We don't all "love" the Queen of England. I don't even personally know her, why would I "love" her. In fact I think most people simply tolerate her as a necessary celebrity although there is a sizeable portion of Brits here who still are Monarchists. Something I will NEVER understand. Monarchy by definition is discrimination as it's defined by the idea that there is someone who's "better" than the rest of us simply by birth.
Oh, and you can keep Celine Dion in Las Vegas for all I care.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
"That is *the* issue that this hinges on. If the patent-encumbered thing infects a non-encumbered thing, is it in any way the responsibility of the owner of the non-encumbered thing? The *only* fair answer to this is a resounding "No!""
O.k. let me see if I can't show just how "unfair" this really is. This argument only hinges on that we allow genes to be patented, again I personally don't agree they should be but that's not what I'm arguing here. Not allowing genes to be patented is a legislative NOT a judicial function. The judges must only apply the law as it is, not as you/we would like it to be.
So, now presuming that we allow genes to be patented then the only reasonable meaning of this is that the patent holder has the exclusive right to license that patent for use. Next, in no other areas of patents is it up to the patent holder to prove you obtained a patented product illegally, it is up to you to prove you have a license to use it. Easy enough to do by just producing a piece of paper. If it was up to the patent holder to prove you obtained a product illegally, chaos would ensue as companies come in and out of business whose sole purpose it is to produce a product illegally but sell it to a third party "legally". Sure you can sue the first company, but what's the point as you've lost control of your patent. The third company basically just shrugs their shoulders and says, "hey were victims too", and automatically gets to use the patent.
Now, assuming you agree that applying the patent law as above in other "real" patent cases is legitimate, why should it be different with genes? Your argument is that this is because the genes effectively self-replicate and are "guaranteed" to contaminate non-patented genes. Except, that in any given case it can't be PROVEN that this happened. All that has been shown by Schmeiser is that the pattern of contamination in 1996 was consistant with volunteerism, "consistant" and "proven" are two totally different things. But if we lower the standard of proof to consistancy only, than there is absolutely no reason to patent genes in the first place since all anyone needs to do is contaminate their own land in a manner "consistant" with volunteerism and the patent would be invalidated. The court effectively said, "well that's ludicrous, but if we apply the law as we do in other cases then we come up with a consistant and legitimate decision".
In other words, the court said, "if the burden of proof is on the patent holder there is no point in patents since the proof is almost impossible to get". They applied that principle in all other cases, and it is a legitimate argument here.
If the patent couldn't be enforced in such situations, then there is no point in the patents, and ipso-facto the patent is invalid!
Now the really interesting thing about this "consistancy" argument is this. Schmeiser could easily have won a case against Monsanto in 1996 for damages, since in such a case he wouldn't need to prove Monsanto contaminated his crop on purpose, but only that damages are consistant with that produced by volunteerism. Since the product(the gene) "belongs" to Monsanto, they are responsible for this damage. Just as any maker of a product is responsible for damage caused by their products.
As for your last "bizarre" examples, there is no interpretation of law that would get me charged with "murdering" an inanimate object. That wouldn't even see the inside of a police station much less a court of law. If I tried to keep the ram I would be liable for theft or more likely misappropriation of evidence. If I sold the ram I would have to return the money. That in fact is what Schmeiser tried to do. Of course Monsanto didn't "purposely" infect his land. But even so , rather than try to keep the fruits of "ill-gotten" gains, Schmeiser should have sued right off the bat. He probably would have won since a company must assume responsibility for the damage caused by their product especially if that damage is caused by the normal working of the product.
Re:How is he supposed to have known?
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
Hell, I'm not even sure I should reply to this, but since you obvioiusly haven't read anything about the case I guess a little educating never hurts.
Here's a link to the Supreme Court decision, it should give you enough information to change your mind,
But in case you don't feel like reading it, here is a summary of some facts that are undisputed.
1) Schmeiser says he sprayed Roundup around a power pole in 1996 to get rid of some volunteers that had drifted from his field. When some of them didn't die he than sprayed(again with Roundup) a 6 acre portion of his field and "discovered" that there were a bunch of survivors.(Gee, I don't know do you maybe think they were RR canola?) 2) He cultivated the 6 acres and stored the seed in a truck in his yard. 3) In 1997 Monsanto tested the roadside beside his field, discovered some RR canola and informed Schmeiser that they thought he might have RR canola on his farm and that they were looking in to it. 4) After the contact with Monsanto in 1997 Schmeiser went ahead and had the seed cleaned in 1998 for planting. Informed by Monsanto that they suspected the seed was RR canola the seed cleaner kept some of the seed and handed it over to Monsanto. Schmeiser planted 1050 acres with this seed. 5) Monsanto tested the seed in 1998 and indeed discovered it was RR canola. 6) Monsanto tested the 1050 acres(for the court case) and discovered it was 95-98% RR canola
Now given #1 alone combined with Schmeiser's 50 years of experience(surely he had heard of RR canola, for the record no I'm not a farmer but my dad was and I've heard of RR canola) there is no doubt exactly what he had found. So this item alone answers 2/3rds of your post.
As for the rest of your post. Well lets see, he had 6 acres contaminated out of at least 1050 acres. Surely he had clean seed somewhere.
As for what else he should have done. Well let's see. He was a corporate farm(incorporated by himself), as a corporation he has obligations not to use a patented product he hasn't licensed. However, he also has remedies when other corporation's products either deliberately or even unknowingly interfere with his product. He could have simply addressed the issue with Monsanto and asked them to compensate him for the damage. Failing cooperation from Monsanto he would have had to sue. This isn't any different than when any two companies have potential disagreements. That is, after all, part of the function of the courts.
Now as for your +10000 year comment. These aren't subsistence farmers who are trading their extra product for someone elses cows, or sheep or something. They are corporate farms, many of which are large enterprises, their owners able to move to Florida or Phoenix for the winter. I say good for them they work hard for their money. But they are companies no more or less and are obligated to act as such. Schmeiser had methods of redress in 1996 if he felt wrong. Instead he gambled he could get away with something and lost.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
"This is the ridiculous part. You'd be expected to go out of your way to avoid using the patent-encumbered product, despite it forcing itself on you."
While it may seem ridiculous that is indeed the case, but it doesn't just apply to genes it applies to mechanical parts as well so it's not like the court is unfairly applying the law to a "new" area.
"Yeah, then you stop using a product you depend on until you can prove the guilt of a multi-billion dollar corporation and force them to pay to fix it. Where does the money come from to pursue this?"
As I pointed out in my last reply, you don't need to stop using the whole of the product, just the part that is patent encumbered. Of course, the question of the ability of the user to remove the part was left unaddressed by the court. This is the part that really makes this different, you can't just remove the gene, unlike the virus you mentioned, or the piece of hardware in one of the precedents used by the court(note that the case didn't hinge on this precedent it was just used as an example of a step a company could take to distance themselves from "use"). So I suspect, that future lawsuits will have to address this issue.
