Can I See Your License for those Plants, Sir? 445
McGruff writes: "A Canadian court has ruled that a farmer growing genetically modified canola without a license violated Monsanto's patent and owes damages. Percy Schmeiser claims that the seeds blew onto his farm from passing seed trucks and from neighboring farms. The court held that regardless of whether he planted them deliberately or if he merely found them growing on his farm, it was his responsibility to destroy the seeds and seedlings or pay royalties. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is carrying the article and the Federal Court of Canada has the full
text of the ruling in PDF form."
a microscope in every farm (Score:2)
cool.
Evil Empires (Score:5)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Thats retarded... (Score:2)
In related news (Score:5)
Brant
Patented seeds??? (Score:3)
Re:a microscope in every farm (Score:3)
That's the excuse that I used when the cops found my harvest of Mary Jane! Trust me, it doesn't hold up in court!
Things could be manipulated (Score:4)
Um, yea... (Score:2)
The world never ceases to amaze me. I cannot describe it any better.
Arathres
Re:Thats retarded... (Score:2)
It was evident he knew that the plants were there since he harvested the seed and replanted.
A Brand New World. (Score:5)
For instance, say you're eating a genetically modified apple. The seeds drop into your flowerpot and starts growing, and voilà - you have to pay!
Would something like the echelon movement do here? What I mean is that people include words that trigger echelon in sigs and what not. In the same spirit, people could just get their hands on lots and lots of genetically modified and patented seeds, and plant them everywhere all over the earth - in public places, parks, governmental areas.
Not that that would be good for our poor planet, since we have no idea what can come of this genetic engineering with nature...
So what if I cross two differing types of plants.. (Score:2)
illegal to possess? (Score:2)
Re:Patented seeds??? (Score:2)
Not likely, since plants that can't reproduce correctly aren't going to be a big threat to the other members of the ecosystem that have figured out how to take that big next step :)
No stopping it (Score:2)
patent law... (Score:2)
"Viral" Marketing (Score:5)
If his neighbor buys the seed, and he doesn't, but a bee pollenates between the two plants (I assume this happens, but I don't know for sure), and his seeds start to contain the Monsanto 'patented genes', then what? The decision Monsanto won says that he STILL owes them royalties.
I think this is the ultimate form of 'viral' marketing -- by selling to one farmer, and shutting up for a long time, they could (potentially) get all farmers in Canada (and, potentially, the U.S.) to owe them money.
*sniff* Hmmm... *sniff* *sniff* something smells rotten. *sniiiiiiiiff* I think it's coming from the patent offices around the world...
Control (Score:2)
Blowing in the Wind (Score:2)
this whole thing make me sick. here [www.gene.ch] is an account from a meeting where Percy spoke.
How can the farmer know? (Score:2)
How can poor Percy know if a seed is mutated or not? Ok, when it's obvious from the outside, then it's a no-brainer, but most modifications in plants are not visible from the outside. So a farmer has to DNA test all weedplants on his acres if there is SOMEHWERE a plant grown from a foreign seed? Yeah, that will be good for the world food economy! Can I borrow $100? I'd like to buy some bread.
--
I think.... (Score:2)
Sure sale! (Score:2)
How many farmers are going to just pay-up, instead of going to court with a Multinational company with the possilibly losing all there crop (and the rest in layer fees).
And Jezz... It's not like any farmer has a DNA splicer linked to a patent database in their barn.
How can they force him? (Score:2)
Re:Control (Score:2)
That's why Monsanto tried to sell seed with the Terminator gene, to keep the next generation seeds from being viable when planted. The uproar was so huge that they had to back off.
I concur with the earlier poster. Monsanto marketing technology makes Microsoft look like a child.
...phil
Re:Patented seeds??? (Score:2)
if the whole point here was that farmers need to buy/plant new seed every year to get the crops to re-grow, then even if you plant a whole farm with this seed, next year none of the plans from that seed will grow again. Not a very effective "weed" if you ask me.
-earl
A dark day for Canada (Score:2)
I had such respect for Canada, but it's slipping. They're beginning to start looking like a mini-United States with health care.
Re:How totally daft. (Score:2)
He was very upset (and rightly so), because this herbicide-resistent Canola is now going to interfere with his crop rotation schedules (done by farmers to allow the land to recover for subsequent years production). Therefore, this affects not only his Canola production, but the overall production of everything he grows on the affected land.
Re:Thats retarded... (Score:2)
Essentially, the message of this ruling is "if any of the genetically modified plants get into your crops, you're at the mercy of Monsanto et al."
Mad. Utterly mad. (Score:2)
Monsanto, love 'em or hate 'em (I choose the former) are being clearly unreasonable about this. No farmer can be expected to ensure that his farm is free of contamination from other farms in this manner. It could be argued that indeed, he doesn't have the right to sow the seed produced from the plants (but I personally despise that sort of idea), but this ruling extends further, saying that if any seed should happen to grow in an unauthorised (i.e. non-license payer's) land, that person is responsible for destoying that plant. I this the onus here should be on the license payer, forcing them to ensure that they do not either willfully or negligently distribute material where they do not have a right to do so?
