Gmo

[Alceste]

Like what? And how do those things apply to Golden Rice, to drought resistance, heat resistance, etc. in new crops?

--
But he did, he specifically planted a crop almost exclusively of those seeds. That's a change. If he'd harvested say 15% of his seed from RR canola and then planted a field that was like.. 15-20% RR canola I'd feel he was not directly responsible. To me, however (and to the court) the evidence suggests that it was not accidental. Whether this means the laws should be changed or not, is up to others. I don't have a strong stake in it.
--
(I keep going back to GMOs in general rather than Monsanto because that's the heading of the thread, this individual case is really not that important to me.)

All this time, I've been trying to tell you, it's NOT a change. Schmeiser saved and replanted seeds for his ENTIRE LIFE, and gave seeds from plants that performed well preferential treatment the whole time.

That is how it's done. That is how it has ALWAYS been done. Ironically, the very fact that it's always been done is the cornerstone of Quatermass's argument in the OP that there's no substantial difference between GMO and the traditional cultivation of plants with specific properties.

When I plant something on purpose, wherever it came from, it's artificial selection. Never before in human history has anybody, ever, needed to know where a plant's ancestors originally came from. Never before have they been coerced into costly contractual agreements with the "owner" of the genetic material from which the plants they grow on their own property self-propagate.

I believe your "should have known" argument is based on a misunderstanding of how agriculture works, and has always worked. One which the court apparently shares with you, at least in a tepid "no fault" kind of way.

As far as purchasing a product key is concerned, the games you find in your front yard that require one would prompt you and without one the game would not be playable. Not so with Schmeiser's crops. He planted them, just as he has always done, and they grew. At what point in that process do you imagine he should have launched an investigation into who "owned" the plants in his field and how much he should be paying them?

 

[icehorse]

exactly!!!!

Why is the farmer under ANY obligation to change his process?

Back to permaculture, here's a GREAT site: Permies: a big crowd of permaculture goofballs

 

[Alceste]

exactly!!!!

Why is the farmer under ANY obligation to change his process?

Back to permaculture, here's a GREAT site: Permies: a big crowd of permaculture goofballs

You know, it's quite pleasant to find some common ground with you after all those Gaza threads.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All this time, I've been trying to tell you, it's NOT a change. Schmeiser saved and replanted seeds for his ENTIRE LIFE, and gave seeds from plants that performed well preferential treatment the whole time.

That is how it's done. That is how it has ALWAYS been done. Ironically, the very fact that it's always been done is the cornerstone of Quatermass's argument in the OP that there's no substantial difference between GMO and the traditional cultivation of plants with specific properties.

When I plant something on purpose, wherever it came from, it's artificial selection. Never before in human history has anybody, ever, needed to know where a plant's ancestors originally came from. Never before have they been coerced into costly contractual agreements with the "owner" of the genetic material from which the plants they grow on their own property self-propagate.

I believe your "should have known" argument is based on a misunderstanding of how agriculture works, and has always worked. One which the court apparently shares with you, at least in a tepid "no fault" kind of way.

As far as purchasing a product key is concerned, the games you find in your front yard that require one would prompt you and without one the game would not be playable. Not so with Schmeiser's crops. He planted them, just as he has always done, and they grew. At what point in that process do you imagine he should have launched an investigation into who "owned" the plants in his field and how much he should be paying them?

I don't know much of this case, but did Monsanto attempt to tell him to stop before they took him to court? If the guy was doing what is normal, and Monsanto had their lawyers file suit, they are in the wrong. But if they asked him to stop, and he refused, then I can see the courts decision as appropriate.

 

[icehorse]

Really? He never leaves his property and he needs to change his processes for someone in adjoining fields? How is that right? I'm not getting it at all. The seeds blew on to his property. He didn't ask for them. He didn't buy them - do I have something wrong here?

 

[icehorse]

You know, it's quite pleasant to find some common ground with you after all those Gaza threads.

