
What? The guy planted this bastardized seed, supposedly on purpose, then didn't do the one thing that the seed is good for -- spraying with poison?
No wonder Monsanto sued. They're pi^h^h upset that he didn't buy the matching 55-gallon drums of Roundup. They couldn't have cared less if the guy used the patented seed -- they'd probably give it away for free if they could force the recipients to use their also-patented herbicide.
I'm waiting for someone to swipe some of these Frankenseeds and create Roundup-resistant dandelions. That'll teach 'em!
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Perhaps Air? Sorry, you have to have a license to breathe that air! Patenting genes and software are just baaaaad ideas IMHO.
Shouldn't this situation be reversed? The defendant should sue the other guy for damaging his crops!
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
A local man injured by stray gunfire was arrested for stealing bullets.
Unknown host pong.
"By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the patented cells without license, [the Schmeisers] thus deprived Monsanto of the full enjoyment of its monopoly." Even better is that for some reason my brain was switched off and I kept reading Monsanto as Microsoft.
in bed.
This really does seem to me to be a sticky issue...
It's impossible for a farmer to build a barrier to stop unwanted seeds from falling in. That's why they have to rely on weed-killing products and such to kill off what they didn't plant. Of course, the most common weed-killing product being RoundUp, and this being something designed to allow the canola to be ready for the use of RoundUp, that solution just plain isn't gonna work.
On the other hand, patents exist to allow companies to profit from their innovations. If Monsanto's patented genes are allowed to escape into the wild, then their monopoly privledge is lost and there goes any reason to create such innovations.
If anything, the burden should be placed on the farmers using the licensed seeds to control their plants so that they don't endup allowing seeds to go "into the wild".
This problem is only going to get worse before it gets better. There's a worse case that hasn't been encountered yet. If the consumer marketplace ends up with genetically modified apples that aren't intentionally seedless, then who knows where those apple seeds might wind up. If that modification turns up to be dominant, then non-modified apple trees are going to have a fight with the force of evolution.
Schmeiser claims that Roundup Ready canola seeds infected his own crops
The courts, on the other hand, found that the appellants knew or ought to have known that they saved and planted seed containing the patented gene.
This "they contaminated my crops" claim is purely for the benefit of the media; he knew that he was planting Monsanto canola.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
Would it be legal for someone to come up with a material that only kills Roundup Ready©® plants?
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
So, wind and bees are now Agents of Intellectual Property Theft.
Give me a fucking break.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Can't move to Canada now if Bush is reelected. Is Russia really the land of the free now? allofmp3.com hasn't been shut down yet.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Somehow, I think the environmentalist interests are lined up on the wrong side of this football.
The should have been against this ruling. Effectively, this allows the marketers of genetically modified plants to not place any limits on where the seeds containing their genes go. If they naturally blow into another farmers farm and "infect" their crops, then future generations of their crops will by evolution inherit the modification.
Instead, they seem to be supporting the farmer on the "anything that costs Monsanto profits is good for us" strategy. That's just not right sometimes... any financial loss for Monsanto might slow down their research, but it's certainly not enough to stop the company. The goal should be smart regulation, not elimination...
According to this court, the most advanced patentable life form is higher than canola but lower than a mouse. We will therefore need another ruling before we know if Supreme Court Justices are patentable or not.
--
E_NOSIG
Frankenfood giant Monsanto sued itself today in what can only be described as absolute lunacy.
Claiming that the genetically modified corn it produced can reproduce itself without human assistance, Monsanto has sued itself for intellectual property infringement under the DMCA.
"It's clear that the corn is a decryption device because it can take the code we gave it and illegally copy itself," said Monsanto's legal head Hebert R. Pufinstuf. "The fact that this deprives us of profits leaves us only one recourse; we must sue ourselves for the profits lost by producing reproducing corn."
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
May 21, 2021: AdmrlTaco writes "The Supreme Court of Canada says that you're liable if a human clone with a patented gene infects your property, citing Monsanto vs Schmeiser."
