5 ms·

Ok, yes they will sue when a farmer willingly and deliberately uses cross pollinate seeds. I see nothing controversial there though.

acqq 11y ago
It is controversial as the farmer was actually doing breeding himself 50 years using his own seeds. His actions were the actions of the breeder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Sc... "In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]" Nobody disputes that it was a case of cross-pollination. He was sued for keeping the results of that cross-pollination. Why shouldn't he if he didn't use the seeds from Monsanto but his own?
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  Because the seeds weren't his own anymore. What, you think he believes he bred a roundup ready crop? That's why he lost the case, he definitely knew what he was doing.
  - acqq 11y ago
    How come the seeds aren't his own? The complete genetic structure of his seeds is certainly different to the Monsanto ones. It's just that the one allele got transferred via cross-pollination and remained in his own seeds he preserved, giving the seeds one specific property which is the same as in the Monsanto seeds. Breeding is selecting your own seeds based on their properties, and Schmeiser was a breeder.
- bmelton 11y ago
  Unless I'm missing something from your citation, he wasn't sued. He was the suer, and he won. I don't see what's controversial about that. Edit: I see that the other suit[1] was not cited. In the Monsanto v. Schmeizer suit, he was accidentally planting Monsanto seeds that he had harvested, and did not mount a sufficient defense against it. "Schmeiser supporters argued that his account still leaves open the possibility that the harvesting and replanting of Roundup Ready canola from the sprayed region was accidental and resulted from a miscommunication between Schmeiser and his farmhand, or from a failure of Schmeiser to have the presence of mind to instruct his farmhand to avoid taking canola seed for replanting from the sprayed region." He knowingly used Monsanto seeds in his crops, but thought that using the seeds would not be theft because he didn't apply RoundUp to them. That's like suggesting that if I steal a Tesla roadster, but convert it to a gasoline engine, then I haven't stolen it. Again though, I don't see this as terribly controversial, unless I'm missing something. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
  - greglindahl 11y ago
    Stealing a physical thing (Tesla Roadster) is not at all like infringing a patent or violating a contract. Your arguments would work a lot better if you didn't say things like that.
    - bmelton 11y ago
      I respect intellectual property, so the analogy works for me, but fine, it's like pirating an English film that's been dubbed into a language other than the one it was filmed in, and claiming that no piracy has occurred. Edit: That first sentence came out unintentionally snarky, but I can't think of a better way to put it, so please understand that no snark was intended.
      - greglindahl 11y ago
        That's also a terrible analogy. And are you saying that I don't respect intellectual property, if I disagree with the previous flawed analogy? Many people who respect intellectual property don't agree with it: just look at the reactions of experts to the various "Piracy is theft" PR campaigns.

acqq 11y ago

It is controversial as the farmer was actually doing breeding himself 50 years using his own seeds. His actions were the actions of the breeder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Schmeiser#Monsanto_v._Sc... "In 1997, Percy Schmeiser found Monsanto's genetically modified “Roundup Ready Canola” plants growing near his farm. He testified that he sprayed his nearby field and found that much of the crop survived, meaning it was also Roundup Ready.[2] He testified that he then harvested that crop, saved it separately from his other harvest, and intentionally planted it in 1998.[2] Monsanto approached him to pay a license fee for using Monsanto's patented technology without a license. Schmeiser refused, claiming that the actual seed was his because it was grown on his land, and so Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement on August 6, 1998.[2]" Nobody disputes that it was a case of cross-pollination. He was sued for keeping the results of that cross-pollination. Why shouldn't he if he didn't use the seeds from Monsanto but his own?

vectorjohn 11y ago
Because the seeds weren't his own anymore. What, you think he believes he bred a roundup ready crop? That's why he lost the case, he definitely knew what he was doing.
- acqq 11y ago
  How come the seeds aren't his own? The complete genetic structure of his seeds is certainly different to the Monsanto ones. It's just that the one allele got transferred via cross-pollination and remained in his own seeds he preserved, giving the seeds one specific property which is the same as in the Monsanto seeds. Breeding is selecting your own seeds based on their properties, and Schmeiser was a breeder.
bmelton 11y ago
Unless I'm missing something from your citation, he wasn't sued. He was the suer, and he won. I don't see what's controversial about that. Edit: I see that the other suit[1] was not cited. In the Monsanto v. Schmeizer suit, he was accidentally planting Monsanto seeds that he had harvested, and did not mount a sufficient defense against it. "Schmeiser supporters argued that his account still leaves open the possibility that the harvesting and replanting of Roundup Ready canola from the sprayed region was accidental and resulted from a miscommunication between Schmeiser and his farmhand, or from a failure of Schmeiser to have the presence of mind to instruct his farmhand to avoid taking canola seed for replanting from the sprayed region." He knowingly used Monsanto seeds in his crops, but thought that using the seeds would not be theft because he didn't apply RoundUp to them. That's like suggesting that if I steal a Tesla roadster, but convert it to a gasoline engine, then I haven't stolen it. Again though, I don't see this as terribly controversial, unless I'm missing something. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
- greglindahl 11y ago
  Stealing a physical thing (Tesla Roadster) is not at all like infringing a patent or violating a contract. Your arguments would work a lot better if you didn't say things like that.
  - bmelton 11y ago
    I respect intellectual property, so the analogy works for me, but fine, it's like pirating an English film that's been dubbed into a language other than the one it was filmed in, and claiming that no piracy has occurred. Edit: That first sentence came out unintentionally snarky, but I can't think of a better way to put it, so please understand that no snark was intended.
    - greglindahl 11y ago
      That's also a terrible analogy. And are you saying that I don't respect intellectual property, if I disagree with the previous flawed analogy? Many people who respect intellectual property don't agree with it: just look at the reactions of experts to the various "Piracy is theft" PR campaigns.