As well, any case against a virus writer would not just be civil but also criminal. So the costs would likely be covered mostly by the state. Even if not I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers that would take such a case on a contingency basis. Note however, that nobody has suggested that Monsanto planted the seed on Schmeiser's land on purpose. It was "accidental" contamination, even so the Schmeiser case seems to suggest that Monsanto is the complete owner of the gene and should therefore be liable for damages caused by their patent. All it takes is one case to set the precedent. I'm fairly sure that there must be a lawyer somewhere that would take this on a class-action suit basis.
As for the broken nature of what can be patented(different from all of patent law which isn't likely all broken), I happen to agree with you. The only thing I'm defending here is the logic behind the decision and the fact that the court had no basis to overturn a patent that the government has granted.
I happen to believe that the process of getting the gene in to non-GMO seeds can be patented but not the gene itself. But than again we allow companies to just throw chemicals together until they come up with something useful and patent that(pharmaceuticals) so this isn't without precedent.
But than again Schmeiser had the chance to completely change the nature of the way we view GMO's. He could have set out to make Monsanto responsible for their patent, he didn't do this. Someday I'm hoping someone will. Maybe than the Monsanto's of the world won't be so quick to patent these genes that they have no ultimate control over.
While you make a good point, the thing is these aren't subsistence farmers we're talking about. Many of them have thousands of acres and are companies or corporations themselves. As such they must act that way. They have the means at their disposal to manage the problem.
For instance they could start negotiations now with Monsanto to determine some percentage at which Monsanto would take responsibility for the problem and replace the seed with clean seed. Rather than treat Monsanto as an enemy you work with them to manage the problem. For Monsanto it becomes a cost of doing business. If they aren't willing to enter in to such agreements than the avenue to redress is the courts just like when any two businesses have a disagreement.
The thing that the court in the Schmeiser case did not need to consider was the difficulty/impossibility of removing the patented gene if you found it but didn't want to use it. It was a fact that was left unaddressed since it wasn't necessary to the case. I suspect this fact would/should play a major part in any case against Monsanto.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
First off, Schmeiser was able to use his pre-existing supplies. He had only 6 of at least 1050 acres contaminated. So he had plenty of clean crop around to take seed from. But even if his whole crop was contaminated, his proper response was to contact Monsanto to take care of it, which in such a case would mean to pay damages including supplying him with new clean seed. If they refused he would have to sue them. Sure that doesn't seem fair, but if all business was fair there would be no need for the courts. So instead of taking proper action Schmeiser tried to get away with patent infringement and got caught.
Secondly your Excel example is more akin to the hardware precedent since the patent encumbered algorithm can be replaced. Note, that you wouldn't be expected to stop using Excel, but you would be expected to disinfect it or if that fails you would need to reinstall. The point is that it doesn't matter how you received a patent encumbered product you can't use it in a commercial enterprise.
As well, if you could prove the virus was written by the patent holder than you've got one hell of a law suit. Which is exactly what Schmeiser should have done, or at the very least he should have asked Monsanto to take care of the problem. The lawsuit would only be necessary if they refused. Given the reasoning in his actual lawsuit the likelihood is that he would have won. This does not mean that he could use the seed in the manner he did.
Lastly Schmeiser wasn't found liable simply because his crop was infected. Had he acted properly than Monsanto would have been liable for infecting his land. Instead he was found liable because he actively worked to use the patent. It is clear from the case that Monsanto owns the gene in question and is therefore very likely liable for damage caused by that gene just as any patent holder would be liable for damage caused by their patent. But since that's not what the case was about the court couldn't find Monsanto liable for anything. That's a completely different case, one that Schmeiser should have engaged in when he found the contamination.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
As far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned it isn't a question of how you obtained the patented product it's about how you used it. The word "use" plays a very important role in their decision as patent law in Canada confers a temporary monopoly on the patent holder for the "use" or exploitation of the patent.
"The plain meaning of the word "use" or "exploiter" denotes utilization with a view to production or advantage. The purpose of s. 42 is to define the exclusive rights granted to the patent holder. The question in determining whether a defendant has "used" a patented invention is whether the defendant's activity deprived the inventor in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, of full enjoyment of the monopoly conferred by law."
The decision than goes in to some length explaining how "use" is important and what may constitute "use". The court found that by spraying with Round-up in 1996, cultivating the seeds of the resultant Round-up resistant crop, having them cleaned in 1998, planting them and maturing them, that Schmeiser "used" the invention. But not only this they even go in to how he could have avoided this presumption of use. All he had to do is to show that he actively attempted NOT to use the seed. In other words, he should have contacted Monsanto, told them he had found RR canola on his pristine field and that he wants them to do something about it(at Monsanto's expense). He could than have even offered to let Monsanto test his seed at the end of the year(again at their expense).
The point is that this farm is a commercial interest, not a subsistence farm where the plants are for their personal use(which would have been legal by the way). Because the farm is a commercial interest they must act like one.
As to "accidental" contamination, the court even addressed that. Turns out there's case law although it regards a machine with a patented part that the purchaser of the machine had no use for. So the company purchasing the unpatented machine simply made no use of the patented part and thus weren't infringing.
There's plenty more, and quite frankly I think the reasoning is impeccable, those are some smart judges. I still don't believe you should be able to patent genes. But given the current state of the law, the judges did an incredible job.
I can't believe how many people are making this mistake.
The ruling doesn't say anything about Monsanto's liability with regards to "forcibly seeding" Schmeiser's land. The original ruling which the Supreme Court upheld said that for the case they were trying it didn't matter how Schmeiser originally obtained the seed only that he obviously cultivated it knowing what it was thus illegaly using Monsanto's patent.
Had Schmeiser sued Monsanto for infecting his crop he likely would have won(given the Supreme Court's ruling that Monsanto is the owner of the genetic offspring).
For the analogy in question if you forced yourself on the woman she could have you charged with rape(which is rather appropo to the discussion when you consider that Canola is derived from "rape seed"). Which is equivilent to Schmeiser suing Monsanto for damages, which is what he should have done were he in fact an innocent victim(which I highly doubt).
Re:For your perusal: The GM Industry's reply.
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
If you don't think that small town Saskatchewan mayor's can make up stories than you've never been to Saskatchewan.
Now that aside, I read the parent's link and the only thing that seemed out of place was the clear attempt to avoid the issue of GMO crops infecting non-GMO crops. For instance, just because the nearest neighbor's farm was 8 Kms away doesn't mean Schmeiser's crop wasn't initially infected by RR Canola. Roush doesn't outright deny it could happen he just implies the distance is too great. However, given the detail of his other facts it seems relevant that he didn't indicate how far Canola pollen can travel.
Otherwise his facts don't seem out of place, and in fact the courts did find that Schmeiser deliberately cultivated Round-up Ready Canola and subsequently used it illegally.