<insert witty linux comment here>
Farmers in the UK are going to have to be very careful over this one. "Organically" produced crops have a premium price here and one of the requirements to be classified as organic is no GM. If a neighbouring farmer's GM crop gets into an organic farmer's crop, there could well be financial penalties if the source of the contamination can be proven.
Deleted
This has given me an idea for my next evil ploy for world domination:
*insane cackling*
heh reminds me of software accidentally infected with GPL code
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
1. Patent any common technique worms use to spread
2. Sue every microsoftie in Canada
3. Profit
Something that is specifically designed to self replicate, does EXACTLY what it is meant to do and the person who owns the land and air it happens on is the one sued? Backwards thinking, if you ask me.
Lets say, I make a robot that makes an exact replica of itself from simple nuts and bolts. The way it makes a replica of itself is patented. One day that robot escapes and makes 100 copies of itself over at the local hardware store. Does that mean THEY are liable for my ineptness? I can sue them?
In my mind, it should be the other way around, the guy who had this patented crop end up on his land should be able to sue the patent holders for screwing up his property.
Burn Hollywood Burn
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.
So if we ever get to the point of inserting modfied DNA into the human genome to "cure" mutations that exist in family lines, will parents have to pay royalties in order to have children? Will it be on a child by child basis or will it be based on the number of attempts at insemmination? If you have a low sperm or egg count, will you get a discount?
I make my face look like this and concerned words come out.
The other interesting factoid is that the damages awarded were $0 because the Schmeissers did not spray their crops with RoundUp, thus they did not receive any benefit from the gene.
please check the article -- this farmer had more than 1000 acres planted and 95% was roundup ready canola. You still think it just "blew there"?
I've yet to see a more trollish headline...
Regardless of how you feel about this case, this guy wasn't caught with a few plants that had blown into his field. He was collecting the seeds from the patented plant and planting them himself.
Personally, I think (shudder) Monsanto deserved to win this case. The farmer was infringing on Monsanto's patent, and this case really is as simple as that.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
Although in the USA, the day may be closer than we think: we have the Great and Wonderful Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In response to DNA evidence that cleared a man on death row, he said that mere innocence is no grounds to overturn a judgement.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
It's already happening:
7
http://www.cropchoice.com/leadstry.asp?recid=87
You've got to laugh. Who would have thought that evolution would be developing it's own roundup resistance. Damn that Charles Darwin.
Maybe the Monsanto executives are creationists.
Deleted
So what happens when human genetic engeneering comes to fruition and a company owns the genes that you have in your body? Will you then be sued for having a child if the patented genes show up in his or her genome? Or will the child itself be brought to court as a being whose very existance violates intellectual property laws?
While this does seem a little alarmist, it pays to consider the extremes of our laws and policies before those extremes are reached. It would be a great failing of our legistative and legal system if such a case ever even came close to actuality.
In light of it's recent success, Monsanto plans on suing the Sun, rain and Canadian soil for growing canola plants without proper patent licencing. A spokesman was quoted as saying "The forces of nature must be brought to respect our intelectual property."
I mean, L Ron Fucking Hubbard, how can you ban the replication of a self-replicating device! I'm sorry but that is just plain asinine. Not all ventures in this world are profitable and if I have to wait a few more years for Government funded research to develop this these things, then it won't bother me a bit.
One important tidbit from this story that the poster failed to mention was that this ruling also eliminated the payment of damages, because the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant received any additional profit as a result of the use of the patented seeds.
I quote: Since there was no evidence that he sprayed Roundup herbicide to reduce the weeks [sic], the majority said, there is no way to conclude that he gained any financial advantage.
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.
Isn't that like a rapist billing the rape victim for sexual favors? Or an oil company having a pipeline burst and flood a farmer's field so they charge the farmer for the oil rather than clean up the mess? In what sick and twisted Universe does this make any sense? Justice isn't blind it's a drooling moron.
Canadian Supreme court upholds $25,000,000 against rape victim for patent infringement.
