7 ms·

No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_I

by skosuri 14y ago

No not really. I think you are referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis... Read the case. He knowingly planted Roundup Ready plants across his whole field. Alternatively, find a case for what you say happened happening before you assume it to be true.

protomyth 14y ago
You might want to read the actual findings, they put patent law above rights of property holder. Not knowing might have mitigated the damages, but it would have not stopped the lawsuit.
- Symmetry 14y ago
  Of course they did, the whole point of patent law is that it restricts what you can do with your own property. I think it would be nice if ignorance was an excuse in patent cases, but the fact that it isn't is a big part of why our current patent system is so toxic in general, especially in software.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    I think the idea that someone can pollute your property and then charge you for it is a grievous violation of property rights. It is not the patent I object to, it is the idea that a polluter can "corrupt" my crop and then charge me for it.
    - Symmetry 14y ago
      I also think the idea that you can sue someone just for seeds that blew in is absurd. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened. In each case where someone was sued by Monsanto they were alleged to have deliberately tried to save only the GM seeds. And of course they denied it and said that it wasn't deliberate, but what they were charged with was deliberate patent violation.
      - protomyth 14y ago
        http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto... has some cases of their lawsuit fun
        Symmetry 14y ago
        Yes, they're bad guys. But reading it quickly I didn't see any cases of them suing people for having had their fields accidentally contaminated. Its possible for a person or company to be bad without being guilty of every bad thing anyone says about them.
        protomyth 14y ago
        The original case you dismiss (Schmeiser) is acknowledged by both sides that the field was contaminated by passing trucks. Both he and the company have said he bought no seed from Monsanto. The court ruling said it didn't matter what he did after that (knowingly or unknowingly) since he was a person who reused seed which is how it has been done forever until Monsanto. The reason they are after all the record on page 2 of the article is they are taking anyone who had seed cleaning done - even if they are not their customers. Its real easy to prove their seed mixed since even Monsanto admits that pollen-flow is inevitable (Monsanto's 2005 Technology Agreement). Google Tom Wiley who is a ND farmer. He has some interesting experiences in the contamination area.
huxley 14y ago
To be a bit more accurate, Schmeiser's Canola field was contaminated by his neighbour's plants. Schmeiser saved the seed and mixed it with his own hybrid, so his own plants inherited the Roundup Ready gene from the contaminated seed.
- skosuri 14y ago
  This is his claim. It doesn't make much sense. Why would he spray his entire crop with roundup? Even if it were true, he still knowingly was getting RoundUp Ready seeds to avoid paying Monsanto. That's somewhat like saying: "I found this copy of adobe photoshop on this used computer.. I copied it and sold it; since i didn't originally purchase it, I'm not responsible." A quote from the Canadian Supreme Court: "Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000."
  - jackalope 14y ago
    If your bulls raid my pasture and attack and rape my cows, I might shoot them and even have a barbecue. There's no reason I can't raise the calves as my own. Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader?
    - brazzy 14y ago
      That's a good argument against the patentability of genetically modified plants, but not against the validity of the case given that GM plants currently ARE patentable.
      - darkarmani 14y ago
        And here is the problem. If i dust your crops with my patented pollen, you are now in violation of my IP rights. How does that make any sense?
jaysonelliot 14y ago
That's rather presumptive to assume that wheaties is talking about the case you just pulled from Wikipedia. It only took one Google search to find a case describing exactly what wheaties described: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html The Runyons say they signed no agreements, and if they were contaminated with the genetically modified seed, it blew over from a neighboring farm. "Pollination occurs, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their products from landing in our fields," David said. "What Monsanto is doing across the country is often, and according to farmers, trespassing even, on their land, examining their crops and trying to find some of their patented crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, with the Center For Food Safety. "And if they do, they sue those farmers for their entire crop." In fact, in Feb. 2005 the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto, citing "an agreement" with the Indiana Department of Agriculture giving it the right to come on their land and test for seed contamination. Only one problem: The Indiana Department of Agriculture didn't exist until two months after that letter was sent. What does that say to you?
- skosuri 14y ago
  I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the case (which I believe does not exist). You showed me a news article. Otherwise this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies and is suing Monsanto, and is not really an unbiased source (just like I don't link directly to Monsanto's website on the Runyons.)
  - jaysonelliot 14y ago
    I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) does not exist" and "this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies" show bias, and tell me that you're unlikely to accept anything short of a full and frank confession from Monsanto that they have aggressively sued innocent farmers. What do you call a company that pursues cases like the one cited in the CBS News article about Mo Parr? 74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent. "There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready." The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him. "It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning," I won't make any further arguments about this, because I'm not trying to change your mind if its already made up.
JPKab 14y ago
Thanks to the work of an anonymous user researching who you work for at Harvard, you have been revealed to work at a lab which receives funding from Monsanto. I'm not saying this discredits you, but you should state this up front. I have sympathy for geneticists who have to deal with the anti-GM knee jerk reactionaries, but Monsanto tramples on constitutional rights of small farmers who don't have the legal resources to defend themselves. The fact that many of these farmers are guilty of stealing IP doesn't change this fact.
- skosuri 14y ago
  To my knowledge, we don't receive funding from Monsanto, nor do we do much plant research that I know of. It's a big lab.