So, one possible mouth piece doesn't outright deny a single possible problem while the other is clearly making up stories, enjoying the limelight and denying any wrong doing.
In my experience people "acting in the public interest" aren't. They are acting in their own interests just as much as a corporation and neither side is above using falsehoods and intimidation to get their way.
For the record, for all the "most important debates of our times" I find that I am never on the side of those supposedly acting "in the public's interest"(e.g. I'm for nuclear power, against the Kyoto agreement, I'm for globalization etc. etc. etc.). Since I'm part of this public I can categorically deny that these groups are acting in my interests.
As far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned 13 of those 27 lots were "pure". Secondly, if I have misunderstood and the lots don't indicate different varieties than more information than provided by the link is needed to know if the impurity is indeed a problem. Such as, did the lots come from the same Breeder? Are the lots from the same seed variety?
Thirdly, if I'm incorrect in suggesting that 13 of the lots passing the purity test indicates half of all lots are "uncontaminated", than your point of all seed being contaminated isn't supported by 14 of 27 lots failing the test either.
Lastly, my original point was that a farmer can indeed get "uncontaminated" seed(certified so by the Government of Canada or an agent of such I presume). That seed can be planted and if greater than the allowed percentage of exports is found than the farmer has a case against Monsanto.
In other words I said, "just buy uncontaminated seed", you said or at least implied it was impossible since all seed is contaminated. While technically correct it misses my point since you can still get certified "uncontaminated" seed with at least a 99.75% purity. For the purposes of the law in Canada that is considered "pure". For the purposes of a law suit you would simply need to show that your seed was indeed at most.25% contaminated but that the resultant crop was greater than.25% contaminated. At the levels Schmeiser was claiming this is a nobrainer.
So why didn't he just sue Monsanto in the year he found contamination rather than harvest the seed and try to use it illegally?
Given that there is a "test" for purity(e.g. it needs to be 99.75% free) the point of the article is mute if your trying to say that it's impossible to buy uncontaminated seed. Clearly this isn't the case, seed that is at least 99.75% pure is considered uncontaminated and 13 of the 27 varieties tested were thus "uncontaminated". That is a far stretch from being unable to buy uncontaminated seed which is what your trying to claim.
The point of.25% contamination wasn't lost on me, but it seems that the apparent "legal" definition of uncontaminated is lost on you. Believe me, this is clearly an important distinction for two reasons.
1) If something is certified "uncontaminated" it can't have more than.25% contamination, if it does you have a case against the seed dealer. 2) If your seed was "uncontaminated" and you discover more than.25% contamination in your field you should have a clear case against Monsanto.
Actually I also thought of a third one, 3) If Monsanto tests your field and you have less than.25% contamination they can't sue you. You should be able to sue them for trespass though.
Schmeiser did ALMOST exactly that. We don't know that he threw the seeds in the ditch. But it doesn't matter, we do know he took the seeds after having discovered they were RR canola(easy enough test really just spray RR on them) and used them. The court found him guilty of violating the patent. So that "loop-hole" never existed.
As for the lower court, the question before them wasn't about how Schmeiser got the seeds only that once he knew what they were(and all evidence said he knew) did he have the right to use them?
Rather than use the seeds Schmeiser should have sued Monsanto for contaminating his field. Turns out he would have won, or more correctly very likely would have won. Note that the two questions are entirely different cases. One asks whether you have the right to use a licensed patent without the patent holders consent, the other asks whose responsibility is it to keep a patented product from contaminating a non-patented product.
Normally the second question wouldn't need asking since patents up until now required some action to actually use them or incorporate them in a product. With gene patents this isn't the case. My personal opinion given the result of the Schmeiser case is that Monsanto would be found liabel for damages resulting from the misuse of their patented product.
Except that I live in the province where this guy is from so I "know" of what I speak.
Schmeiser claims that the year before Monsanto found out he was using seed with their gene in it that he found the seed in plants growing by a power pole. In later testing he discovered plants on his field(his story). He than saved the seeds from these plants and planted them the following year. Which was when Monsanto came along, found his field had 95-98% Round-up Ready Canola and sued him for using their patent unlawfully.
The facts of the case aren't in dispute. However, Schmeiser tried to claim he had some right to use the seeds because Monsanto didn't own the patent on the plant(or the seed produced by the plant) only the gene and the process of getting the gene in to non-GMO seeds.
Now whether or not you agree with gene patenting(I don't) it is clear that Schmeiser knew exactly what he was doing and tried to get away with it(remember he's a farmer of 50 years so he knew the terms of Monsanto's licenses and knew exactly what he "found" when he sprayed Round-up on them). His "proper" course of action was to document the contamination of his precious organic seed and sue Monsanto for all their worth for not keeping their product off his field. Of course, before his actual case he wouldn't have been assured of the outcome, but now it should be a cake walk.
No you aren't the only person but the way to show the absurdity is to hold Monsanto accountable for their actions not to try to fly in the face of the law.
From what I understand leaching/contamination occurs regularly. Given the court decision it should be simple to sue and win a case against Monsanto for damage done by their product.
His correct course of action when finding RR Canola in his supposedly clean field was to sue Monsanto. Instead he cultivated it and planted it next year. The Supreme Court found this to be a violation of Monsanto's patent.
Furthermore, you certainly can control what is done with your patented product. Monsanto doesn't sell you the product of the patent they license it to you for use. Their conditions are explicit. It's up to the farmers to ensure that the product isn't misused(e.g. they can't trade it or save seed for next year or do a bunch of other things).
Secondly if you sell me a patented product I can't make a duplicate and sell it or give it away. Furthermore, you could license it to me on the condition I don't give it to anyone else to make a copy.
Furthermore, Schmeiser didn't argue he had "first sale doctrine" rights. He tried to argue that the plant itself wasn't patented only the original seed. The court found otherwise.
The proper response for farmers at this point is to not buy RR Canola and sue Monsanto if/when their field becomes contaminated. The case is now incredibly easy to make, a farmer simply needs to ensure they keep good records of their purchasing and planting. From what everyone is saying contamination happens regularly so it should be an open and shut case.
Why are you continualy posting a link to an article and claiming it says something it doesn't?
14 out of 27 seed varieties failed the 99.75% pure(what the hell is this a Dove soap bar?).
Secondly, let's hope Percy documented the supposed contamination so that he can sue Monsanto for every thing they're worth.
By the way, it also occurs to me that your link clearly shows that there is a whole industry concerned with this issue, otherwise why would there be a "guideline" that says just how pure something has to be to be considered "pure" and thus not be sued by Monsanto. Presumably this industry isn't miniscule(e.g. one farmer). So the possibility of a class-action lawsuit should be very viable. So tell me, why isn't it happening?
Excuse me but the link you sent me to doesn't indicate anything about "virtually all seed being contaminated". It does indicate a real problem though, which I haven't disagreed with. However, the best course of action now especially for these "purists" is to sue Monsanto's ass off in a class-action lawsuit.