Jane Doe was raped on May 12, 2021 by Andrew Luster, VI. This rape caused Doe to become Pregnant with Luster's child. Since Luster was generically enhanced, and the enhancement was patented, this caused the Doe baby and the process used by Doe to create this child to infringe on Luster's patent.
The court was not convinced that Luster was himself liable for the patent violation or gave consent to the use of the license since the genetic material was obtained by rape and not by a mutually consented transfer.
The court did note that Luster was convicted and served 3 years for the rape and considered that sufficient payment for his negligence in the case.
Fight Spammers!
..what we are surpirsed is that 99% of the population has no clue about the food they eat other than it comes from the supermarket automagically.
We've been lobbying against this stuff for years, for that very reason, it infects our stuff, and then they claim ownership? Huh? Howzzat again?
Just wait. If you are just hearing about roundup ready and cross pollination and infection, wait to you hear about terminator genes and cross pollination. Ohh, that's a goody. Makes a plant live one year, then all it's offspring is infertile. Think on that one for a bit. Think about the winds, how they cross borders, let alone mere fields and counties. Give it a few years once they start using that sort of seed, you'll have one company "owning" the planets food supply, then their stuff will get borken and--not much food at all. It very easily could happen, you aren't stopping the wind.
Lotta groovy short term profits though, until that happens.
After that, can't say. Most likely world class famine at a minimum.
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.
Dismantle globally, renew locally.
I contracted at Monsanto for a few years in Grower Marketing Programs (http://www.fuelyourprofits.com is an example of a project I worked on). To get those seeds, you have to sign a contract with Monsanto, and you would be screwed if you used them in a manner inconsistent with your contractual obligation.
"It was the seed saving, of known patented seeds that was considered an infringement."
Patents gives one the right to reproduce something. When the object that is patented reproduces itself on MY land, then the resulting product is MINE. That simple. You have NEVER needed a license to USE a patented product. Don't let companies convice you that one does. Copyright people have already come close to convincing the US that you need a license to use software.
The goal of the plant is to grow and reproduce. When it does that, the patented object is doing EXACTLY what the company intened it to do and hence no patent protection should be violated. That simple.
Burn Hollywood Burn
A spokesman said "We're really sorry, what the hell were we thinking, we have no idea what the long term effects of this are, let alone being able to sensible make profit from it. We're sorry; really sorry."
A judge was heard to remark "You ignorant bastards. How dare you play stupid corporate games with the livelihood and future of substanical numbers of people? You bastards are going to fry."
When did I fall through the wormhole ?
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.
... for Monsanto to be sure their seeds "accidentally" end up on as many fields as possible.
Suppose some "radical" activist takes a bunch of patent-encumbered seeds and drops them from an airplane on all the canola fields in Canada. Now, every farm owes massive royalties to Monsanto. There are three possible resolutions to this situation: 1) Monsanto doesn't try to collect (improbable); 2) Monsanto tries to collect and bankrupts every farm in Canada, ruining the entire industry; 3) Monsanto tries to collect, and Canada is forced to provide a subsidy to pay for the settlements, in order to preserve the canola industry.
In any case, the whole deal would be completely fucked. It appears that Canada has just massively shot itself in the foot.
So, anybody got an airplane I can borrow?
Well, we are so VERY sorry, Mrs. Buttle.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
btw, if some of you think the next logical step is that Monsanto buys both farmers land and start their own company farm, think again, because in a lot of places in Canada (Saskatchewan in particular where the origional case happened), it is illegal for corperations to own farms.
It would not surprise me that the issues raised by this case become so severe, that the Supreme court eventuially overrules its own decision just to restore sanity to the legal system. Here is just a partial list of issues that are raised by this decision.
Do laws and legal precidents dealing with damage caused by livestock extend to patened plants?
Is the "I didn't know" defence become legitimate if it takes a highly trained expert and millions of dollars of equipment to determine if the plant has been pateneded or not?