You should see me cooking up peaceful solutions for ISIS! Us progressives gotta stick together

 

[Drolefille]

All this time, I've been trying to tell you, it's NOT a change. Schmeiser saved and replanted seeds for his ENTIRE LIFE, and gave seeds from plants that performed well preferential treatment the whole time.

That is how it's done. That is how it has ALWAYS been done. Ironically, the very fact that it's always been done is the cornerstone of Quatermass's argument in the OP that there's no substantial difference between GMO and the traditional cultivation of plants with specific properties.

When I plant something on purpose, wherever it came from, it's artificial selection. Never before in human history has anybody, ever, needed to know where a plant's ancestors originally came from. Never before have they been coerced into costly contractual agreements with the "owner" of the genetic material from which the plants they grow on their own property self-propagate.

I believe your "should have known" argument is based on a misunderstanding of how agriculture works, and has always worked. One which the court apparently shares with you, at least in a tepid "no fault" kind of way.

As far as purchasing a product key is concerned, the games you find in your front yard that require one would prompt you and without one the game would not be playable. Not so with Schmeiser's crops. He planted them, just as he has always done, and they grew. At what point in that process do you imagine he should have launched an investigation into who "owned" the plants in his field and how much he should be paying them?

I believe it was the point at which he sprayed roundup on them, saw they survived and separated that seed out. AT least that's what the court would say. So the difference here would be me being able to play but then getting a nastygram from EA saying pay up or no more playing after the fact.

I am rather aware of how agriculture works. The thing is, the 1997 crops origins were never actually determined, so it isn't clear where they came from. He sprayed the edges of his fields with roundup, and found that some canola survived, that it survived indicated that it was the patented seed. Any other seed would have died. His argument was that the 97 crop was accidental - whether this is true or not- so he can do what he wants with his seed for the 98 crop.

This wasn't "gee whiz look at some canola, it's growing really good, I'll plant it" It was at best "Gee, this is RR canola, I should plant my whole field in this" or "Wow that sure is resistant to roundup, who knows where that could have came from, still better plant my whole field in it."

This has been around since the 1970s - RR Canola that is - this wasn't new to the market in 1997. Arguing that something is never before happened in history isn't really an argument. Agriculture has been changing, often drastically, since we invented it. At some point, we had to irrigate for the first time, use oxen for the first time, use crop rotation for the first time, use huge farm machinery for the first time, etc. At some point you buy patented seed for the first time. And at some point you do have to pay attention to the 20 year old patented seed that you deliberately harvest and try not to pay for.

Basically I can read the farmer's case and either the entire court system screwed him by ignoring "obvious evidence" or he's in the wrong. And it appears the Supreme Court did him a favor by overturning the money he was instructed to pay, in part because there was no proof he'd used Roundup on his crop that year.
ETA sources I read through:
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Monsanto.pdf (ruling)
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/SCHMEISERCASESTUDY.pdf (some case studies done by students that contain more info)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/schmeiser.cfm (news articles)

I don't know much of this case, but did Monsanto attempt to tell him to stop before they took him to court? If the guy was doing what is normal, and Monsanto had their lawyers file suit, they are in the wrong. But if they asked him to stop, and he refused, then I can see the courts decision as appropriate.

They approached him regarding paying a licensing fee. He said "private property" and it became a patent vs property rights fight.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I believe it was the point at which he sprayed roundup on them, saw they survived and separated that seed out. AT least that's what the court would say. So the difference here would be me being able to play but then getting a nastygram from EA saying pay up or no more playing after the fact.

I am rather aware of how agriculture works. The thing is, the 1997 crops origins were never actually determined, so it isn't clear where they came from. He sprayed the edges of his fields with roundup, and found that some canola survived, that it survived indicated that it was the patented seed. Any other seed would have died. His argument was that the 97 crop was accidental - whether this is true or not- so he can do what he wants with his seed for the 98 crop.

