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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
This "they contaminated my crops" claim is purely for the benefit of the media; he knew that he was planting Monsanto canola.
It's a totally invalid defense against Monsanto's lawsuit. However, it'd be a very interesting claim to persue against the other farmers in the area who pay for Monsanto's patent license.
I'd like to see there be a ruling that says if you use genetically modified products that you have the responsiblity to preventing the seeds from leaving your property.
He should have gotten seeds from his property that didn't contain Monsanto's modification. The fact that he didn't means that he was poluted upon...
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.
..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.
I haven't followed the case extensively, but as I understand it he was planting seeds that were saved from the previous year's harvest. Something farmers have been doing for, oh, say, 8000 years.
He was not, then, planting Monsanto's canola. He was planting HIS canola. That the Monsanto engineered plants were still viable was not his fault, it was theirs. Arguably, he is not infringing their patents because he either A: has already payed to get the engineered seed, or B: it was non-engineered seed that was polinated by Engineered stock - which is not his fault.
If Monsanto can't keep a lid on their genetic engineering projects, that's their problem. And, if the Greens are to be believed, everyone elses "problem" too.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
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.
No, he didn't, nor should he have, known the seeds contained a patented gene. What he did know was that those plants resisted the herbicide he was using to kill weeds. You make it sound like the Monsanto seeds are bright purple or the plants grow with Monsanto's logo on them or something. He simply used the seeds from the part of the crop that shows herbicide resistance during the previous season. There was no way for him to know they had patented genes in them.
At least, that's his story. I don't know if it's true or not, but I don't know what the courts could have found that would prove it false....it seems like a perfectly reasonable explaination to me. My first thought when I see an interesting plant isn't, "oh, lookie here...this is neat...must be some kind of patented genes in there..."
Besides, you forget the fact that during this ruling, they decided he didn't use their resistance to his competitive advantage (hence the $0 damages), so why would he have knowingly planted them if he wasn't going to take advantage of the thing that makes them worth planting?
teeker
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.
>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
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.
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!
"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!
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?
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