Could a farmer bill another for letting his seed contaminate his land?
Another poster mentioned that a computer virus/worm writer could do a similar thing. Hell, why not? Because a virus/trojan is specifically engineered to propagate? Well, what's a seed meant to do.
I despair.
Tom.
Re:Canada has no health care (Score:2)
If I have a non-terminal illness for which a simple emergency room visit will not suffice, I am not guaranteed treatment in the US.
Re:Patented seeds??? (Score:5)
It begs the question:
If the genetics companies are so concerned about people replanting this seed (accidentally, as it would seem in this case, or deliberately), then why is it not their responsibility to sell only plants that cannot produce seeds? It would seem to be gross negligence on their part, allowing their plants to seed other farmers properties, and contaminate the seed collected there.
Really, this guy should win his countersuit against Monsanto for contaminating his crops. He should be awarded enormous damages. Unless there is specific evidence that he went out of his way to steal and cultivate this seed, this decision should not go any other way.
Good idea! Let's send some nasty Outlook virii to (Score:2)
And then sue them for copyright infringment if they complain!
Re:I think.... (Score:2)
All he has to do is find a Sherif who will stand up in court and say "Yes Sir I served this writ on Satan and his Minnions" No problem.
Monsanto = EVIL (Score:2)
Well well. I found a couple of articles about my old nemesis, Monsanto. A company that is responsible for thousands of deaths over the years. They love to kill, those Monsanto fuckers. They especially like killing babies. Think I'm crazy? Grow up and read the history kids...
But first, a little of what's going on right now regarding Genetic Frankenfood. Monsanto Under Attack Part 2
- Global Pressure Builds Against Monsanto
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/monprob2.html
Found this "conservative" essay on Monsanto's past. I could tell you far more...
Monsanto: A Checkered History
http://www.social-ecology.org/learn/library/tokar
BTW, my MSOutlook spell checker has Monsanto in it (?!?). Is Microsoft part of the Monsanto plans for world domination???
Oh wait... they both already did that.
Man!
______
jeff13
Suprising (Score:2)
It gives the environmentalists another weapon against GM.
Which is a shame, as there are many valid uses of this technology, such as trees which don't require nasty chemicals to make paper, rice with added vitamins, monkeys with four asses etc.
The only good to come of this story was my smile when I misread plants as pants.
Re-reading this post makes it look like it was generated from catch-phrases. So be it. *post*
Re:What do patenting seeds have to do with Microso (Score:2)
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Canola spreads and grows like a freaked out weed (Score:2)
To think I was messing with the idea of moving to Canada.
Bah! I don't think so.
Not when the gov. thinks they can crawl that far up your a$$ and look around.
Drive down I 94 in North Dakota and you'll see the stuff overgrowing everywhere!
It spreads across ditches, 4 lanes of freeway, it grows in cracks in roads etc.
I'd like to see even the government contain a 4x4 square mile field of it from spreading.
Re:No stopping it (Score:2)
Not if your beer has been made using patented yeasts!
Monsanto is a threat to humanity (Score:3)
Ie, if for instance a Colorado bug gets to a Monsanto potato and starts eating, in a few minutes it falls dead on the ground.
And people are supposed to eat that food.
Probable scenarios in the future is that genetically modified food spreads it's DNA to "real" plants, eg via pollination, and then some day a disease shows up that Monsanto didn't think about. Woops! All our crops are dead!
What to do? Where to get the original seeds?
How can they do this? (Score:2)
The method involved in this genetically enhanced canola might be more high-tech, but it has really been done before, and for quite a long time. Canada grew based on genetically enhanced wheat for instance, 'natural' wheat wouldn't grow in the Canadian plains due to the cold.
I admit that there's a lot of skill involved in coming up with new strains but if they were that worried about propogating their seeds 'illegaly' then they should've also engineered them to be incapable of reproduction.
I don't know anything about farming, but it seems to me that this is one area where civil disobedience can make a huge impact. Think of a crop duster dusting a few square miles with these mutant canola seeds. I have no idea if this would actually work though, but if it did it'd cause enough of a problem in the legal system to make them think hard about whether growing seeds should be illegal.
Re:Evil Empires (Score:2)
Surely you jest...how could you possibly think that your analogy is clearer? Let's spell it out: microsoft is similar to monsanto in the same way that dr.evil is similar to borg. ie. one is very much smaller and less serious than the other.
*sing* I'm a karma whore and I'm okay....
