If you bother to read it, you will find that it completely demolishes your argument. Wikipedia summarizes it: "The case is widely cited or referenced by the a

If you bother to read it, you will find that it completely demolishes your argument. Wikipedia summarizes it: "The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[21][22] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise... In other words, the farmer knowingly collected Monsanto's seeds and used them. It definitely was no accident; he was willfully attempting to take advantage of Monsanto. This has nothing to do with GMO or Roundup; the seed patent laws apply to all seeds.