3 ms·

We've actually discussed this on here before and I still don't understand how you've concluded that he was sued for using Roundup. From Wikipedia [0]: "The cou

We've actually discussed this on here before and I still don't understand how you've concluded that he was sued for using Roundup. From Wikipedia [0]: "The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells." And: "Monsanto said that because they hold a patent on the gene, and on canola cells containing the gene, they have a legal right to control its use, including the intentional replanting of seed collected from plants with the gene which grew accidentally" He was sued for using their seeds. It has nothing to do with whether or not he applied Roundup. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...

dionidium 13y ago
Just to preempt, I acknowledge that this language is odd: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." However, I don't think you can conclude that "use" arises when Roundup is applied. "Use" in this context is broader than that.
- jjoonathan 13y ago
  I can't find the citation right now, but last time I looked into this case I found that the court intended to set an explicit precedent that accidentally planting Roundup-ready plants does not constitute "use" of the patented gene ("use" happens when you use Roundup to select for Roundup-resistant plants). The language is not odd when considered in the context of setting such a precedent.
randomdata 13y ago
Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle? As I understand it, he was sued after purposefully isolating cross-poniated plants (presumably by using roundup) and using them to regrow his crop the following season.
tptacek 13y ago
The court determined that he sprayed the crop with Roundup, and also determined that Monsanto's patent applied regardless of whether Roundup was used, mooting one argument in the trial. If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it.
- dionidium 13y ago
  If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it. I doubt such a case exists, but that doubt is based on my belief that Monsanto isn't as aggressive as they're often characterized, not on the necessity of that component in the case.

dionidium 13y ago

Just to preempt, I acknowledge that this language is odd: "Thus a farmer whose field contains seed or plants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swaths from a neighbour's land or even growing from germination by pollen carried into his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own the seed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He does not, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seed or plant containing the patented gene or cell." However, I don't think you can conclude that "use" arises when Roundup is applied. "Use" in this context is broader than that.

jjoonathan 13y ago
I can't find the citation right now, but last time I looked into this case I found that the court intended to set an explicit precedent that accidentally planting Roundup-ready plants does not constitute "use" of the patented gene ("use" happens when you use Roundup to select for Roundup-resistant plants). The language is not odd when considered in the context of setting such a precedent.

randomdata 13y ago

Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle? As I understand it, he was sued after purposefully isolating cross-poniated plants (presumably by using roundup) and using them to regrow his crop the following season.

tptacek 13y ago

The court determined that he sprayed the crop with Roundup, and also determined that Monsanto's patent applied regardless of whether Roundup was used, mooting one argument in the trial. If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it.

dionidium 13y ago
If you have a record of Monsanto suing someone who didn't productively use the Roundup system, I'd like to see it. I doubt such a case exists, but that doubt is based on my belief that Monsanto isn't as aggressive as they're often characterized, not on the necessity of that component in the case.