I work all night and I post all day
Wouldn't cut it in Europe (Score:2)
Anyone remember that cheesy 80's film "The Stuff"?
recount (Score:2)
Now can government be trusted to fully monitor whats going on, when some government employees who are on a time based scale of employment look forward to moving into the private sector, often taking jobs at these corporations who's patents they pass along merrily? It happened with the chemical industry. [pbs.org]
Framework for the non profit could include, committee members who are voted into the corporation, just like a politician so there can be no form of monopolization. Patents would have to pass a rigorous full proof dissection to ensure fairness in the open market segments before being given a patent number.
This is whats happening in the justice system regarding technology based cases. Many people can scream and bitch on forums, to friends, etc., about the abuses going on in the justice system, but here is what it comes down to when dealing with the justice system.
Court
Jury of peers Highly unlikely 90% of the time the jury will be comprised of people who do not have any understanding of whats going on fully. These people are purposely selected by both lawyers, and the prosecution, depending on how they intend to fight the case. If the prosecution's job is to win by hiding facts about technology they'll option to choose as many e-illiterate jurors as they can and vice versa.
Lengthy trials
Jurors don't want to sit through boring trials such as these, and this combined with jurors that don't have a clue are a ticking timebomb set to explode in a very bad fashion. They will not look at any of the evidence, and rather they'd just wanna hurry up and go back to watching Oprah, Martha Stewart, and CBS.
Finances
Company X's resources are 1billion dollars for their legal teams while Defendant is almost dirt poor.
Companies who are bringing these patent suits should be held liable to pay for the entire trial along with damages for attempting to manipulate the legal system. Hefty fines should be imposed on them which could be used for research into the patenting system and its mechanisms.
Newflix [antioffline.com]
Re:Evil Empires (Score:2)
There were people back then saying, "You're being rediculous, courts would never hold that up!" I wish I had been wrong.
-pos
The truth is more important than the facts.
Re:Evil Empires (Score:2)
Let me take away your water and your computers and see which bothers you first....
Weed blew into my garden - am I liable? (Score:2)
Is it my fault? I didn't buy them, they just happened to be there. Officer.
I'm writing my MP (Score:2)
And in Canada too, normally the Land of Common Sense.
I'm writing my MP about this.
Re:Thats retarded... (Score:3)
Hmm, i'm getting a severe disconnect here. So, since harvesting and replanting are what s33d h4x0rz do, just what exactly have 3000 generations of farmers been up to behind the "nothing going on here, just sowing and reaping, move along now" publicity smokescreen?
But more seriously, this case just shows, again, why we are not (will never be?) ready for licensed self-replicating organisms. The fact is, pollen flies on the wind, birds move seeds around, mammals move seeds around, insect move pollen around, seeds fly on the wind, are washed downstream by the rain, get stuck to tyres... basically anything with DNA in it is a highly optimised self-replicator, and no amount spent on lawyers is going to fix that.
Monsanto's business model for GM product can only work if they can prevent or outlaw the very mechanisms which have enabled Monsanto executives to evolve (sic) in the first place. A more religious man than I would describe it as a sin. I just describe it as deceiving their shareholders if they really claim the GM model will ever be profitable. After all, if the GM organisms are 'superior', then eventually they WILL colonise and replace all the current 'natural' (quotes because 10,000 years of human civilisation means 'nature' is a construct anyway) varieties in fairly short order anyhow.
I also draw the jury's attention to the Rice Tec Corporation of Alvin, Texas and their ludicrous claim on Basmati Rice, just because it makes me hopping mad every time I think about it
TomV
Re:What do patenting seeds have to do with Microso (Score:4)
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
I troll slashdot
And flame JonKatz,
I like to get first post
I have a dozen accounts
But use HiNote the most
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
I post AC,
Reply to sigs
I complain and I whine
I like to spell micro$oft
With a dollar sign
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
I flame a lot
I use 1337 5p34k
Then people envy me
I wish I was hacker
Not just a skript kiddie
I'm a Karma Whore and I'm ok,
I work all night and I post all day.
Lawyer: counter for trespass (Score:5)
It is certainly withing the police power of the state to place an obligation not to use the seeds upon the farmer, even if they blow there. *However*, if these seeds are waste of such a type, which imposes an obligation to act upon the farmer, then the entry of the seed onto his property was a tresspass, for which he is entitled to damages--includeing the cost of removing them, lost profits from not being able to use the contaminated portion of his land, etc.
hawk, esq.
Hey Monsanto, patent this (Score:2)
Re:Thats retarded... (Score:2)
I grudgingly think Monstanto is right this time (Score:2)
Please read the source material and not just the /. posts
I must agree with the court and Monsanto - I really don't think pollen flow can account for the presence of Round-Up Ready canola is the Mr. Schmeiser's field.
90% of the grain in his field was Monsanto. Pollen flow cannot reasonably account for that kind of distribution. I don't believe it was blown from a neighbouring field or that it blew off a truck.
If, as a farmer, you find RUR growth in your field, Monsanto claims they will come in and remove it for you at no cost to you. Since I haven't heard contrary to this, I think that is a reasonable position.
