"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
gunner wrote:
"Gary Woods" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peek" wrote:

The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn
downwind of
the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be
able to sue
Monsanto for damages.

You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's
patented genes in your crop.
I'm not making this up.
Google "Percy Schmeiser."


Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ?

Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to
have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without
paying monsanto's license. Is that right?

David


Yes, in the broad sense. My question was actually for Gary and Steve,
David. Your response was very accurate. I just assumed you had read them.

Federal Court Trial decision:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html

Supreme Court of Canada's decision:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html

As you said, it is established Case law in both the US and Canada. When
you don't have a license to use a patent, you run the risk of being sued.

There is a lot of hyperbole about ole Percy, which is understandably a part
of the "he said, she said" of any legal dispute. Regardless of his being an
upright citizen, the many "case summaries" on the Internet and here do not
jibe with the actual courts records.

The Federal Court outlining Mr. Schmeiser's farming practices is an
interesting read. However, one could just read the salient points from the
CA
Supreme Court Document and then follow the arguments to get a good
understanding of the issues. I encourage all to read both of them in
their entirety (one pagers). Here are some excerpts for those who want
just a Reader's Digest version:

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision:

6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready
Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests
revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up
of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may
have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near Schmeiser's
land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser
sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along
the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants
survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and
cell. The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed by
Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup
Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's crop
((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).


87 However, the appellants in this case
actively cultivated canola containing the patented invention as part of
their business operations. 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 next planted them; and
why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready
Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. In these circumstances,
the presumption of use flowing from possession stands unrebutted.



96 The appellants argue, finally, that
Monsanto's activities tread on the ancient common law property rights of
farmers to keep that which comes onto their land. Just as a farmer owns the
progeny of a "stray bull" which wanders onto his land, so Mr. Schmeiser
argues he owns
the progeny of the Roundup Ready Canola that came onto his field. However,
the issue is not property rights, but patent protection. Ownership is no
defence to a breach of the Patent Act.


I would not think Ole Percy's argument is a cause celebre for the Eco
argument, regardless of how the issue is spun.

As for the business practice, yes that will have to be addressed. I suspect
by the courts or a change in the law. That was a slick trick to openly
license to so many researchers thereby prohibiting further use. Still, the
issues need to be defined, not speculated on as shoulda, coulda, maybe.

"gunner" wrote in message
...

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
gunner wrote:
"Gary Woods" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peek" wrote:

The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn
downwind of
the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be
able to sue
Monsanto for damages.

You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's
patented genes in your crop.
I'm not making this up.
Google "Percy Schmeiser."


Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ?

Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to
have infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without
paying monsanto's license. Is that right?

David


Yes, in the broad sense. My question was actually for Gary and Steve,
David. Your response was very accurate. I just assumed you had read them.

Federal Court Trial decision:
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html

Supreme Court of Canada's decision:
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html

As you said, it is established Case law in both the US and Canada. When
you don't have a license to use a patent, you run the risk of being sued.

There is a lot of hyperbole about ole Percy, which is understandably a
part
of the "he said, she said" of any legal dispute. Regardless of his being
an
upright citizen, the many "case summaries" on the Internet and here do
not
jibe with the actual courts records.

The Federal Court outlining Mr. Schmeiser's farming practices is an
interesting read. However, one could just read the salient points from
the CA
Supreme Court Document and then follow the arguments to get a good
understanding of the issues. I encourage all to read both of them in
their entirety (one pagers). Here are some excerpts for those who want
just a Reader's Digest version:

The Supreme Court of Canada's decision:

6 Schmeiser never purchased Roundup
Ready
Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests
revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made
up
of Roundup Ready plants. The origin of the plants is unclear. They may
have been derived from Roundup Ready seed that blew onto or near
Schmeiser's
land, and was then collected from plants that survived after Schmeiser
sprayed Roundup herbicide around the power poles and in the ditches along
the roadway bordering four of his fields. The fact that these plants
survived the spraying indicated that they contained the patented gene and
cell. The trial judge found that "none of the suggested sources [proposed
by
Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup
Ready canola of a commercial quality" ultimately present in Schmeiser's
crop
((2001), 202 F.T.R. 78, at para. 118).


87 However, the appellants in this case
actively cultivated canola containing the patented invention as part of
their business operations. 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 next planted them; and
why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready
Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. In these
circumstances,
the presumption of use flowing from possession stands unrebutted.



96 The appellants argue, finally, that
Monsanto's activities tread on the ancient common law property rights of
farmers to keep that which comes onto their land. Just as a farmer owns
the
progeny of a "stray bull" which wanders onto his land, so Mr. Schmeiser
argues he owns
the progeny of the Roundup Ready Canola that came onto his field.
However,
the issue is not property rights, but patent protection. Ownership is no
defence to a breach of the Patent Act.


I would not think Ole Percy's argument is a cause celebre for the Eco
argument, regardless of how the issue is spun.

As for the business practice, yes that will have to be addressed. I
suspect
by the courts or a change in the law. That was a slick trick to openly
license to so many researchers thereby prohibiting further use. Still,
the
issues need to be defined, not speculated on as shoulda, coulda, maybe.