What happenes if a natural plant is found with the same gene sequence?
what if someone cross breeds a plant with the same gene sequence?
Who is responsible when cross polination occurs in the wild? The owner of the nearest source of the patened plants, or the company who created the seed for not ensuring that is can reproduce normally?
What I can see hapening is that we will get more and more of these restricive IP laws and court cases untill people start complaning too loudly for the clueless politicians to ignore. The poly will then say, "but its out of our hands because its international law and trade restrictions will be placed on us unless we comply." A few years after that, some country will decide that the IP regeme is worse then any ammount of sanctions and change their IP laws to something sane. Shortly after that most other countries will fallow suit.
Correct, this was a case where he was liable for zero.
This almost sounds like a situation the anti-anything-Monsanto-does forces dreamed up because if they won they would have created another source of "major brand of weedkiller ready" seed that would have zeroed out the worth of the Roundup Ready Canola product's patent instantly. If they lost, oh well, at least they financial damage to them is matched by Monsanto because they each had to pay their own legal fees.
Better yet, this situation made Monsanto file the lawsuit to protect their patent, making them look like agressive plantiffs when really they were just bated into a setup where they had to file...
Maybe, they can even sue the states or the federal government for laying down the roads that permit such illegal distribution (inter-state, even [gasp!]) of improperly obtained genetically modified food substances.
That dripping sound you hear is lawyer drool.
>Roundup Ready canola seeds
FYI... There is no such thing as a canola plant or, by extension, canola seeds.
The term "canola" is a bastardization of "Canadian Oil", used by canadian growers in place of the less consumer-friendly name of the actual crop "rapeseed". The crop isn't refered to as canola until the oil is extracted.
So what you have here is "Roundup Ready Rapeseed", which sort of rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?
"Mr. Schmeiser, 74, cast himself as a farmer of the old school who habitually used seeds from previous crops to plant new canola....
He has steadfastly insisted that the seed somehow blew onto his fields from passing trucks or from neighbouring farms...
He said he was astonished to discover that a great deal of the canola in those areas survived his spraying, suggesting that had somehow acquired a resistance to the herbicide. He used portions of the seed from those areas for his crop the following year."
He claims it blew off a truck (kind of like buying a DVD player that "fell off the truck"). Second, he took the seeds from the plants, which was miraculously resistent to Round Up, and then resowed his field with it the next year. 95% of his 1000 or so acres were found to contain this Monsato-frankenstein-canola.
Not quite as simple as Monsato finding a few plants in one field, and sueing him. He probalby woudln't have been guilty at the end of the first year, but the second year, when he re-used the seed, he was.
It's not only seeds of bioengineered plants.
With many proprietary seeds, you are not permitted to save some of the harvested crop and plant them the next year unless you have the permission of the company owning those rights.
Do a web search on "Plant Variety Protection Act"
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
Just throw a few seeds or spread a few spores or spray a special coat of some patented genes on some of your competitor's fields (surreptitiously of course, maybe hire someone else to do it); and they'll lose all their crops.
After all, you can't be sure where all the cross pollenation occured, so you'll have to wipe out the entire crop and burn the field to be sure it's gone. While AgriBusiness could afford to fight this, after all they own hundreds of different fields and could lose a crop or two in the name of competition, small/independent farmers would stand no chance.
Words often have different meanings depending on the domain in which they are used. One such word is "organic". In chemistry, it refers to compounds based on carbon. In agriculture, it doesn't mean that.
Quoth m-w.com:
Monsanto is evil. Very very evil. You think Microsoft or the RIAA are evil? Multiply that by about 200,000 and you might get some idea of how evil Monstanto and ADM are. GM "food" is going to wind up being the next black plague...