The more important issue for me is questioning the ethics and impact of patenting DNA, and why no one is talking about Monsanto's strategy to fundamentally alter the agricultural industry by selling seeds that are one-use-only.
/. since 3.30.2001
Bringing the nightly Canadian news to
Seed making costs money! (Score:2)
Re:How can the farmer know? (Score:2)
The guy should take an armload of regular wheat and to or 3 gen engineered wheat stalks into the court room, dump it on the judges desk, and tell him to pick out the engineered stalks.
That should get him off the hook pretty quick.
Kintanon
Re:How totally daft. (Score:2)
The resistance of Monsanto brand canola to Monsanto brand Roundup pesticide is not a coincidence. Roundup was specifically developed to work well with Monsanto engineered crops, so much so that using any other broad spectrum pesticide would ruin the crop. Thus when farmers buy Monsanto engineered seed, they have to buy Monsanto engineered pesticides too.
Monsanto definitely has a bad rep. Although they didn't actually do anything with it, the Terminator seed debacle definitely tarnished their image. Here Monsanto had acquired a company which was developing seeds which would grow but yield crops which were infertile. That is, year after year, you'd have to buy seeds because you couldn't plant seeds from the previous crop. This was viewed as particularly galling in the case of Third World countries where they wouldn't have money to buy seeds year after year.
Not a happy picture
Re:Monsanto is a threat to humanity (Score:2)
Erm, why would a non-Monsato crop be less resistant to this disease, simply because Monsato granted no special protective powers against it?
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Monsato. But I do like GE.
Re:In related news (Score:2)
Meiosis all the way from now on
//rdj
Re:I'm sorry sir (Score:2)
If he went to market and tried to sell them, then he's an idiot
Of course, I'd sue the truck and their company for damages.
Step right up folks! See the amazing Husaria who can distinguish the genetic heritage of a wheatstalk ON SIGHT! No fancy labs! No equipment, he just takes a look and Presto! He knows if the wheat is the genetic property of Monsanto or is just a regular non engineered wheat stalk like the other hundred million on the farm! Amazing eh?
But what are the farmers without your amazing talent supposed to do to distinguish engineered wheat from regular wheat? Unless the engineered wheat shows up some bizarre color or has 'Monsanto' imprinted on the stalk in big letters I doubt most people can tell them apart on sight.
Kintanon
Re:Monsanto is a threat to humanity (Score:5)
These do _not_ produce any toxins themselves. Instead, they were modified to be resistant to Roundup [monsanto.com], a glycophosphate based herbicide.
These are to control weeds, not insects. I fully agree that these are a very worrying idea, but spreading untruths is not helpful. In any field. The truth is scary enough.
Plants can't spread DNA to others. The worry about spreading genes is primarlily in corss polination, where pollen from modifed corn gets blown around, and lands on normal corn.
There is a theoretical risk of a virus picking up the modified genes and spreading them to other species, true - but cross pollination is a much bigger issue.
--
Re:How can they do this? (Score:2)
Re:How can the farmer know? (Score:3)
You know, i've figured out what this reminds me of. Salem. Traditional witchhunts. And why?
Because Percy has to test every single plant on his farm for contamination, and unless he's got a very sophisticated lab on the farm, there's only one simple test I can think of right now.
Just spray the whole farm with Roundup. Any plant that survives is a non-licensed Monsanto product and should be destroyed. Easy, and cheap.
After all, everyone knows witches float 'cos they're made of wood?
TomV
Re:A Brand New World. (Score:2)
Most emphatically, no. While this may piss off Monsanto's lawyers, etc. it won't actually accomplish much of benefit. Moreover, it is potentially dangerous. Think about it: you are unquestioningly helping to introduce these frankin-genes into the wild -- this when we don't really know the long term effects of "controled" commercial planting!
The best thing to do is write a letter, on paper to your local congresscritter. Call them. Write letters to the editor. Apply the rules of the Linux-Advocacy-HOWTO to your efforts, and be polite, firm, and rational in your arguments.
If IP is your issue, then stick to that. If you believe that these organizms are dangerous, do some research and site some facts.
This has officially become stupid (Score:2)
That, to me, is a sign of a broken, unjust legal system, one where logic is shoved out of the way to protect not just every last cent (and more) of a company's revenue, but a series of legal institutions that are unable to deal with certain natural realities. The result has been disaster for a man that didn't steal anything from the company, except under a tenuous, legalistic definition of "theft", whereby you can apparently now be charged in unlawful posession of a plant species that the wind tossed on your lawn, and have to pay for it. You can say "but that's the law" all you want - in this case, and in many others, the law is wrong and needs to be fixed before someone else gets hurt.
Re:Thats retarded... (Score:2)
And he didn't do that with the rest of his plants?
And he can easily distinguish the GM plants from the others?
