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.

16 of 599 comments (clear)

  1. Glad we're not the only ones! by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Wait a minute... by Punboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  3. In related news... by k4_pacific · · Score: 5, Funny

    A local man injured by stray gunfire was arrested for stealing bullets.

    --
    Unknown host pong.
  4. Re:So, it spreads itself... by cemaco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not all genetically altered crops are sterile. To be honest I think they should be. That way it's easier to remove them from the food chain if we find out down the line that there is a problem.

  5. Killing Roundup Ready Plants by zentinal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Would it be legal for someone to come up with a material that only kills Roundup Ready©® plants?

    1. Re:Killing Roundup Ready Plants by happyfrogcow · · Score: 5, Funny

      ..what, like a crop duster that throws lawyers out of the plane onto the offending crops?

      but seriously...

      probably. if you can be sued for inadvertantly having these crops in your property, then fair use would seem to dictate that you have the right to reverse engineer the product. if you weren't, and only Monsanto were allowed to do so, then they could somehow promote the spreading of their product (the crop) to create a need for a RoundupReady Plant Killer. The situation would be like antivirus companies spreading new computer viruses, and you can only use their av software to eliminate their viruses.

  6. In Related News: by Paulrothrock · · Score: 5, Funny
    Monsanto Sues Itself

    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.
  7. GPL by minus_273 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  8. 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.

  9. no, we're not surprised... by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ..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.

  10. 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.

  11. Re:Just a little factoid that may make a differenc by Auckerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
  12. Re:So, it spreads itself... by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Just manipulating DNA in things does NOT automatically render them sterile as far as reproduction goes. This is what does lend danger to the man made stuff mixing into the natural crops. A real possibility, I would guess, is that long term, we might lose the 'real thing' having been contaminated by the man altered stuff.

    Heck, we have lots of crops that really aren't available today...if not for people dedicated to protecting 'heirloom' vegetables. Notice how tomatoes nowdays pretty much have no flavor, but, are nice and uniform in color and size?

    I went to a farm up north just outside of NH last year where they specialize in heirloom tomatoes. Man, I'd forgotten what they used to really taste like in my youth...and the different colored ones...some with yellow, tiger striped ones, purple ones....and many in non uniform shapes and sizes. But, flavor was the MAIN thing that stood out on these...

    I really used to think the 'organic' foods movement was pretty much a crock...but, this started me thinking a little different...

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. Re:Supposed to be sterile? by Altus · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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