For the Supreme Court of Canada to find for Monsanto in such a case would go totally against the ruling in the Schmeiser case.
As for your second paragraph. The farmer shouldn't deliberately cultivate that part of his crop that is RR canola as Percy did. Again the report your link takes me to talks about the greater than ".25%" contaminated(apparently anything less than this is considered pure). The report however isn't about the fact that the crop would be worthless as seed, it's that it would be contaminated with "weeds"(the RR canola is a weed when you don't want it).
So a farmer concerned with contamination, should 1) not cultivate the part of his crop that is RR canola, 2) buy only "pure" seed every year until court case over, again the link you gave clearly shows there are at least 13 varieties that are "pure" 3) plant RR seed until case is over, paying Monsanto's royalties, note sue them before planting otherwise your out of luck.
Percy's court case is almost guarantteed to result in a win for such a farmer rather than against the farmer. In fact the only thing in question in such a case would be whether the crop was contaminated or you stole it, so make sure you document well.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
Well, rather than just take old Percy's word for it, how about going and reading the Supreme Court ruling itself, you can find it here,
Note the fact that it is pointed out that they found 95-98% RR Canola in his crop and secondly that the Supreme Court indicates that he "actively cultivated" it and that this finding was in no way rebutted by old Percy.
So before we get all misty eyed over him, lets maybe take a look at what the facts were found to be.
Secondly, although it is called Round-up Ready the gene itself doesn't know the difference between Round-up and any other glyphosate based herbicide. So just because he didn't use RR for the year in question, maybe he used something else? Or maybe, just maybe he was hoping that when the patent runs out he would have some of this RR around and viable and would be able to sell it to whomever he pleased.
The ruling by the Supreme's clearly opens the door to any organic farmer to sue Monsanto's ass off for contamination. I can't believe people don't see that this is a good thing not a bad thing.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
Hey now, obviously you didn't do your research either.
It's not a question of whether Schmeiser knew Round-up Ready Canola existed. The question was if Schmeiser didn't use Roundup how did he know his seed was resistant? The answer is, that according to him, in the previous year to the one in question he used Round-up on what he thought were simple offshoot's in the ditch of his "natural" crop. When he found the ditch canola to be RR resistant he tried a greater swatch of his land and found it to be RR resistant. He than apparently purposely cultivated this RR resistant strain, getting 98% the following year is one big coincidence.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
Yup, and he should have used those grounds.
Instead he ignored it and chose to use Monsanto's product, by doing so he lost those grounds(or has he? I'm not a lawyer so maybe he hasn't). The problem of course is that he has to prove contamination, something that I'm not sure he documented to the satisfaction of the court.
Schmeiser knew it was Roundup-Ready but used it anyway, guess what? he shouldn't have done that. Instead as soon as he documented this infestation of RR Canola he should have sued Monsanto for contamination, loss of future income due to seed contamination, and lets throw in emotional distress for ruining his family crop. Ironically, the ruling by the Supreme Court almost guarantees he would have won.
So the thing to do now is, 1) buy non-RR Canola seed, document that this is the case(e.g. genetic testing), plant said seed. Test each year until contamination ensues. Sue Monsanto's pants off in a class-action law-suit for contamination of the "organic" seed industry. The cool thing is it no longer matters how it gets contaminated. If you trade with your neighbor and he has RR seed but doesn't tell you, big deal, still Monsanto's fault because they "own" the seed.
So before everyone goes around getting all bleary eyed for the "poor" organic farmer they have a clear avenue for redress should they choose to use it.
Re:You may have taken biology...
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 0, Troll
I am no friend of allowing companies to patent genes but this guy has nobody to blame but himself.
He knew the seed he saved was Round-up Ready Canola. As a farmer for 50 years he had to have known. At the time of discovering this he had two choices, 1) sue Monsanto for ruining his crop and infecting his otherwise clean seed, there is a good possibility he would have won. Actually this outcome is now almost assured due to Schmeiser losing his case, if that's not irony I don't know what is. 2) save the seed and use it next year knowing what Monsanto's terms of use were and knowing how they react to people using their patented product. Schmeiser chose the latter action and got caught, that's too bad. It shows me that I live in a province where the farmers don't appear much smarter than they ever were.
Secondly I don't feel sorry for any farmer that buys Monsanto's seed and than bitches about the contract terms. Christ, it's not like farmers don't know beforehand what the terms are, it's clearly spelled out in black and white. You don't like the terms, don't buy the seed, not exactly hard to figure out. But again, this province I live in breeds people who think big companies and the government "owe" them something. So they'll try to get away with it in the hopes that people will see them as some poor small farmer just trying to make a living.
Oh and by the way only 40% of Canola grown in Canada is Round-up Ready so there's still plenty of "clean" Canola seed available if farmers are so upset at Monsanto. But guess what, that 40% also tells me that there's alot of farmers who really aren't that upset or they were too stupid to have read the contract when they bought the seed, but again I don't feel sorry for them they bought their own misery.
While I personally don't think genes should be patentable, I also don't believe stupidity should be protected.
Re:It's Gone Beyond Science Fiction into Mainstrea
on
Open Source Life?
·
· Score: 1
Wooh there pardner.
The court didn't find Schmeiser guilty just because he had seed on his land, they found him guilty because they said he used seed he knew(or should have known) contained the gene. In other words for the case in question it didn't end up on his land "through no fault of his". Had that actually been the case I'm sure they would have sided with him.
While there may have been real questions as to where the seed originated, if I remember correctly the court found he held on to the seed and planted it himself. In other words he used a patented product without the patent holder's say so.
Now don't get me wrong. I think the patenting of genes is ridiculous. You should be able to patent the process of getting the gene in to an organism but that's it. The actual gene or combination of them should be wide open. Patenting genes is a little too much like stumbling along gold and than claiming you invented it.
Now, as to the spread of "GMO's". On the question of whether a company would be liable for actual accidental spread the court was particularly mute since they found that this particular planting of it to not be accidental. However, if there is any sanity left in the world I suspect that absent legislation to counteract it, the courts would find for a farmer who could show damage due to the GMO if it accidentally spread to his crop. The thing is, if Schmeiser had sued Monsanto in the year he supposedly found the contamination we may very well be reading about a different outcome.
In other words, the thing for farmers to do now, is to document that they planted "clean" seed. Determine at the end of the year if any Monsanto seed is in their crop and if there is, they should sue for damages. The fact is, this case basically ensures they will win.
The other interesting thing from those statistics is that IE6+IE5 peaked at 88% in March 2003 and has fallen almost 7% to 81.7%. In that same period Mozilla went from 4.2% to 11.2% a gain of 7%. Just perusing the stats it appears to be an almost lock-step cannabilization from IE6+IE5 to Mozilla.
Slashdot Mirror
Whoa there.