//rdj
Re:Things could be manipulated (Score:2)
Actually under thje logic of this case, if the farmer suing, royalty demanding, company can hold a farmer responsible for what the wind blows around, the farmer can sue for damages for "tainting" his crops with non-windproof pollen.
Damn that was a run on sentance.
Just think, 3 dozen farm hands chasing bees around with cans of raid, on the of chance one of them has tainted pollen.
Or even worse DMFA (Digital Millenium Farm Act) complient bees geneticly incapable of carring improved pollen. I'm sorry senator (yes i know it's Canada) your state will have to be bug bombed or it's citzens arresting in trafficing. Try upgrading your bees sooner next time!
ROTFL snort.
Re:Seed making costs money! (Score:2)
--
Re:Lawyer: counter for trespass (Score:2)
If you don't want me to use your genetically engineered seeds, then make damn sure that you don't let it 'contaminate' my fields. You can sue me for using your seeds, but then you'll have to pay me
-for paying you,
-plus the cost I incurred from being sued by you,
-plus lossed profits because I couldn't use my land the next year in order to insure that your seeds grow back (ie, I get a year off at your expense)
-plus punitive damages for mental anguish
-plus anything else creative lawyers can think of
All in all, Monsanto sounds to me like the guy who lost all his change through a whole in his pocket, and now wants to beat up all the kids in the neighborhood to get his money back.
Re:Weed blew into my garden - am I liable? Yes (Score:2)
1) You clearly identified what they were.
2) You took steps to promote thier growth, knowing what they were.
If you had a liscence to grow THC free marijuana, but a couple fo plnats were the wild type, they you would have an excuse. However, as it's easy ti ID marijuana, that doesn't hold.
GM rapeseed looks identical to proper rapeseed. The farmer did not, and could not, identify the difference, and treated it like the expected crop.
And that's the difference
--
Re:Thats retarded... (Score:2)
There is no natural canola! Canola is modified rapeseed plant
Re:Lawyer: counter for trespass (Score:2)
I meant that I couldn't use my land next year in order to insure that your seeds don't grow back. 8*)
On second thought, I couldn't sue Monsanto, unless it was their field could I. I mean, Monsanto wouldn't be responsible for contaminating my field if they just sold the seed to a neighboring farmer. I would have to sue my neighbor. Of course, I could force my neighbor into bankruptcy for using this seed and then take over his fields and eliminate the offensive material in the process. Would serve him right, wouldn't it?
Potatoes considered harmful (Score:2)
And people are supposed to eat that food.
Actually every raw potato is poisonous. It was hard to convince European peasants that they are edible after cooking.
And a relative of potatoes is tobacco, whose leaves contains dangerous alcaloids, like nicotine. But nobody will tell to smokers. Er, wait...
__
Re:Patented seeds??? (Score:2)
I am not up on Frankenplant myself, but what about pollination? Sure, the plants this season are dead, but say during the course of their life a bee (Eric the Half-A-Bee, perhaps?) came by and carried the pollen to some non Frankenplant. Is that plant now a Frankenplant for the next season?
Seems pretty exponential to me.
Focus On Monsanto (Score:2)
The whole seed industy is all about making round up ready seed. If you're not making genetically altered seed, then you're not going to be in business much longer.
So where did Monsanto come from? Well, they are a former Chemical Company. They made many products, including PCB's. Dateline NBC has portraited Monstanto as a company that has contaminated water supplies, covered up said contaimination, and been directly responcible for Deaths, birth defects, and cancer of hundreds of people.
Now if a case like this were held in the US some interesting things might come about. First, and most damning for Monsanto is that seed companies have been held responcible for cross seeding. The makers of Star Link corn face some pretty hefty fines for contaiminating the corn supply. This might play out well because everyone in the industy is testifing that the source seed was all good. It was the cross breeding that created the wide spread contamination.
In the end, we need some laws specifically protecting famrers. They already get the shaft 9 times out of 10 anyways.
Terminator (Score:3)
That's why Monsanto uses the Terminator gene. Descendants of a Terminator seed are sterile. At the same time, Monsanto makes the farmer dependant and reduces genetically engineered being in the wild.
__
This started as early as 1998 (Score:2)
Monsanto has been hunting seed pirates as early as 1998 [sare.org]. In the aforementioned article, monsanto specifically went after farmers who were hording monsanto seeds they purchased. I'm guessing that purchasing the seed 'media' isn't the same as purchasing the license, just like with software. I recall hearing about this as early as 1993 however, it the context of African farms suffering from Monsanto, however what I heard at that time might have been speculation that this would happen, or it might have been rumors of real incidents.
Monsanto's activities [social-ecology.org] could easily be a threat to the continued existence of humanity (though not as great a threat as overpopulation!).
Try a google search for the keywords "Monsanto" and "Deaths" [google.com] to find a lot of articles discussing Monsanto's activities for better or worse.
