It just demonstrates how patents are a form of rent seeking. You own the product of your labor but you should not be able to assume you own the accidental products that are related to your labor (ex. buying tools from a tool smith which then you use to make your own tool smithy).

There is no way that analogy holds in this case. The farmer didn't cultivate their own RoundUp to spray, among other problems with it.

What if the farmer was trying to clear the land with roundup and the accidental gmo modified crops prevented him from doing so. Could he sue for damages?

Perhaps! Though in this case it seems he engaged in the behavior over an extended period of time and did not consider the patented crops a problem.

No, if he didn't save seeds from crop plants on that land. That saving of seeds after spraying was the incriminating act.

How does the doctrine of first sale not apply here?

I could make up some convoluted argument but… the neighbor conducted the first sale so this should have extinguished any further patent claim. Of course, IANAL.

He is not reselling individual seeds. He is manufacturing new seeds. He is not allowed to do that, and particularly not allowed to do that with intent.

From wikipedia:

>A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a limited period of time in exchange for publishing an enabling disclosure of the invention.

In this, letting the plant reproduce arguably falls under "making" (ie. manufacture) of the patented thing (the genetically modified plant).

In no way was that depiction accurate. Indeed, if an innocent farmer were, by no fault of his own, found liable for contamination, he could properly sue the others for contaminating his land. For this reason, Monsanto always said it would never sue just for accidental contamination, and never did.

> and justice was done

That's one of the stupidest things I've read on this website.

It's perfectly clear it was a correct legal decision. The farmer was deliberately and intentionally trying to evade the patent, as we've explained multiple times in these comments.

Perhaps you could explain why the decision was incorrect? Or why justice demanded differently?