We don't all "love" the Queen of England. I don't even personally know her, why would I "love" her. In fact I think most people simply tolerate her as a necessary celebrity although there is a sizeable portion of Brits here who still are Monarchists. Something I will NEVER understand. Monarchy by definition is discrimination as it's defined by the idea that there is someone who's "better" than the rest of us simply by birth.
Oh, and you can keep Celine Dion in Las Vegas for all I care.
"That is *the* issue that this hinges on. If the patent-encumbered thing infects a non-encumbered thing, is it in any way the responsibility of the owner of the non-encumbered thing? The *only* fair answer to this is a resounding "No!""
O.k. let me see if I can't show just how "unfair" this really is. This argument only hinges on that we allow genes to be patented, again I personally don't agree they should be but that's not what I'm arguing here. Not allowing genes to be patented is a legislative NOT a judicial function. The judges must only apply the law as it is, not as you/we would like it to be.
So, now presuming that we allow genes to be patented then the only reasonable meaning of this is that the patent holder has the exclusive right to license that patent for use. Next, in no other areas of patents is it up to the patent holder to prove you obtained a patented product illegally, it is up to you to prove you have a license to use it. Easy enough to do by just producing a piece of paper. If it was up to the patent holder to prove you obtained a product illegally, chaos would ensue as companies come in and out of business whose sole purpose it is to produce a product illegally but sell it to a third party "legally". Sure you can sue the first company, but what's the point as you've lost control of your patent. The third company basically just shrugs their shoulders and says, "hey were victims too", and automatically gets to use the patent.
Now, assuming you agree that applying the patent law as above in other "real" patent cases is legitimate, why should it be different with genes? Your argument is that this is because the genes effectively self-replicate and are "guaranteed" to contaminate non-patented genes. Except, that in any given case it can't be PROVEN that this happened. All that has been shown by Schmeiser is that the pattern of contamination in 1996 was consistant with volunteerism, "consistant" and "proven" are two totally different things. But if we lower the standard of proof to consistancy only, than there is absolutely no reason to patent genes in the first place since all anyone needs to do is contaminate their own land in a manner "consistant" with volunteerism and the patent would be invalidated. The court effectively said, "well that's ludicrous, but if we apply the law as we do in other cases then we come up with a consistant and legitimate decision".
In other words, the court said, "if the burden of proof is on the patent holder there is no point in patents since the proof is almost impossible to get". They applied that principle in all other cases, and it is a legitimate argument here.
If the patent couldn't be enforced in such situations, then there is no point in the patents, and ipso-facto the patent is invalid!
Now the really interesting thing about this "consistancy" argument is this. Schmeiser could easily have won a case against Monsanto in 1996 for damages, since in such a case he wouldn't need to prove Monsanto contaminated his crop on purpose, but only that damages are consistant with that produced by volunteerism. Since the product(the gene) "belongs" to Monsanto, they are responsible for this damage. Just as any maker of a product is responsible for damage caused by their products.
As for your last "bizarre" examples, there is no interpretation of law that would get me charged with "murdering" an inanimate object. That wouldn't even see the inside of a police station much less a court of law. If I tried to keep the ram I would be liable for theft or more likely misappropriation of evidence. If I sold the ram I would have to return the money. That in fact is what Schmeiser tried to do. Of course Monsanto didn't "purposely" infect his land. But even so , rather than try to keep the fruits of "ill-gotten" gains, Schmeiser should have sued right off the bat. He probably would have won since a company must assume responsibility for the damage caused by their product especially if that damage is caused by the normal working of the product.
Hell, I'm not even sure I should reply to this, but since you obvioiusly haven't read anything about the case I guess a little educating never hurts.
m l/ 2004scc034.wpd.html
Here's a link to the Supreme Court decision, it should give you enough information to change your mind,
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/ht
But in case you don't feel like reading it, here is a summary of some facts that are undisputed.
1) Schmeiser says he sprayed Roundup around a power pole in 1996 to get rid of some volunteers that had drifted from his field. When some of them didn't die he than sprayed(again with Roundup) a 6 acre portion of his field and "discovered" that there were a bunch of survivors.(Gee, I don't know do you maybe think they were RR canola?)
2) He cultivated the 6 acres and stored the seed in a truck in his yard.
3) In 1997 Monsanto tested the roadside beside his field, discovered some RR canola and informed Schmeiser that they thought he might have RR canola on his farm and that they were looking in to it.
4) After the contact with Monsanto in 1997 Schmeiser went ahead and had the seed cleaned in 1998 for planting. Informed by Monsanto that they suspected the seed was RR canola the seed cleaner kept some of the seed and handed it over to Monsanto. Schmeiser planted 1050 acres with this seed.
5) Monsanto tested the seed in 1998 and indeed discovered it was RR canola.
6) Monsanto tested the 1050 acres(for the court case) and discovered it was 95-98% RR canola
Now given #1 alone combined with Schmeiser's 50 years of experience(surely he had heard of RR canola, for the record no I'm not a farmer but my dad was and I've heard of RR canola) there is no doubt exactly what he had found. So this item alone answers 2/3rds of your post.
As for the rest of your post. Well lets see, he had 6 acres contaminated out of at least 1050 acres. Surely he had clean seed somewhere.
As for what else he should have done. Well let's see. He was a corporate farm(incorporated by himself), as a corporation he has obligations not to use a patented product he hasn't licensed. However, he also has remedies when other corporation's products either deliberately or even unknowingly interfere with his product. He could have simply addressed the issue with Monsanto and asked them to compensate him for the damage. Failing cooperation from Monsanto he would have had to sue. This isn't any different than when any two companies have potential disagreements. That is, after all, part of the function of the courts.
Now as for your +10000 year comment. These aren't subsistence farmers who are trading their extra product for someone elses cows, or sheep or something. They are corporate farms, many of which are large enterprises, their owners able to move to Florida or Phoenix for the winter. I say good for them they work hard for their money. But they are companies no more or less and are obligated to act as such. Schmeiser had methods of redress in 1996 if he felt wrong. Instead he gambled he could get away with something and lost.
"This is the ridiculous part. You'd be expected to go out of your way to avoid using the patent-encumbered product, despite it forcing itself on you."
While it may seem ridiculous that is indeed the case, but it doesn't just apply to genes it applies to mechanical parts as well so it's not like the court is unfairly applying the law to a "new" area.
"Yeah, then you stop using a product you depend on until you can prove the guilt of a multi-billion dollar corporation and force them to pay to fix it. Where does the money come from to pursue this?"
As I pointed out in my last reply, you don't need to stop using the whole of the product, just the part that is patent encumbered. Of course, the question of the ability of the user to remove the part was left unaddressed by the court. This is the part that really makes this different, you can't just remove the gene, unlike the virus you mentioned, or the piece of hardware in one of the precedents used by the court(note that the case didn't hinge on this precedent it was just used as an example of a step a company could take to distance themselves from "use"). So I suspect, that future lawsuits will have to address this issue.