I'm all for mucking with nature to improve the survival chances of our civilization, but I think Monsanto is reckless and therefore dangerous. Maybe someday layers will find that they are willfully reckless and send the police to ask them to stop.
Already too late.... (Score:2)
American Farmers Are Getting Angry over GE Crops
Genetic Contamination & Unavailability of Non-GE Seeds Anger North Dakota
Farmers
Genetic Beans Giving Farmers More Headaches. Difficulty
Finding GM-free Seeds.
Bismark (North Dakota) Tribune, 20 March 2001
http://208.141.36.73/listarchive/index.cfm?list
listing). BY Jerry W. Kram.
Excerpts: Wiley was informed that his sample had tested positive for
genetically modified varieties. The level of contamination was 1.37
percent, which was too much for the Japanese. 'I was stunned and
sick to my stomach,' Wiley said. 'I finally went into the house to tell
my wife we had just lost $ 6,000 because of a neighbor's planting
decision.' Other producers who sell into markets that prohibit or
severely restrict the use of genetically modified crops are having
a hard time finding seed. Donald Vig, an organic farmer from
Valley City, said he has talked to seed suppliers as far away as
California and cannot find seed guaranteed to be free of foreign genes.
'The organic industry has a zero tolerance for genetically modified
crops,' Vig said. Rodney Nelson, a farmer from Amenia, is also looking
for soybean seed free of genetically modified varieties. Nelson is being
sued by Monsanto, producer of Roundup Ready soybeans, for growing their
variety of soybeans without buying seed from the company. "I want
soybean seed that's guaranteed not to contain genetically engineered
material,' Nelson said. 'When I asked my seed dealer for a guarantee, he
laughed at me..."
_______________________________________________
Indiana Farmers Getting the Bad News on Biotech
www.DirectAg.com articles. 3/23/2001, or
http://www.directag.com/directag/news/article.j
Why Didn't You Warn Me About GMO's? Excerpts:
"I came here this morning feeling pretty good," the farmer continued.
"But now you've got me very concerned about where we're going to sell
our GMO-crops in the future. It's not right that you let us all get
hooked growing these GMO-crops and now tell us that maybe we should be
growing something else."
Tom Bechman, Indiana Prairie Farmer, a Farm Progress Publication.
Purdue Extension corn specialist Bob Nielsen didn't mince words when he
addressed the issue of genetic modified organisms (GMO's) and the
controversy still swirling throughout agriculture due to the StarLink Bt
debacle last fall. He warned farmers that while the long-term potential
for great benefits from biotechnology still existed, the short-term
fall-out could actually make life more difficult, and perhaps even less
profitable, for farmers who didn't manage carefully in the short term.
When he finished his talk at the Wayne County Conservation Tillage
Workshop in Richmond, Ind., one farmer in the crowd was quick about not
mincing words, either.
"Why didn't you tell us about all of these
potential negatives a long time ago," he questioned, sharply. "Where
have you been for the last two or three years? "I came here this morning
feeling pretty good," the farmer continued. "But now you've got me very
concerned about where we're going to sell our GMO-crops in the future.
It's not right that you let us all get hooked growing these GMO-crops
and now tell us that maybe we should be growing something else." While
Nielsen is never at a loss for words, he did acknowledge that the farmer
had a point. But it wasn't just Nielsen who didn't see the controversy
coming. He contended that it was all of agriculture, plus the media and
even regulatory officials. "Six months ago, hardly anyone in Indiana
even knew what StarLink was," Nielsen says. "It was barely a blip on the
radar screen."...
Genetically Modified Foods And Patents, Oh My! (Score:2)
Unlike some of the raving left-wing crowd crowing about GM foods, and how wrong they are, I have no personal problem with them.
Having taken a whack of genetics courses (before deciding that messing around with fruit flies is not how I want to spend the rest of my life), I am surprised he did not use the simple defence of:
It's a naturally occuring mutation.
Prove it otherwise.
Really. What could Monsanto do in that scenario? Do they have a patent on randomly occuring genetic mutation? Cross-polination? NO.
All genetic modification is really just selectively chosing genes that exist elsewhere. Nature does this too. It's called...wait for it...evolution.
Genetic Engineering is NOT selective breeding (Score:2)
The clearest example of this is a new type of tomato which has genes from a certain fish in it. The result is a tomato which keeps longer and is resistant to freezing. Now, pray tell, how long would it take you to use "selective breeding" between a tomato and a fish? The fact is you will never get it to work.
I've even heard propronents of GMO's both admit and deny that genetic engineering is just like selective breeding in the same interview. First they say, "of course it's safe. It's the same thing people have been doing for thousands of years: selective and cross breeding." Then later, "Genetic engineering is important because it lets us create things that would be impossible to make via any other method". Well, which one is it? A powerful new tool which makes the impossible possible? Or just a sped up verion of a old tool? It can't be both. The two options are mutually exclusive.