It's my understanding that Schmeiser changed crops and when he was unable to
control the weeds (read Monsanto rape plants) sued Monsanto and won.
Steve

In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

"Gary Woods" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peek" wrote:

The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn
downwind of
the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be
able to sue
Monsanto for damages.

You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's
patented genes in your crop.
I'm not making this up.
Google "Percy Schmeiser."


Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ?

Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to have
infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying
monsanto's license. Is that right?

David

The most high-profile case of contamination is Monsanto Canada Inc. v.
Schmeiser, where Monsanto Company sued Percy Schmeiser for patent
infringement because his field was contaminated with Monsanto's patented
Roundup Ready glyphosate-tolerant canola. The supreme court ruled that
Percy was in violation of Monsanto's patent because the crops were
growing on his land, but he was not required to pay Monsanto damages
since he did not benefit financially from its presence.[28] On March 19,
2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc. came to an out-of-court
settlement whereby Monsanto will pay for the clean-up costs of the
contamination which came to a total of $660 Canadian. Also part of the
agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that
Monsanto could be sued again if any further contamination occurred.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola

For Monsanto's spin on the case see
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_tod..._schmeiser.asp
This includes links to court decisions in 2001, 2002, and 2004,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html.
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/20...002fca309.html.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html.

For Schmeiser's spin see
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
--
³When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist.²
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Steve Peek" wrote in message
...

"gunner" wrote in message
...

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
gunner wrote:
"Gary Woods" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peek" wrote:

It's my understanding that Schmeiser changed crops and when he was unable
to control the weeds (read Monsanto rape plants) sued Monsanto and won.
Steve

Percy lost his 2001 Federal trial and the 2004 Appeal because he infringed
on patent rights. He was afforded some relief in that lawsuit from paying
"Usage" damages in that round.

I understand in 2008, Percy asked Monsanto to clear his land of RR plants
but did not want to sign a clause in Monsanto's Volunteer Plant removal
program so he sued for 10m$ (CA).

I believe Percy settled out of court for ~600$ and a no gag order.

I do not know of the actual clause Percy objected to. My Internet is not
accessing certain servers this morning for some odd reason, but I will try
to find and read it.

"Wildbilly" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Hare-Scott" wrote:

"Gary Woods" wrote in message
...
"Steve Peek" wrote:

The real problem is that when you grow your open pollinated corn
downwind of
the frankinstein corn, your seed becomes tainted. You should be
able to sue
Monsanto for damages.

You've got it backwards. You'll get sued for having Monsanto's
patented genes in your crop.
I'm not making this up.
Google "Percy Schmeiser."


Just curious to know if you have ever read the Court decisions ?

Not in the original but my understanding is that Schmeiser was found to
have
infringed Monsanto's patent by knowingly growing GM plants without paying
monsanto's license. Is that right?

David

The most high-profile case of contamination is Monsanto Canada Inc. v.
Schmeiser, where Monsanto Company sued Percy Schmeiser for patent
infringement because his field was contaminated with Monsanto's patented
Roundup Ready glyphosate-tolerant canola. The supreme court ruled that
Percy was in violation of Monsanto's patent because the crops were
growing on his land, but he was not required to pay Monsanto damages
since he did not benefit financially from its presence.[28] On March 19,
2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc. came to an out-of-court
settlement whereby Monsanto will pay for the clean-up costs of the
contamination which came to a total of $660 Canadian. Also part of the
agreement was that there was no gag-order on the settlement and that
Monsanto could be sued again if any further contamination occurred.[29]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola

For Monsanto's spin on the case see
http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto_tod..._schmeiser.asp
This includes links to court decisions in 2001, 2002, and 2004,
http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/200...001fct256.html.
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/20...002fca309.html.
http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/200...2004scc34.html.

For Schmeiser's spin see
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/


Balanced reporting? Bravo for you Billy.

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:29:09 -0800, "gunner"
wrote:

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 next planted them; and
why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready
Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000.


I'm vehemently against GMO as a business model. The potential of
Monsanto to control the world seed market terrifies me. The potential
for disease in a (genetic) monoculture is equally frightening.

But I believe Mr. Schmeiser gamed the system and is the last person
who should be held up as a victim.

I totally agree with everything you said. I am not against GMO research,
natural or otherwise, My fear is about anyone having control of the world's
seed or crop market.


Back to the original post and rants, we will have to see what the"" "new"
war mongering President appointed GMO enthusiast "" will do with/after the
DOJ investigation.

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:29:09 -0800, "gunner"
wrote:

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 next planted them; and
why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready
Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000.


I'm vehemently against GMO as a business model. The potential of
Monsanto to control the world seed market terrifies me. The potential
for disease in a (genetic) monoculture is equally frightening.

But I believe Mr. Schmeiser gamed the system and is the last person
who should be held up as a victim.

Owning "life-forms" is gaming the system, in my opinion. If farmers
can't control the pollen from their plants, so that it infests or
pollutes a neighbor's seed, THEY should be held liable.