As well, any case against a virus writer would not just be civil but also criminal. So the costs would likely be covered mostly by the state. Even if not I'm sure there are plenty of lawyers that would take such a case on a contingency basis. Note however, that nobody has suggested that Monsanto planted the seed on Schmeiser's land on purpose. It was "accidental" contamination, even so the Schmeiser case seems to suggest that Monsanto is the complete owner of the gene and should therefore be liable for damages caused by their patent. All it takes is one case to set the precedent. I'm fairly sure that there must be a lawyer somewhere that would take this on a class-action suit basis.
As for the broken nature of what can be patented(different from all of patent law which isn't likely all broken), I happen to agree with you. The only thing I'm defending here is the logic behind the decision and the fact that the court had no basis to overturn a patent that the government has granted.
I happen to believe that the process of getting the gene in to non-GMO seeds can be patented but not the gene itself. But than again we allow companies to just throw chemicals together until they come up with something useful and patent that(pharmaceuticals) so this isn't without precedent.
But than again Schmeiser had the chance to completely change the nature of the way we view GMO's. He could have set out to make Monsanto responsible for their patent, he didn't do this. Someday I'm hoping someone will. Maybe than the Monsanto's of the world won't be so quick to patent these genes that they have no ultimate control over.
While you make a good point, the thing is these aren't subsistence farmers we're talking about. Many of them have thousands of acres and are companies or corporations themselves. As such they must act that way. They have the means at their disposal to manage the problem.
For instance they could start negotiations now with Monsanto to determine some percentage at which Monsanto would take responsibility for the problem and replace the seed with clean seed. Rather than treat Monsanto as an enemy you work with them to manage the problem. For Monsanto it becomes a cost of doing business. If they aren't willing to enter in to such agreements than the avenue to redress is the courts just like when any two businesses have a disagreement.
The thing that the court in the Schmeiser case did not need to consider was the difficulty/impossibility of removing the patented gene if you found it but didn't want to use it. It was a fact that was left unaddressed since it wasn't necessary to the case. I suspect this fact would/should play a major part in any case against Monsanto.
First off, Schmeiser was able to use his pre-existing supplies. He had only 6 of at least 1050 acres contaminated. So he had plenty of clean crop around to take seed from. But even if his whole crop was contaminated, his proper response was to contact Monsanto to take care of it, which in such a case would mean to pay damages including supplying him with new clean seed. If they refused he would have to sue them. Sure that doesn't seem fair, but if all business was fair there would be no need for the courts. So instead of taking proper action Schmeiser tried to get away with patent infringement and got caught.
Secondly your Excel example is more akin to the hardware precedent since the patent encumbered algorithm can be replaced. Note, that you wouldn't be expected to stop using Excel, but you would be expected to disinfect it or if that fails you would need to reinstall. The point is that it doesn't matter how you received a patent encumbered product you can't use it in a commercial enterprise.
As well, if you could prove the virus was written by the patent holder than you've got one hell of a law suit. Which is exactly what Schmeiser should have done, or at the very least he should have asked Monsanto to take care of the problem. The lawsuit would only be necessary if they refused. Given the reasoning in his actual lawsuit the likelihood is that he would have won. This does not mean that he could use the seed in the manner he did.
Lastly Schmeiser wasn't found liable simply because his crop was infected. Had he acted properly than Monsanto would have been liable for infecting his land. Instead he was found liable because he actively worked to use the patent. It is clear from the case that Monsanto owns the gene in question and is therefore very likely liable for damage caused by that gene just as any patent holder would be liable for damage caused by their patent. But since that's not what the case was about the court couldn't find Monsanto liable for anything. That's a completely different case, one that Schmeiser should have engaged in when he found the contamination.
As far as the Supreme Court of Canada is concerned it isn't a question of how you obtained the patented product it's about how you used it. The word "use" plays a very important role in their decision as patent law in Canada confers a temporary monopoly on the patent holder for the "use" or exploitation of the patent.
m l/ 2004scc034.wpd.html
Here's a link to the court decision,
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/ht
And here's an important bit,
"The plain meaning of the word "use" or "exploiter" denotes utilization with a view to production or advantage. The purpose of s. 42 is to define the exclusive rights granted to the patent holder. The question in determining whether a defendant has "used" a patented invention is whether the defendant's activity deprived the inventor in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, of full enjoyment of the monopoly conferred by law."
The decision than goes in to some length explaining how "use" is important and what may constitute "use". The court found that by spraying with Round-up in 1996, cultivating the seeds of the resultant Round-up resistant crop, having them cleaned in 1998, planting them and maturing them, that Schmeiser "used" the invention. But not only this they even go in to how he could have avoided this presumption of use. All he had to do is to show that he actively attempted NOT to use the seed. In other words, he should have contacted Monsanto, told them he had found RR canola on his pristine field and that he wants them to do something about it(at Monsanto's expense). He could than have even offered to let Monsanto test his seed at the end of the year(again at their expense).
The point is that this farm is a commercial interest, not a subsistence farm where the plants are for their personal use(which would have been legal by the way). Because the farm is a commercial interest they must act like one.
As to "accidental" contamination, the court even addressed that. Turns out there's case law although it regards a machine with a patented part that the purchaser of the machine had no use for. So the company purchasing the unpatented machine simply made no use of the patented part and thus weren't infringing.
There's plenty more, and quite frankly I think the reasoning is impeccable, those are some smart judges. I still don't believe you should be able to patent genes. But given the current state of the law, the judges did an incredible job.
I can't believe how many people are making this mistake.
The ruling doesn't say anything about Monsanto's liability with regards to "forcibly seeding" Schmeiser's land. The original ruling which the Supreme Court upheld said that for the case they were trying it didn't matter how Schmeiser originally obtained the seed only that he obviously cultivated it knowing what it was thus illegaly using Monsanto's patent.
Had Schmeiser sued Monsanto for infecting his crop he likely would have won(given the Supreme Court's ruling that Monsanto is the owner of the genetic offspring).
For the analogy in question if you forced yourself on the woman she could have you charged with rape(which is rather appropo to the discussion when you consider that Canola is derived from "rape seed"). Which is equivilent to Schmeiser suing Monsanto for damages, which is what he should have done were he in fact an innocent victim(which I highly doubt).
If you don't think that small town Saskatchewan mayor's can make up stories than you've never been to Saskatchewan.
Now that aside, I read the parent's link and the only thing that seemed out of place was the clear attempt to avoid the issue of GMO crops infecting non-GMO crops. For instance, just because the nearest neighbor's farm was 8 Kms away doesn't mean Schmeiser's crop wasn't initially infected by RR Canola. Roush doesn't outright deny it could happen he just implies the distance is too great. However, given the detail of his other facts it seems relevant that he didn't indicate how far Canola pollen can travel.
Otherwise his facts don't seem out of place, and in fact the courts did find that Schmeiser deliberately cultivated Round-up Ready Canola and subsequently used it illegally.
