Monsanto Wins Patent Case on Plant Genes

[CShine]

In a case central to the international debate over the right to patent gene-engineered organisms, Canada's Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a Saskatchewan farmer infringed Monsanto's patent on genetically modified canola, even though he said the seeds landed in his fields by accident.

While the ruling upholds Monsanto's patent rights, there is no immediate financial benefit to the company. The court said Monsanto was not entitled to profits earned by the farmer, Percy Schmeiser, from his genetically modified crop because he had not financially benefited from the plants' engineered ability to withstand Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.

Mr. Schmeiser and his supporters, including numerous farm and environmental groups, expressed disappointment that the court had confirmed Monsanto's right to patent a plant gene and control its use by farmers.

"It's not nearly the victory that we were looking for," Mr. Schmeiser said at a news conference in Saskatoon.


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/business/worldbusiness/22crop.html

[DemBones DemBones]

1. What profits earned by the farmer? As I recall,

they confiscated his crop plus the seeds he'd saved for years.

[aquart]

2. Did the farmer countersue

For unlawful usurpation of his fields? If he has the right to choose his crop, and he did NOT choose the Monsanto seed, does he not have the right to claim damages at being forced to grow the Monsanto seed? Is it not the responsibility of Monsanto to keep its seed from impinging on neighboring fields? We expect a dog owner to keep his dog on a leash. Why should Monsanto not be required to do the same with its seed?