This wasn't "gee whiz look at some canola, it's growing really good, I'll plant it" It was at best "Gee, this is RR canola, I should plant my whole field in this" or "Wow that sure is resistant to roundup, who knows where that could have came from, still better plant my whole field in it."

This has been around since the 1970s - RR Canola that is - this wasn't new to the market in 1997. Arguing that something is never before happened in history isn't really an argument. Agriculture has been changing, often drastically, since we invented it. At some point, we had to irrigate for the first time, use oxen for the first time, use crop rotation for the first time, use huge farm machinery for the first time, etc. At some point you buy patented seed for the first time. And at some point you do have to pay attention to the 20 year old patented seed that you deliberately harvest and try not to pay for.

Basically I can read the farmer's case and either the entire court system screwed him by ignoring "obvious evidence" or he's in the wrong. And it appears the Supreme Court did him a favor by overturning the money he was instructed to pay, in part because there was no proof he'd used Roundup on his crop that year.
ETA sources I read through:
http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/Monsanto.pdf (ruling)
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/SCHMEISERCASESTUDY.pdf (some case studies done by students that contain more info)
Canada Rules in Favor of Monsanto over Seed Saving Farmer Percy Schmeiser (news articles)



They approached him regarding paying a licensing fee. He said "private property" and it became a patent vs property rights fight.

In that case, I think a court order to have him cease using the Roundup Ready seeds would have been more appropriate, and overturning the money owed was the right thing to do. There are too many aspects that seem to be unprovable anyway you look at it. Maybe he had a hunch they were RR seeds, or maybe he thought they may have been something else. One of your articles states RR canola was created in '96, so he may not have actually realized what he had. It's not a very clear case like finding a cd-key protected EA game in your front yard and downloading a crack to play it, which violates an EULA and has to be knowingly done with intention, and having EA send their lawyers after you as a result.

 

[Drolefille]

In that case, I think a court order to have him cease using the Roundup Ready seeds would have been more appropriate, and overturning the money owed was the right thing to do. There are too many aspects that seem to be unprovable anyway you look at it. Maybe he had a hunch they were RR seeds, or maybe he thought they may have been something else. One of your articles states RR canola was created in '96, so he may not have actually realized what he had. It's not a very clear case like finding a cd-key protected EA game in your front yard and downloading a crack to play it, which violates an EULA and has to be knowingly done with intention, and having EA send their lawyers after you as a result.

Roundup Ready Canola - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This says it's been available since the 1970s? Maybe it was local? Not sure. The judges who ruled against him said he should have known even if he didn't. The judges who dissented (in the SC at least) said that the ruling was basically patenting a plant rather than the genes and that that wasn't OK. They didn't argue about his intent as far as I could find so no idea if they thought otherwise on that.

Basically he lost the case but didn't have to pay profits and both sides paid for their own lawyers. He never actually followed through on his countersuit. So all in all - you're wrong, don't do it again, but you don't have to pay anything because they can't prove you made more money selling their seed than anything else.

 

[Sees]

Roundup Ready Canola - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This says it's been available since the 1970s? Maybe it was local? Not sure. The judges who ruled against him said he should have known even if he didn't. The judges who dissented (in the SC at least) said that the ruling was basically patenting a plant rather than the genes and that that wasn't OK. They didn't argue about his intent as far as I could find so no idea if they thought otherwise on that.

Basically he lost the case but didn't have to pay profits and both sides paid for their own lawyers. He never actually followed through on his countersuit. So all in all - you're wrong, don't do it again, but you don't have to pay anything because they can't prove you made more money selling their seed than anything else.

Roundup has been available since the 70's but not the GMO canola. It's just poorly worded.

 

[Drolefille]

Roundup has been available since the 70's but not the GMO canola. It's just poorly worded.

Doh, thanks. I did misread that entirely. Only source I could find - a website hosted on MIT - stated that RR soybeans were introduced in 1996 and RR corn in 1998 but no mention of the canola.