So, one possible mouth piece doesn't outright deny a single possible problem while the other is clearly making up stories, enjoying the limelight and denying any wrong doing.
In my experience people "acting in the public interest" aren't. They are acting in their own interests just as much as a corporation and neither side is above using falsehoods and intimidation to get their way.
For the record, for all the "most important debates of our times" I find that I am never on the side of those supposedly acting "in the public's interest"(e.g. I'm for nuclear power, against the Kyoto agreement, I'm for globalization etc. etc. etc.). Since I'm part of this public I can categorically deny that these groups are acting in my interests.
Christ this is Slashdot, if you want me to be grammatically correct, pay me to post!
As far as the Minister of Agriculture is concerned 13 of those 27 lots were "pure". Secondly, if I have misunderstood and the lots don't indicate different varieties than more information than provided by the link is needed to know if the impurity is indeed a problem. Such as, did the lots come from the same Breeder? Are the lots from the same seed variety?
.25% contaminated but that the resultant crop was greater than .25% contaminated. At the levels Schmeiser was claiming this is a nobrainer.
Thirdly, if I'm incorrect in suggesting that 13 of the lots passing the purity test indicates half of all lots are "uncontaminated", than your point of all seed being contaminated isn't supported by 14 of 27 lots failing the test either.
Lastly, my original point was that a farmer can indeed get "uncontaminated" seed(certified so by the Government of Canada or an agent of such I presume). That seed can be planted and if greater than the allowed percentage of exports is found than the farmer has a case against Monsanto.
In other words I said, "just buy uncontaminated seed", you said or at least implied it was impossible since all seed is contaminated. While technically correct it misses my point since you can still get certified "uncontaminated" seed with at least a 99.75% purity. For the purposes of the law in Canada that is considered "pure". For the purposes of a law suit you would simply need to show that your seed was indeed at most
So why didn't he just sue Monsanto in the year he found contamination rather than harvest the seed and try to use it illegally?
Given that there is a "test" for purity(e.g. it needs to be 99.75% free) the point of the article is mute if your trying to say that it's impossible to buy uncontaminated seed. Clearly this isn't the case, seed that is at least 99.75% pure is considered uncontaminated and 13 of the 27 varieties tested were thus "uncontaminated". That is a far stretch from being unable to buy uncontaminated seed which is what your trying to claim.
.25% contamination wasn't lost on me, but it seems that the apparent "legal" definition of uncontaminated is lost on you. Believe me, this is clearly an important distinction for two reasons.
.25% contamination, if it does you have a case against the seed dealer. .25% contamination in your field you should have a clear case against Monsanto.
.25% contamination they can't sue you. You should be able to sue them for trespass though.
The point of
1) If something is certified "uncontaminated" it can't have more than
2) If your seed was "uncontaminated" and you discover more than
Actually I also thought of a third one,
3) If Monsanto tests your field and you have less than
Schmeiser did ALMOST exactly that. We don't know that he threw the seeds in the ditch. But it doesn't matter, we do know he took the seeds after having discovered they were RR canola(easy enough test really just spray RR on them) and used them. The court found him guilty of violating the patent. So that "loop-hole" never existed.
As for the lower court, the question before them wasn't about how Schmeiser got the seeds only that once he knew what they were(and all evidence said he knew) did he have the right to use them?
Rather than use the seeds Schmeiser should have sued Monsanto for contaminating his field. Turns out he would have won, or more correctly very likely would have won. Note that the two questions are entirely different cases. One asks whether you have the right to use a licensed patent without the patent holders consent, the other asks whose responsibility is it to keep a patented product from contaminating a non-patented product.
Normally the second question wouldn't need asking since patents up until now required some action to actually use them or incorporate them in a product. With gene patents this isn't the case. My personal opinion given the result of the Schmeiser case is that Monsanto would be found liabel for damages resulting from the misuse of their patented product.
Except that I live in the province where this guy is from so I "know" of what I speak.
Schmeiser claims that the year before Monsanto found out he was using seed with their gene in it that he found the seed in plants growing by a power pole. In later testing he discovered plants on his field(his story). He than saved the seeds from these plants and planted them the following year. Which was when Monsanto came along, found his field had 95-98% Round-up Ready Canola and sued him for using their patent unlawfully.
The facts of the case aren't in dispute. However, Schmeiser tried to claim he had some right to use the seeds because Monsanto didn't own the patent on the plant(or the seed produced by the plant) only the gene and the process of getting the gene in to non-GMO seeds.
Now whether or not you agree with gene patenting(I don't) it is clear that Schmeiser knew exactly what he was doing and tried to get away with it(remember he's a farmer of 50 years so he knew the terms of Monsanto's licenses and knew exactly what he "found" when he sprayed Round-up on them).
His "proper" course of action was to document the contamination of his precious organic seed and sue Monsanto for all their worth for not keeping their product off his field. Of course, before his actual case he wouldn't have been assured of the outcome, but now it should be a cake walk.
No you aren't the only person but the way to show the absurdity is to hold Monsanto accountable for their actions not to try to fly in the face of the law.
From what I understand leaching/contamination occurs regularly. Given the court decision it should be simple to sue and win a case against Monsanto for damage done by their product.
Except that the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
His correct course of action when finding RR Canola in his supposedly clean field was to sue Monsanto. Instead he cultivated it and planted it next year. The Supreme Court found this to be a violation of Monsanto's patent.
Furthermore, you certainly can control what is done with your patented product. Monsanto doesn't sell you the product of the patent they license it to you for use. Their conditions are explicit. It's up to the farmers to ensure that the product isn't misused(e.g. they can't trade it or save seed for next year or do a bunch of other things).
Secondly if you sell me a patented product I can't make a duplicate and sell it or give it away. Furthermore, you could license it to me on the condition I don't give it to anyone else to make a copy.
Furthermore, Schmeiser didn't argue he had "first sale doctrine" rights. He tried to argue that the plant itself wasn't patented only the original seed. The court found otherwise.
The proper response for farmers at this point is to not buy RR Canola and sue Monsanto if/when their field becomes contaminated. The case is now incredibly easy to make, a farmer simply needs to ensure they keep good records of their purchasing and planting. From what everyone is saying contamination happens regularly so it should be an open and shut case.
Why are you continualy posting a link to an article and claiming it says something it doesn't?
14 out of 27 seed varieties failed the 99.75% pure(what the hell is this a Dove soap bar?).
Secondly, let's hope Percy documented the supposed contamination so that he can sue Monsanto for every thing they're worth.
By the way, it also occurs to me that your link clearly shows that there is a whole industry concerned with this issue, otherwise why would there be a "guideline" that says just how pure something has to be to be considered "pure" and thus not be sued by Monsanto. Presumably this industry isn't miniscule(e.g. one farmer). So the possibility of a class-action lawsuit should be very viable. So tell me, why isn't it happening?