Personally, I think genetic engineering is a great new tool. But, I also think that we barely know how to use it. The current situation is that we are honing are skills using our food supply as a guinea pig and releasing the newly made creatures into the wild were they will propogate on their own. All of this with basically no regulation or testing. Stupid and foolhardy both.
Re:Monsanto is a threat to humanity (Score:2)
Genetically modified potatoes are all but dead.
Although I'm no fan of McDonalds, they've decided that the risk of consumer backlash against the use of GM potatoes in their cash-cow french fries is too high so they now only buy non-GM potatoes. They're such a huge buyer of potatoes that few if any farmers will now plant GM potatoes.
--
Wrong kind of licence.. (Score:2)
Re:This has officially become stupid (Score:2)
What happened was the wind-blown equivalent of a CueCat being mailed to people. They didn't ask for it, they didn't steal it, the company should lose rights to make demands of the people who received it.
The law, it seems, disagrees. Digital Convergence should have patented those CueCats; they could have gotten rich off the people who wrote Linux drivers for them, since they didn't abide by the "license" DC wanted to enforce on items they didn't ask for in many cases.
Doesn't a situation like that sound fundamentally wrong? Someone performs what, for all intents and purposes, should be a perfectly legal action - growing canola crops - loses everything because some outside plants contaminated his crop.
The "test" you speak of consisted of blasting crops with Roundup after noticing some of the plants around a power pole he blasted didn't die. The genetic tests didn't take place until much later, at which point Monsanto was the one aware that their particular resistant plant was in the field. From the testimony, which I downloaded and read after your post, the farmer knew some crops were resisting the herbicide, and that was it. There is no testimony or implication he stole the seed from anywhere, or knew without a doubt it was Monsanto's Roundup Ready seed. It ended up on his property through no actions of his own.
What happened to Mr. Schmeiser is far more wrong than his growing seeds that landed on his property.
All Your Seed Are Belong To Us (Score:2)
Is effectively what Monsanto is claiming. Because some idiot granted them the patent on genetically modified canola, they own the rights to a type of *life* in perpetuity? This seems ludicrous to me, obviously we must start campaigning to deny the legality of any patent that relates to living being or DNA.
For instance, life evolves naturally. If natural evolution were to produce the same result as genetic modification, would it invalidate the patent? How would we ever know? Or would the patent holder suddenly gain the ownership of an entire species?
I am very sad to see the courts make this ruling, particularly as a I am a proud Canadian.
Re:Canada has no health care (Score:2)
And therein lies the problem. Morons who run to the doctor for every sniffle, ache, and runny nose because they really do think they're going to die. Perhaps if people only went to the doctor when medically necessary, or for an annual exam, then there wouldn't be such a large waiting list.
Why doesn't some insurance company come out with a Catastrophe-Medical Insurance plan? In other words, I'll pay for routine Dr. visits (I never go), but if I break my leg or come down with Cancer, then I'm covered....
MY SEED = YOU PAY FUggER!!! (Score:4)
Monsanto spied on farmers [biotech-info.net], then "burned" farmers fields in order to destroy evidence. When caught, Monsanto said they were "testing" fields. Hmm, and flew night missions in Cessnas to carry out these "normal" activities. Yea... sure.
And now they win a court case against a farmer who has complained about Monsanto seed in his crop before. I don't care if the whole field is full of Genetic seed, it's still Monsantos responsibility.
Monsanto wants to own the worlds food before the farmer does. It's insidious!
They have killed before, they will kill again.
______
jeff13
Legal Stuff (Score:2)
What's really worthy of note is that the bee (Eric), who did the cross-pollinating could be held liable under patent laws, possibly even the DMCA.
It's probably important to note that the juries, lawyers & judges involved will probably find poor Eric responsible for damages payable to Monstanto.
Poor Eric's dirt-bag lawyer would probably recommend that he try to place responsibility on the hive. After all, poor Eric was acting in the service of the hive and the queen bee. He was just an unpaid laborer and the hive wasn't even witholding Social Security taxes for him.
Erics dirt-bag lawyer will take to his Public Relations Weasel, who will quickly note that Eric and, in fact, all worker bees are female. He will quickly turn this into a political issue.
The Nation Organization of Women will note that the feminist-social-collective bee hive is battling against the evil patriarchal Monsanto Corporation, and send a small army of lawyers to assist poor Eric. They will file a counter-suit against Monstanto for civil-rights violations.
Meantime, Monsanto Corporation will be busy distributing bribes("education") to legislators, attempting to make property-owners responsible for the actions of any bees that live on their property.
Etc...
Re:Potatoes considered harmful (Score:3)
--
Re:Um, yea... (Score:2)
And then common sense goes to teh wind and the lawyers get involved and the regular guy gets screwed.
--
Ummmm.... no. (Score:2)
Shouldn't the person who gave/sold him the seeds/starter plants to begin with be the one paying up?
It's called "tithing" (Score:3)
It's called "tithing". A 10% "voluntary" income tax payable to the (Christian - various denominations) church.
