Re:Unsealed Documents Raise Questions on Monsanto Weed Killer
by ptaipale on Thursday March 16, 2017 @02:02AM
(#13882874)
If you bother to read it, you will find that it completely demolishes your argument.
Wikipedia summarizes it:
"The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[21][22] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful."
In other words, the farmer knowingly collected Monsanto's seeds and used them. It definitely was no accident; he was willfully attempting to take advantage of Monsanto.
This has nothing to do with GMO or Roundup; the seed patent laws apply to all seeds.
Wikipedia summarizes it:
"The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[21][22] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...
In other words, the farmer knowingly collected Monsanto's seeds and used them. It definitely was no accident; he was willfully attempting to take advantage of Monsanto.
This has nothing to do with GMO or Roundup; the seed patent laws apply to all seeds.