Monsanto Wins Case Over Patented Canola 599
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.
So, it spreads itself... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
It is the fact that the darn things are picked green for handling by automation and shipping, only later to be "ripened" by exposure to ethelyne gas.
The only trouble is that while the ethelyne may reproduce the softening portion of ripening that happens on the vine, it doesn't load up any of the tasty compunds into the tomato that normaly
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:4, Insightful)
Umm thats has nothing to do with GM foods or organic foods, much like how today's roses have lost their fragerence after years of cross breading, today's tomato's have been breed to be physically beautiful sacrificing taste because at grocery store, regular people don't get tomato's on taste but whether not they are round,red and not bruised.
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an even bigger problem. Now farmers can't set aside part of their crop for the next season's planting, and instead have to go back to Monsanto (or whomever) to buy more seed each year. Suppose Monsanto has a superior variety of wheat that grabs a big portion of the world market (which is what they're trying to do, after all). Then you have a big chunk of the world's food supply depending on one company and the relatively few seed farms that it operates. Even if the company has the best of intentions, any major problems -- disease, pests, natural disasters, terrorism -- on a small number of seed farms could then have huge repercussions worldwide.
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
[tin foil hat mode]
They could as long a black helicopter didn't drop patented seeds on their fields durring the night.
[/tin foil hat mode]
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agraculterual life: GM food - Reproduces and propogates. It's legal to infect others and illegale to become infected.
Big problem here. If the same rules applied to computer life as GM food then I could copywrite a virus and charge my victims... er, customers who become infected. I'd be rich beyond my wildest dreams. This needs to be fixed.
TW
Accept my appologies on behalf of Central Services (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:5, Informative)
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
no, we're not surprised... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Check your facts (Score:4, Informative)
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 [bbc.co.uk]
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:4, Funny)
I would imagine that the crops are still organic, being that they grow and are composed mostly of carbon molecules and water...
I'm sure that this crop is a lot tastier and nutritious than the INorganic rocks and dirt that are just lying around!
OK, smartass (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:OK, smartass (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no global food shortage. There are regional and individual food shortages which are exacerbated by politics. The problem isn't that there's no enough food, the problem is that we can't get the food to the people who need it.
Re:What Organic means to food (Score:3, Insightful)
Apparently you think people wh
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:5, Informative)
Surprised isn't the word. Try pissed. For close to a decade, now. You're thinking about Monsanto's [google.com] PR-failing terminator [organicconsumers.org] seeds. The doo-doo started hitting the fan for them in 1998. They were the ones that would produce sterile seed unless treated with a Monsanto-owned chemical. The problem was that it was possible for the new gene to cross via pollen into neighbors crops. It's one thing to have your organic corn become valueless (and get a hefty legal judgement against you for "stealing") because the wind blows your neighbor's crop pollen your way. It is a completely different thing to discover what happened only next spring, when the only thing coming up in the back 40 is weeds because your saved organic seed *somehow* became sterile.
To their credit, Monsanto DID voluntarily declare they wouldn't use the terminator genes. For an undeclared period. But they've have been granted the patents on them, so it's an ace they can still play.
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Really interesting read.
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Supposed to be sterile? (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.
Re:Supposed to be sterile? (Score:5, Interesting)
I under stand that if you found the original pre-indian corn, it would be worth millions.
Re:Supposed to be sterile? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think they finally "re-bred" early corn. I recall reading something about it a year or so ago. The "ear" is only a few inches long and has only four or five rows of tiny kernals. I believe they narrowed down Teosinte grass as the original ancestor of corn and "bred up" from there, just like the indians did. I wish I could remember where I read that...
Re:Supposed to be sterile? (Score:4, Interesting)
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!
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:4, Funny)
Coincidence that 10 year old girls have C cup's now ?
You've been researching this? So... where do you live, again? I... uh... just wanted to... mm... send a.. uh.. pizza.... not the police or anything.
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:3, Funny)
Haven't you been getting your daily required dose of television lately? We Americans are so obese that our 10 year old boys have C cups.
Re:So, it spreads itself... (Score:5, Interesting)
Glad we're not the only ones! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Roundup-resistant dandelions. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Glad we're not the only ones! (Score:3, Informative)
Roundup is not patented, IIRC. The active ingredient is glyphosate. It's marketed under other names like glyphos and touchdown.
Even though all these chemicals are essentially the same, Monsanto has their contracts written in such a way that if you don't use roundup, the seeds have no warranty, and perhaps other "bad things"
My dad farms, grows roundup ready soybeans, and used to sell ag chemicals, as well as being a professional agronomist.