All's true that is mistrusted
seems to me that you should be allowed to take the seed from your own non GM crops and re-plant next year. If your crops are aquiring DNA from neigboring GM crops then it seem difficult to call falt on behalf of the farmer.
youd think that the seed companies would have a real desire to keep these things sterile... otherwise other people will start to do this to develop their own private strains of GM crops... you cant sue them all... but I suppose you could try
for what its worth, my confusion about the source of the seeds came from this quote in the article:
"Schmeiser argued the canola seed blew onto his property from a nearby farm. He has said the plants "polluted" his fields."
assuming of course that he isnt simply lying.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Ahem, Pluto is the god of the Underworld. That would be DOWN from everywhere except New Jersey...
How come Slashdot never gets Slashdotted?
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.
whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent (emphasis added).
The Good news is that here in Australia, the Populus have rejected GM Canola from Monsanto.m l/gm_food.c fm
http://www.fremantle.wa.gov.au/news/ht
The Federal "Liberal" (Actually Conservative) Government want GM foods so they can get thier Kickbacks, or whatever, The National Party (Country), who are in Coalition with the Liberal Party, want GM Foods so they can have more say in what the Liberal Party Do. The Federal Branch of the Labor Party are against GM, simply because they are the Federal Opposition, and therefore must oppose the Federal Government.
Meanwhile, the State Labor Governments, and non-alligned Local Governments have put Local Bans on Monsanto GM Canola, so even though the Federal Govenment wants it, there is no State, Shire or City in which to legally grow it!
I've been following this story a while and in previous stories Schmeiser is reported to have been growing heirloom crops also. Heirloom crops are fast disapearing but are important because they provide a genetic baseline that agricultural scientist can use to "start from scratch" occasonaly.
I under stand that if you found the original pre-indian corn, it would be worth millions.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Even if you DO find Monsanto Canola on your land, how the fuck do you get rid of it? It's fucking immune to Round Up!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
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!
In a lot of cases, though, the change in meaning of a word happens becasue of ignorance - like the change in the meaning of "hacker" - the people who changed the meaning didn't *realize* they were changing the meaning. They thought they were accurately describing something using the original meaning. I do have a problem with that sort of thing, and that's why I don't like the term "organic food". It's just like ignoramouses who claim that something has "no chemicals" in it.
Apparently you think people who care about honesty are "utter boobs".
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
To be honest, most Roundup (glyphosate) resistance is a byproduct of installing another gene. What happens is that the plants are transformed for one reason or another, and a linked gene for Roundup resistance is added.
So, when you try to transform, say, 1000 plants, you take the progeny and grow them on media with glyphosate in them, or spray the seedlings with glyphosate or whatever. The ones that survive *should* have the other gene along with it.
As a result, the plants have resistance to glyphosate AND a pesticide in every cell (BT gene, like Cry or something), or whatever. It's leftover from the transformation of the plants.
Now there are other options- other herbicides that can be used, although most work off of a similar mechanism that involves inhibition of ammonia detoxification (so the plants literally die in their own waste). Another option is to throw in antibiotic resistance (kanamycin, etc.) which will kill plants at a set level- unless they have the resistance gene in them.
Glyphosate resistance is handy, and Roundup is a "nice" herbicide in that it has low toxicity and relatively low environmental life, and it frickin' kills EVERYTHING... that doesn't have artificial resistance, of course. There have been one or two really weird plants discovered that don't have glyphostae resistance, but they're exceptions. The gene comes from a bacterium, IIRC. But there are other herbicides, and they can be employed- they're just a little more expensive, or have some effects that aren't always desirable- like all pesticides.
Let's say that he sprays all of his land with RoundUp so that the only thing left is 100% patented plants. Legal? Of course.
What crack are you smoking? This has nothing to do with this case, tard.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on this foolish hypothetical situation you just pulled out your arse--they ruled on THIS PARTICULAR CASE, and laid down clear groundrules for what would constitute deliberate abuse and use in the future, so your "Legal? Of course" crap is already dealt with and answered.
Have you even read the decision yet?