A large fraction of the population of Europe did it for centuries, and some people do it to this day.
Some non-Christian churches have a similar custom.
(I wonder how long it will take for patent holders to start claiming a divine right to royalties, by analogy with kings who claimed a divine right to rule as the next level below God in an "executive branch" responsible for temporal governance.)
Re:Seed making costs money! (Score:2)
What's next, a farmer next to a Monsanto-poisoned field gets the pollen in his, Monsanto comes in with the jackbooted thugs and burns his crops? Those people are enemies of research, development, science, biology, agriculture, intellectual freedom, and just about everything else good and natural.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
"You are what you eat?" (Score:2)
Ah! So THAT explains the mental abilities of those new-age vegitarians.
What did Schmeiser gain? (Score:2)
The benefit of using Monsanto's crop is that you can use a herbicide called Roundup. Roundup usually kills just about all plants it comes in contact to, except this genetically modified canola that Monsanto has developed. This simplifies your weeding task, decreases cost, and (presumably) increases yield.
I'm not taking any kind of stand on this practice; who knows if it's better environmentally?
But on the matter of the court case, I believe the most important question is whether Schmeiser took advantage of Monsanto's plant in the way that licensed farmers do. Did he use Roundup, or some similar herbicide? Or was he just conducting his business as he normally would have, with normal canola?
This would establish two things: did he know that the genetically modified plant was present, and how much did he gain from the illicit use?
--
Re:How totally daft. (Score:2)
Monsanto: Pure Concentrated Evil.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Re:Evil Empires (Score:2)
That's a difficult one. Patents on genes can have a reasonably sound foundation, and the USPTO hasn't yet prooved to me that they are so confused on the issue that we'd be better off if they were just abolished. (Their issuance of software patents, however, has proved that.)
More questionable is whether or not the farmer should be held responsible. If he didn't steal the seeds, then they would normally be considered a treasure trove (buried found property with no known owners). I believe that there is a heavy tax on that where I live, but I don't think that it's illegal.
Now looking at a seed, it can be quite difficult to tell just what kind of seed it is. So expecting that is unreasonable. A great deal of work must be done to turn the seeds into a crop, so the farmer has a large investment. Etc.
My wild guess was that the judge thought the farmer stole the seeds, but didn't have enough evidence (or the charge wasn't presented).
OTOH:
Monopolies are dangerous. Monopolies of critical materials are much worse than just dangerous, they inherently need to be deconstructed. This isn't directly about patents, but then patents aren't really the problem here. The problem is that one company has a monopoly of a critical necessity. Even if the company is well intentioned and hasn't done anything to take advantage of its position, it needs to be deconstructed.
N.B.: Deconstruction is not to be construed as punishment. Ideally it should be done so that the resulting companies have not lost any value, and so that none of the resulting companies have more than, say, 20% of the market. This can be tricky when some parts of the deal are vastly expensive (consider, e.g., the Intel chip foundaries). But perhaps they could be split out as a separate company, with each of the parent companies getting a proportional share of the stock, though this also has it's dangers (this new company becomes the core of a more tightly focused monopoly).
All of this is just what needs to be done. Not what is legal. Legal games rarely seem to be based around what is good for society. And the object of legal games seems all too often to be more the punishing of the loser than the resolving of the problem. But what can you expect of a system that evolved out of the Knights championing a cause. It serves the purpose of making sure that the most powerful position isn't too greatly displeased with the outcome. And this contributes to social stability, which is usually to everyones benefit.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
viral marketing? (Score:2)
Hmm, could this simply the introduction of "seeding" the market... (pun only halfway intened). If Monsanto flew over crop fields and dusted each farmer's crop with just a few seeds, then they could sue each farm until they own every farm on the continent.
Perhaps AOL might take a lesson from this, and sue everyone who touches an AOL cd for "mis-handling intellectual property"
Re:Potatoes considered harmful (Score:3)
It's the rest of the plant that's toxic, at least most of the time. Don't eat a potato that's sprouting or getting a green layer beneath the skin. (You may not become obviously ill with just a green layer, but it's not advisable anyhow.)
That's one reason a potato is such a useful plant: It kills off most insects that try to eat it. (Unfortunately there are other organisms that attack it, and since potatoes are reproduced mainly by cloning they have little diversity. That's why a blight led to the Irish Potato Famine.)
I hear the toxin involved is not broken down by cooking temperatures.
The Stray Bull Law (Score:3)
If you read the judgement, there is a section towards the end where the judge mentions the "Stray Bull Law", which basically states: if your bull loose, and has its way with my cows, I own the offspring, but if it causes me any harm that your bull banged my cows, you owe me.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Re:Things could be manipulated (Score:4)
Re:Lawyer: counter for trespass (Score:3)
Pinochet was a proof-of-concept awaiting implementation.
A fight club scenario. (Score:3)