Re:Glad we're not the only ones! (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years of that and tada... Roundup resistant dandelions. It'd only cost $50 per year for 5-10 years. How much did Monsanto spend on research trying for the same effect?
Once you have the field of resistant weeds, harvest some of it and go visit Monsanto and offer to sell them your "high tech" dandelions for research purposes.
Re:Glad we're not the only ones! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you're assuming that the trait already exists somewhere in the population so that it can be selected. Otherwise, you might as well select dandelions on their ability to speak French...
Re:Glad we're not the only ones! (Score:3, Informative)
What can I patent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
Easy way for AgriBusiness to kill competitors... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
In related news... (Score:5, Funny)
Monsanto lobbies to repeal of laws of nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Monsanto lobbies to repeal of laws of nature? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I think if a patented item can spread itself without the consent of the recipient, then they sure as hell can't be expected to pay for it.
Re:Monsanto lobbies to repeal of laws of nature? (Score:5, Interesting)
I would guess that Schmeiser could sue the other farm that let the seeds blow onto his crops. The "pollution" of his fields caused him an economic damage. He cant use the seeds now because he is not licensed. In Texas,Kansas etc farmers get paid if an oil line spills onto their crop, I don't see how "seed pollution" should be any different.
Re:Monsanto lobbies to repeal of laws of nature? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or we could declare that all plants and animals produced before 1985 are Natural (as though Noah had Holstein cows on the ark) and everything else is Frankenfood, from which we must re
Re:Monsanto lobbies to repeal of laws of nature? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just not true. It's not **necessary** to have a monopoly to make a profit. Patents are only a limited-time monopoly anyway, and serve to ensure that innovations will (eventually) make their way into the public domain... Yes a monopoly helps, but it's entirely reasonable for a company to need to compete on things like price, quality, customer service, etc., in the absence of a monopoly. And the company that comes out with an innovation is still going to have "first to market" advantage, and possible "trade secret" status for their innovation. There would still be reasons to innovate even if there were no patents.
Truth be told, patents today have become more of a hindrance to business than anything. Especially smaller companies / solo inventors without the funding for armies of patent attorneys to research, file, and litigate over these things.
In other news (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Killing Roundup Ready Plants (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Killing Roundup Ready Plants (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Killing Roundup Ready Plants (Score:3, Interesting)
we had this crazy bamboo that a moron brought back from Brazil 50 years ago that was running amok in the ally, nothing killed it, gasoline, diesel fuel, plowing it under, finally, I bought 20 bags of rock salt and dumped them all over the area and plowed the salt into the soil.... I have not seen a single bamboo shoot for 3 years.
Just a little factoid that may make a difference. (Score:5, Informative)
And you may note, if you read the opinion, that the issue addressed was only the patentability of genetically modified seeds.
Thalia
Re:Just a little factoid that may make a differenc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just a little factoid that may make a differenc (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Use is infringement (Score:3, Informative)
whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent [cornell.edu] (emphasis added).
What total bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
Give me a fucking break.
Re:What total bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
What happens when some of it spills on the way to market? Since it doesn't look any different than regular corn, gets grown by him next year, totally by accident. It breeds with other, normal corn, and the gene spreads. Will he get sued by Monsanto for patent infringement because he spilled some corn kernels that happened to breed with regular corn? This case allows for a precedent.
Yes, I realize that this guy has been found to have intentionally planted it, but don't think for a second that Monsanto wouldn't be pushing us down the slippery slope towards a world where every seed has to be picked up off of a field lest they lose profits.
Patenting things that can copy themselves is lunacy.
Well (Score:3, Interesting)
Another case of protest first, think later... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Higher life forms (Score:5, Funny)
In Related News: (Score:5, Funny)
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."
Slashdot 2021 (Score:3, Funny)
Rape victim sued. (Score:3, Insightful)
Canadian Supreme court upholds $25,000,000 against rape victim for patent infringement.
Jane Doe was raped on May 12, 2021 by Andrew Luster, VI. This rape caused Doe to become Pregnant with Luster's child. Since Luster was generically enhanced, and the enhancement was patented, this caused the Doe baby and the process used by Doe to create this child to infringe on Luster's patent.