This kind of story makes me sick. I remember reading about this case awhile back. An old farmer who has had the same land for many many years and grows ORGANIC CANOLA gets flanked by his neighbours growing Monsanto seeds. One day he notices some strange looking Canola growing in a ditch, he sprays it with Roundup (which he just coincidentally happens to use) and the plant doesn't die. He does some research and finds that the Rounup is a Monsanto product specifically designed not to harm Monsanto produce. He realizes that some Monstanto product has floated over to his farm from one of his neighbours (very possible seeing as 5 people around him grow Monsanto Canola) so he starts spraying futher and further into his field and sees more and more of his Canola perish. This seems obvious: The Monsanto product was being blown in by the wind and the further away from the host field it flew, the less dense the infection. One of his neighbours (obviously not too neighbourly) tips off Monsanto that this guy is illegally growing the seeds without purchasing the license. One day in the near future, a plane flys low over his field and dumps a bunch of Roundup (or a similar product) on his field to test for Monsanto product. Monsanto says they didn't do it (I'm sure some random guy felt like renting a plane and buying a bunch of herbicide to spread on a random field). Now Monsanto sues the old farmer for scamming them - enough to put this guy out of business and leave the farm. The guy grows ORGANIC FUCKING CANOLA. The Monsanto strain NEGATES THE ABILITY TO SELL THE CANOLA AS A STRAIGHT ORGANIC PRODUCT. His field was not entirely Monsanto. There is no reason for this guy to use Monsanto - he makes a good living selling organic products. The Monsanto product not only fucks him over legally but now he can't sell his organic product - Monsanto has INFECTED his field and now he has to pay them?! They should be sued for infecting his organic field with their genetically modified garbage. Famers like this guy take the seeds from this years harvest and use them again next year - no need to purchase a Monsanto license every year because he ALREADY HAS THE SEEDS. This is corporate trash at its lowest. It seriously does make me sick - I hope this can be turned around.
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
I've posted about this before, but, it's even more pressing now. there is a Documentary about to come out called The Future of Food that covers this case (interviews with Percy, his lawyer, footage of his farm, how he works, etc), others like it, and the entire GMO scene in great detail. After seeing the film, knowing that Monsato has won is quite chilling.
The film has made me change what I eat both from political and heath standpoints. It's very sad that Percy lost his case, not jsut for him, but for what it means Monsanto (and Dupont, etc) can do with the full backing of the law.
The film is showing at Silverdocs in DC (June 16, 2:30pm), the Telluride Film Festival (unknown showtime), and a film festival in Hawaii who's name I can't recall. Future showings will be posted on their website, along with DVDs for purchase.
(Disclosure: My girlfriend is the Associate Producer, Assistant Editor, and Narrator)
My life is dedicated hosting
"If your crops are aquiring DNA from neigboring GM crops then it seem difficult to call falt on behalf of the farmer."
It would be, if this were a sane world. The judge found that the farmer infringed Monsanto's patent -- the cross-pollinated crop the farmer grew is best described by that favorite term of the music industry's defenders: stolen property.
The seed blew into his fields, crossed with his crops, and he grew "their property".
"youd think that the seed companies would have a real desire to keep these things sterile... otherwise other people will start to do this to develop their own private strains of GM crops... you cant sue them all... but I suppose you could try"
They don't want sterile crops. This is a win-win for Monsanto. They can continue to let their "privately owned" genes float on the winds to any field in the world, and it's the world's lookout to discover "Monsanto's" genes embedded in the world's crops. Failure to root out Monsanto's intellectual property will result in an IP lawsuit, with the likely outcome that the sued lose their property to pay damages to Monsanto.
"for what its worth, my confusion about the source of the seeds came from this quote in the article:
"Schmeiser argued the canola seed blew onto his property from a nearby farm. He has said the plants "polluted" his fields."
assuming of course that he isnt simply lying. "
How could he have "stolen" the genes? How can he lie? The basic facts are not disputed by Monsanto. Monsanto's seed, patented and protected Canadian law, blew into the farmer's field. He grew the crops. Monsanto owns his ass therefore.
I can't think of any clearer argument for throwing out "genetic patents". This gives Monsanto, or any other genetic "IP" company, the ability to grab land and cash at will.