Excuse me but the link you sent me to doesn't indicate anything about "virtually all seed being contaminated". It does indicate a real problem though, which I haven't disagreed with. However, the best course of action now especially for these "purists" is to sue Monsanto's ass off in a class-action lawsuit.
For the Supreme Court of Canada to find for Monsanto in such a case would go totally against the ruling in the Schmeiser case.
As for your second paragraph. The farmer shouldn't deliberately cultivate that part of his crop that is RR canola as Percy did. Again the report your link takes me to talks about the greater than ".25%" contaminated(apparently anything less than this is considered pure). The report however isn't about the fact that the crop would be worthless as seed, it's that it would be contaminated with "weeds"(the RR canola is a weed when you don't want it).
So a farmer concerned with contamination, should 1) not cultivate the part of his crop that is RR canola, 2) buy only "pure" seed every year until court case over, again the link you gave clearly shows there are at least 13 varieties that are "pure" 3) plant RR seed until case is over, paying Monsanto's royalties, note sue them before planting otherwise your out of luck.
Percy's court case is almost guarantteed to result in a win for such a farmer rather than against the farmer. In fact the only thing in question in such a case would be whether the crop was contaminated or you stole it, so make sure you document well.
Well, rather than just take old Percy's word for it, how about going and reading the Supreme Court ruling itself, you can find it here,
m l/ 2004scc034.wpd.html
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/ht
Note the fact that it is pointed out that they found 95-98% RR Canola in his crop and secondly that the Supreme Court indicates that he "actively cultivated" it and that this finding was in no way rebutted by old Percy.
So before we get all misty eyed over him, lets maybe take a look at what the facts were found to be.
Secondly, although it is called Round-up Ready the gene itself doesn't know the difference between Round-up and any other glyphosate based herbicide. So just because he didn't use RR for the year in question, maybe he used something else? Or maybe, just maybe he was hoping that when the patent runs out he would have some of this RR around and viable and would be able to sell it to whomever he pleased.
The ruling by the Supreme's clearly opens the door to any organic farmer to sue Monsanto's ass off for contamination. I can't believe people don't see that this is a good thing not a bad thing.
Hey now, obviously you didn't do your research either. It's not a question of whether Schmeiser knew Round-up Ready Canola existed. The question was if Schmeiser didn't use Roundup how did he know his seed was resistant? The answer is, that according to him, in the previous year to the one in question he used Round-up on what he thought were simple offshoot's in the ditch of his "natural" crop. When he found the ditch canola to be RR resistant he tried a greater swatch of his land and found it to be RR resistant. He than apparently purposely cultivated this RR resistant strain, getting 98% the following year is one big coincidence.
Yup, and he should have used those grounds.
Instead he ignored it and chose to use Monsanto's product, by doing so he lost those grounds(or has he? I'm not a lawyer so maybe he hasn't). The problem of course is that he has to prove contamination, something that I'm not sure he documented to the satisfaction of the court.
Schmeiser knew it was Roundup-Ready but used it anyway, guess what? he shouldn't have done that. Instead as soon as he documented this infestation of RR Canola he should have sued Monsanto for contamination, loss of future income due to seed contamination, and lets throw in emotional distress for ruining his family crop. Ironically, the ruling by the Supreme Court almost guarantees he would have won.
So the thing to do now is, 1) buy non-RR Canola seed, document that this is the case(e.g. genetic testing), plant said seed. Test each year until contamination ensues. Sue Monsanto's pants off in a class-action law-suit for contamination of the "organic" seed industry. The cool thing is it no longer matters how it gets contaminated. If you trade with your neighbor and he has RR seed but doesn't tell you, big deal, still Monsanto's fault because they "own" the seed.
So before everyone goes around getting all bleary eyed for the "poor" organic farmer they have a clear avenue for redress should they choose to use it.
I am no friend of allowing companies to patent genes but this guy has nobody to blame but himself.
He knew the seed he saved was Round-up Ready Canola. As a farmer for 50 years he had to have known. At the time of discovering this he had two choices, 1) sue Monsanto for ruining his crop and infecting his otherwise clean seed, there is a good possibility he would have won. Actually this outcome is now almost assured due to Schmeiser losing his case, if that's not irony I don't know what is. 2) save the seed and use it next year knowing what Monsanto's terms of use were and knowing how they react to people using their patented product. Schmeiser chose the latter action and got caught, that's too bad. It shows me that I live in a province where the farmers don't appear much smarter than they ever were.
Secondly I don't feel sorry for any farmer that buys Monsanto's seed and than bitches about the contract terms. Christ, it's not like farmers don't know beforehand what the terms are, it's clearly spelled out in black and white. You don't like the terms, don't buy the seed, not exactly hard to figure out. But again, this province I live in breeds people who think big companies and the government "owe" them something. So they'll try to get away with it in the hopes that people will see them as some poor small farmer just trying to make a living.
Oh and by the way only 40% of Canola grown in Canada is Round-up Ready so there's still plenty of "clean" Canola seed available if farmers are so upset at Monsanto. But guess what, that 40% also tells me that there's alot of farmers who really aren't that upset or they were too stupid to have read the contract when they bought the seed, but again I don't feel sorry for them they bought their own misery.
While I personally don't think genes should be patentable, I also don't believe stupidity should be protected.
Wooh there pardner.
The court didn't find Schmeiser guilty just because he had seed on his land, they found him guilty because they said he used seed he knew(or should have known) contained the gene. In other words for the case in question it didn't end up on his land "through no fault of his". Had that actually been the case I'm sure they would have sided with him.
While there may have been real questions as to where the seed originated, if I remember correctly the court found he held on to the seed and planted it himself. In other words he used a patented product without the patent holder's say so.
Now don't get me wrong. I think the patenting of genes is ridiculous. You should be able to patent the process of getting the gene in to an organism but that's it. The actual gene or combination of them should be wide open. Patenting genes is a little too much like stumbling along gold and than claiming you invented it.
Now, as to the spread of "GMO's". On the question of whether a company would be liable for actual accidental spread the court was particularly mute since they found that this particular planting of it to not be accidental. However, if there is any sanity left in the world I suspect that absent legislation to counteract it, the courts would find for a farmer who could show damage due to the GMO if it accidentally spread to his crop. The thing is, if Schmeiser had sued Monsanto in the year he supposedly found the contamination we may very well be reading about a different outcome.
In other words, the thing for farmers to do now, is to document that they planted "clean" seed. Determine at the end of the year if any Monsanto seed is in their crop and if there is, they should sue for damages. The fact is, this case basically ensures they will win.
A little late for a reply I guess but...
The other interesting thing from those statistics is that IE6+IE5 peaked at 88% in March 2003 and has fallen almost 7% to 81.7%. In that same period Mozilla went from 4.2% to 11.2% a gain of 7%. Just perusing the stats it appears to be an almost lock-step cannabilization from IE6+IE5 to Mozilla.