by skosuri 14y ago

protomyth 14y ago

You might want to read the actual findings, they put patent law above rights of property holder. Not knowing might have mitigated the damages, but it would have not stopped the lawsuit.

Symmetry 14y ago
Of course they did, the whole point of patent law is that it restricts what you can do with your own property. I think it would be nice if ignorance was an excuse in patent cases, but the fact that it isn't is a big part of why our current patent system is so toxic in general, especially in software.
- protomyth 14y ago
  I think the idea that someone can pollute your property and then charge you for it is a grievous violation of property rights. It is not the patent I object to, it is the idea that a polluter can "corrupt" my crop and then charge me for it.
  - Symmetry 14y ago
    I also think the idea that you can sue someone just for seeds that blew in is absurd. But as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened. In each case where someone was sued by Monsanto they were alleged to have deliberately tried to save only the GM seeds. And of course they denied it and said that it wasn't deliberate, but what they were charged with was deliberate patent violation.
    - protomyth 14y ago
      http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805 http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto... has some cases of their lawsuit fun
      - Symmetry 14y ago
        Yes, they're bad guys. But reading it quickly I didn't see any cases of them suing people for having had their fields accidentally contaminated. Its possible for a person or company to be bad without being guilty of every bad thing anyone says about them.
        protomyth 14y ago
        The original case you dismiss (Schmeiser) is acknowledged by both sides that the field was contaminated by passing trucks. Both he and the company have said he bought no seed from Monsanto. The court ruling said it didn't matter what he did after that (knowingly or unknowingly) since he was a person who reused seed which is how it has been done forever until Monsanto. The reason they are after all the record on page 2 of the article is they are taking anyone who had seed cleaning done - even if they are not their customers. Its real easy to prove their seed mixed since even Monsanto admits that pollen-flow is inevitable (Monsanto's 2005 Technology Agreement). Google Tom Wiley who is a ND farmer. He has some interesting experiences in the contamination area.

huxley 14y ago

To be a bit more accurate, Schmeiser's Canola field was contaminated by his neighbour's plants. Schmeiser saved the seed and mixed it with his own hybrid, so his own plants inherited the Roundup Ready gene from the contaminated seed.