There is no provision in the patent law to force Monsanto to stop permitting "their" genes to fly downwind and "contaminate" some else's crops, generating criminals by the thousands.
There also is no way to stop the seed from blowing around. That's what seeds do!
I think they finally "re-bred" early corn. I recall reading something about it a year or so ago. The "ear" is only a few inches long and has only four or five rows of tiny kernals. I believe they narrowed down Teosinte grass as the original ancestor of corn and "bred up" from there, just like the indians did. I wish I could remember where I read that...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Umm they pulled the terminator gene 5 years ago. You've been lobbying against GM foods? Yet you don't even know the terminator gene program has been abandoned? If your going to protest something at least be informed about the subject, it helps you cause a lot better than making ignorant statements.
Monsanto pulls terminator gene
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
Although Canola (aka Oil Seed Rape in the UK) is predominantly self-pollinating, it is not unknown for spread via wind and/or insect to occur at a recordable range of around 100m pa, and probably much further although obviously detection becomes harder as the radius increases.
According to Monsanto's own research, viable cross-pollination to other species is rare.
Seed dispersal is howevr another story. Canola seeds are tiny. Depending on their genetics, they could spread a long way. Kilometers, especially in open, dry prairie. The act of harvesting itself is known to move these tiny seeds around by several hundred meters.
Naturally, such seeds will have a selective advantage in their new site and inevitibly will spread.
As for sterility, its hard to economically produce a crop just for seed (so called S1 generations) that then produce dead seeds. They tried it but I think the market blew them off.
It will come down to stats. Im no expert at agriculture but some function of normal canola seed dispersion, distances, time, prevailing winds, rainfall and a few other bits and pieces should be enough to see if the accused farmer has a hotspot on his land worthy of further study.
However, in a world where downpours of frogs from far-off waterspouts is not unknown, I would think the farmer is probably in good shape. Monsanto produced a more successful organism. In time it will dominate. Thats what *happens*.
Of course all this would be moot if the world would for once get a grip and realise GM crops are a waste of time. Monsanto and their ilk shame us into condoning them by using picture of starving children. The fact is that we easily make enough food for everyone as it is, it's just a question of having the political will to move it to where its needed.
I wish at was Friday, but I dont want to wish my life away. So I wish it was last Friday.
Here's a letter I'm sending to Monsanto, via the Contact form on their website:
It is inherently unethical to create a reproducing lifeform which is patented. Regardless of whether Schmeiser's claim that your seeds polluted his farm is truthful, you simply cannot do this without showing an ignorance of common sense, lack of comprehension for the laws of nature, and a general business ineptitude.
"Give a man a key, he cannot not open the door; give him something free and he'll resell it to the poor" -NOFX
But, assuming for a minute that your crop does not and will not ever spread:
Your crop is visibly very distinguishable from the normal crop in all stages of growth, correct?
And you make products cheaply and widely available that paralyze your crop without harming any other life form?
If not, how do you expect anybody to handle your product?
If I give you two glasses, one with wine and the other with strychnine, and they are indistinguishable, am I being fair to you?
Sincerely,
Matthew C. Williams
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
I'll design a new kind of computer virus that infects Windows.
Then I'll patent it.
Then I'll license the technology to a single virus filter vendor.
Sooner or later a virus will appear that violates the patent.
When that happens I'll sue everyone whose computer gets infected with it, sue all of the virus filter vendors who didn't license the patent, and sue Microsoft for contributory infringement.
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
Careful.
He was not sued for the crops that "blew into his field".
He was sued for what he did the following year; planting the seed from the geneticly altered crop from the year before. The court decided that he knew, or should have known, that his crop the second year around was monsanto's patented stuff.
The judge should have found in Monsanto's favor for the farmer growing and selling their product, then found for 4x the same amount in the favor of the farmer for "polution" of his crops making them unsellable.
That way any farmer with an "infected" field could till it under, not violate Monsanto's license, and then sue for Monsanto for the lost crop.