If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate: "The

If you read the linked Wikipedia entry, the first paragraph makes it pretty clear that your re-telling of the story is, at the least, not fully accurate: "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest. Regarding his 1998 crop, Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination." Emphasis added. They did not put forward the defense of accidental contamination because it was indeed not accidental; instead, they were trying to add traits of the GM crop into their own. Where you stand on that practice may vary, but they certainly were [intentionally] taking advantage of the superior traits of the GM crop. Whether or not it should be allowed to be intellectual property is a completely different thing, but given that it can be considered IP right now, the corporation would be foolish to not protect their IP and therefore their financial interests for their shareholders.