GMOs don't produce more nutritious crops, or larger crops. They simply
allow greater contamination of the soil, and in turn promote herbicide
resistant weeds. In turn these crops are the most subsidized, and their
cheap price results in them being turned into what we call "junk food"
because they provide empty calories, devoid of nutrition. Moreover,
there are many people who are concerned about their impact on human
health.

Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds.

Bad laws make bad citizens
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:27:29 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:


Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds.

C'mon Billy, he purposely isolated RoundUp Ready plants and saved the
seed.
I have no _intention_ of siding with Monsanto on _anything_, but this
guy is no victim. He knew exactly what he was doing.

Sure he knew, but wasn't that what mankind has done since the dawn of
agriculture? That right should be protected if only by common sense. One
always selects the best seed for next years crop.
Just my $.02 worth,
Steve

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:27:29 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:


Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds.

C'mon Billy, he purposely isolated RoundUp Ready plants and saved the
seed.
I have no _intention_ of siding with Monsanto on _anything_, but this
guy is no victim. He knew exactly what he was doing.

IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he
supposed to do? He has lost his seed crop. Does he have to plow his crop
under, wasting time and expense, or find the patent holder and pay them
for genetic properties that he, the farmer, didn't ask for or want?
Legally, every seed that contains Monsanto's genetic profile, belongs to
Monsanto. Who pays for the loss of diversity? Who pays for losses, if
his customers don't want GMOs? Since my plants become Monsanto's plants
when they cross fertilize, who pays me for my loss?

GMOs should be grown in hermetically sealed enclosures, and the owner
should be fined if he lets them escape.

Bad laws, make bad citizens, and this one is a stinker.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:27:29 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:


Schmeiser was only continuing a traditional process of selecting seeds.

C'mon Billy, he purposely isolated RoundUp Ready plants and saved the
seed.
I have no _intention_ of siding with Monsanto on _anything_, but this
guy is no victim. He knew exactly what he was doing.

No victim? I'd say that we are all victims of Monsanto's efforts to
reduce diversity, and to feed us untested (no feeding studies that I'm
aware of) products.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I'd say, if you have wooden shoes,
you should throw them in the gears.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article . com,
says...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:29:09 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

Not to put too fine a point on it, I'd say, if you have wooden shoes,
you should throw them in the gears.

I agree.
But we can't justify stealing the gears, ya know?
There is a right way to do things.
Now you have me spitting platitudes. And in favor of Monsanto.
That's just nasty.


Just a rambling comment:

I would say that the gears should not belong to Monsanto or anyone at
all and that seed saving must be defined as a human right.

It's clear that Monsanto can't contain it, _the damn stuff grows wild as
a weed._ Canadian GMO rapeseed has been seen growing wild in Japan of
all places.

I've seen it growing wild around here. (I destroy it wherever I see it
as I do garlic mustard.)

There's concern over it crossing with turnips and other related
vegetables. --So to continue to contain it Monsanto has to start testing
for the gene in vegetables.

(And what of crosses to related wild species?)


....I've no doubt that GMO rapeseed will become a naturalized invasive
weed and then what? It will leapfrog its way to areas that are not under
Monsanto domination and then what?

In short, the genie is out of the bottle and can't be (insert favourite
expletive here) contained. I think that even Monsanto doesn't have
enough money to contain it.

In article . com,
says...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 15:14:48 -0500, "Steve Peek"
wrote:

Sure he knew, but wasn't that what mankind has done since the dawn of
agriculture? That right should be protected if only by common sense.

Common sense tells me that the right to save seed doesn't extend to
saving someone else's patented property.
Don't like the law?
That's what November 4th is for.

This wasn't a protest, it was a theft.

It wasn't a protest.

It wasn't theft.

Seed saving is a human right.

That Monsanto is capable of abusing the law to prevent a farmer from
exercising a basic right is tribute to the thieves running the show.

In article . com,
Steve wrote:

On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:24:47 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he
supposed to do?

What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument.
What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate
someone else's patented property.

Sweet John Muir on ice...you've got me defending Monsanto.
I need a shower. And a drink.

Bad laws make "Bad" citizens.
--
"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist."
-Archbishop Helder Camara

http://tinyurl.com/o63ruj
http://countercurrents.org/roberts020709.htm

In article , phorbin1
@yahoo.com says...


There's concern over it crossing with turnips and other related
vegetables. --So to continue to contain it Monsanto has to start testing
for the gene in vegetables.

substitute "control its use" for the words "contain it"

"Steve" wrote in message
ews.com...
On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:24:47 -0800, Wildbilly
wrote:

IF a farmer has his crop cross pollinated by a patented crop, what is he
supposed to do?

What he is supposed to do is beyond the scope of this argument.
What he is NOT supposed to do is identify, isolate, and propagate
someone else's patented property.

I say it's a basic, inherent human to isolate and propogate "better" food
regardless of the source.
Steve

Sweet John Muir on ice...you've got me defending Monsanto.
I need a shower. And a drink.