The court was not convinced that Luster was himself liable for the patent violation or gave consent to
"Organic" crops (Score:5, Interesting)
Muahahaha (Score:5, Funny)
This has given me an idea for my next evil ploy for world domination:
*insane cackling*
GPL (Score:5, Funny)
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
For you city folk... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For you city folk... (Score:3, Funny)
Heh, this reminds me of when I was working as a research assistant at a state department of agriculture station. We were clearing a field to plant bok choy, to test it as a possible crop to be grown in my state. The field had been growing belgian endive the previous few seasons. To get rid of the endive left over from the year before t
Offspring licencing (Score:5, Interesting)
Misleading headline (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Monsanto%20Lying.ht
He said, she said?
Re:Misleading headline (Score:3, Informative)
Innocence Is No Defense! (Score:3, Insightful)
Although in the USA, the day may be closer than we think: we have the Great and Wonderful Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. In response to DNA evidence that cleared a man on death row, he said that mere innocence is no grounds to overturn a judgement.
Re:Innocence Is No Defense! (Score:3, Informative)
That most excellent champion of justice and personal role model to everyone here on /., Antonin Scalia [www.fdp.dk]
"There is no basis in text, tradition, or even contemporary practice for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction."
"If the system shocks the dissenter's conscience perhaps they should doubt the calibration of their consciences."
Human Patents (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Patent infringement upheld, but damages eliminated (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Patent infringement upheld, but damages elimina (Score:3, Insightful)
This almost sounds like a situation the anti-anything-Monsanto-does forces dreamed up because if they won they would have created another source of "major brand of weedkiller ready" seed that would have zeroed out the worth of the Roundup Ready Canola product's patent instantly. If they lost, oh well, at least they financial damage to them is matched by Monsanto because they each had to pay their own legal fees.
Better yet, this situation made Monsanto
A temporary setback... (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 [conservative.ca] 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 [liberal.ca] 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 [www.ndp.ca] 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 [greenparty.ca]. 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.
Sick and twisted (Score:4, Insightful)
Another corporate victory. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
And in the real world today.... (Score:4, Funny)
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 ?
Both sides in the wrong (Score:5, Informative)
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.
great incentive (Score:3, Funny)
This makes no sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose some "radical" activist takes a bunch of patent-encumbered seeds and drops them from an airplane on all the canola fields in Canada. Now, every farm owes massive royalties to Monsanto. There are three possible resolutions to this situation: 1) Monsanto doesn't try to collect (improbable); 2) Monsanto tries to collect and bankrupts every farm in Canada, ruining the entire industry; 3) Monsanto tries to collect, and Canada is forced to provide a subsidy to pay for the settlements, in order to preserve the canola industry.
In any case, the whole deal would be completely fucked. It appears that Canada has just massively shot itself in the foot.
So, anybody got an airplane I can borrow?
Let the lawsuits begin (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
WTF is a "canola" seed? (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:WTF is a "canola" seed? (Score:4, Informative)
The true difference between "canola" and "rapeseed" lies in the amount of erucic acid in the oil from the seed. This makes a very significant difference to the farmer.
Canola, grown as a food oil source, has a very low quantity (less than 2%) of erucic acid. Rapeseed grown for industrial purposes may have up to 45% erucic acid instead.
How about a better source than me?
Ag Marketing Resource Center [agmrc.org] has a good explanation.
Read the G&M article... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This does not only apply to bioengineered seeds (Score:5, Interesting)
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"
Percy (Score:5, Informative)
The whole story of the Monsanto claim: (Score:5, Informative)
His crop was about 95% Monsanto wheat. That's why he lost.
GM Canola Ban in Australia (Score:3, Informative)
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!
WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
Other herbicides (Score:3, Informative)
To be honest, most Roundup (glyphosate) resistance is a byproduct of installing another gene. What happens is that the plants are transformed for one reason or another, and a linked gene for Roundup resistance is added.
So, when you try to transform, say, 1000 plants, you take the progeny and grow them on media with glyphosate in them, or spray the seedlings with glyphosate or whatever. The ones that survive *should* have the other gene along
Bullpucky story: Overstated/Incorrect implication (Score:5, Informative)
Here at Lexum [umontreal.ca]
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!
Re:You forget the generational aspect.... (Score:3, Informative)
What crack are you smoking? This has nothing to do with this case, tard.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on this foolish hypothetical situation you just pulled out your arse--they ruled on THIS PARTICULAR CASE, and laid down clear groundrules for what would constitute deliberate abuse and use in the future, so your "Legal? Of course" crap is already dealt with and answered.
Have y
Some choice quotes from the actual decision (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:If you recall... (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:If you recall... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:If you recall... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Low flying plane (Score:4, Interesting)