skosuri 14y ago
This is his claim. It doesn't make much sense. Why would he spray his entire crop with roundup? Even if it were true, he still knowingly was getting RoundUp Ready seeds to avoid paying Monsanto. That's somewhat like saying: "I found this copy of adobe photoshop on this used computer.. I copied it and sold it; since i didn't originally purchase it, I'm not responsible." A quote from the Canadian Supreme Court: "Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he planted them; and why, through his husbandry, he ended up with 1,030 acres of Roundup Ready canola which would have cost him $15,000."
- jackalope 14y ago
  If your bulls raid my pasture and attack and rape my cows, I might shoot them and even have a barbecue. There's no reason I can't raise the calves as my own. Who cares what Schmeiser did to the plants GROWING ON HIS OWN LAND? Why must he explain his reasons to anyone for dealing with a predatory invader?
  - brazzy 14y ago
    That's a good argument against the patentability of genetically modified plants, but not against the validity of the case given that GM plants currently ARE patentable.
    - darkarmani 14y ago
      And here is the problem. If i dust your crops with my patented pollen, you are now in violation of my IP rights. How does that make any sense?

jaysonelliot 14y ago

That's rather presumptive to assume that wheaties is talking about the case you just pulled from Wikipedia. It only took one Google search to find a case describing exactly what wheaties described: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-4048288.html The Runyons say they signed no agreements, and if they were contaminated with the genetically modified seed, it blew over from a neighboring farm. "Pollination occurs, wind drift occurs. There's just no way to keep their products from landing in our fields," David said. "What Monsanto is doing across the country is often, and according to farmers, trespassing even, on their land, examining their crops and trying to find some of their patented crops," said Andrew Kimbrell, with the Center For Food Safety. "And if they do, they sue those farmers for their entire crop." In fact, in Feb. 2005 the Runyons received a letter from Monsanto, citing "an agreement" with the Indiana Department of Agriculture giving it the right to come on their land and test for seed contamination. Only one problem: The Indiana Department of Agriculture didn't exist until two months after that letter was sent. What does that say to you?

skosuri 14y ago
I used that case because it's the most famous one people refer too. Runyon is another famous person. Look, I've watched Food Inc too. Again, show me the case (which I believe does not exist). You showed me a news article. Otherwise this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies and is suing Monsanto, and is not really an unbiased source (just like I don't link directly to Monsanto's website on the Runyons.)
- jaysonelliot 14y ago
  I don't know what level of evidence would satisfy you, as you seem to have a pre-existing bias against the farmers' claims. Monsanto attempted to sue, then dropped its case against the Runyons. Given Monsanto's otherwise litigious history, and the damage that would be done to the company if they were to lose a case like this in court, the evidence points in favor of the farmer. Statements like "I believe (any case) does not exist" and "this is just someone who has been in a bunch of movies" show bias, and tell me that you're unlikely to accept anything short of a full and frank confession from Monsanto that they have aggressively sued innocent farmers. What do you call a company that pursues cases like the one cited in the CBS News article about Mo Parr? 74-year-old Mo Parr is a seed cleaner; he is hired by farmers to separate debris from the seed to be replanted. Monsanto sued him claiming he was "aiding and abetting" farmers, helping them to violate the patent. "There's no way that I could be held responsible," Parr said. "There's no way that I could look at a soy bean and tell you if it's Round-up Ready." The company subpoenaed Parr's bank records, without his knowledge, and found his customers. After receiving calls from Monsanto, some of them stopped talking to him. "It really broke my heart," Parr said. "You know, I could hardly hold a cup of coffee that morning," I won't make any further arguments about this, because I'm not trying to change your mind if its already made up.

JPKab 14y ago

Thanks to the work of an anonymous user researching who you work for at Harvard, you have been revealed to work at a lab which receives funding from Monsanto. I'm not saying this discredits you, but you should state this up front. I have sympathy for geneticists who have to deal with the anti-GM knee jerk reactionaries, but Monsanto tramples on constitutional rights of small farmers who don't have the legal resources to defend themselves. The fact that many of these farmers are guilty of stealing IP doesn't change this fact.

skosuri 14y ago
To my knowledge, we don't receive funding from Monsanto, nor do we do much plant research that I know of. It's a big lab.