NewsMine — cabal-elite — corporate — monsanto — Viewing Item

Court rules against farmer in monsanto case { May 22 2004 } Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)    http://www.dailyherald.com/business/business_story.asp?intid=38129134 http://www.dailyherald.com/business/business_story.asp?intid=38129134 Canadian court rules against farmer in biotech dispute Associated Press Posted Saturday, May 22, 2004 OTTAWA - Canada's highest court sided Friday with Monsanto Co. in a seven-year dispute over technology in farming, giving the agribusiness titan broad rights under patent law to control its genetically engineered crops. The Supreme Court of Canada rejected a Saskatchewan farmer's contention that he was an innocent bystander and should not have to pay for seeds he says got on his field by accident. The legal battle dates to 1997 when Monsanto found on Percy Schmeiser's farm a canola variety the U.S. company had engineered to resist its powerful Roundup weedkiller. Anti-biotech activists had hoped the Supreme Court would limit the reach of Monsanto patent or perhaps even invalidate its right to patent a life form. The court not only validated Monsanto's patent, but also gave the company the broadest authority to exercise it. Monsanto alleged that Schmeiser obtained its seeds without paying for them. Schmeiser argued the seed arrived by accident in 1997, either from blowing off a passing truck or by cross-pollination from nearby fields. He said he saved the seeds to mix with his own and planted it across his farm in 1998. He said he did not know the seeds included those Monsanto had patented. The Supreme Court majority rejected that explanation, writing that Schmeiser failed to explain why he ended up with about 1,000 acres of the seeds that would have cost more than $10,000. The court did overturn a lower court ruling ordering him to pay the profits - about $14,400 - from the sale of his 1998 crop. The court said Schmeiser did not directly benefit because his farm had not used the weedkiller the seed was designed to resist. Still, that did not absolve him from patent infringement, and Schmeiser will have to turn over any remaining crops and seeds. Schmeiser said legislatures in Canada and elsewhere would ultimately have to address the reach of what he considered outdated patent law. "I know it in my heart I will always fight for the right of farmers to use their seeds from year to year," he said. Forty percent of the canola crop in Canada is Monsanto-Roundup Ready variety. Copyright 2004 Associated Press.

Biotech foods have unknown allergen risks Canadian farmer monsanto Contamination in canada { July 18 2003 } Court rules against farmer in monsanto case { May 22 2004 } EU ban lifted on genetically modified foods Gates and rockefeller move closer to gmo in africa Indian farmers target monsanto { September 11 2003 } Judge rules out class aciton { October 1 2003 } Lawsuit should proceed Modified crops have unintended changes in allergens toxins { July 28 2004 } Monsanto buys patent for indian wheat { January 31 2004 } Monsanto demands soy licensing { June 13 2003 } Monsanto GM corn causes abnormalities in kidneys blood Monsanto retreats on biotech wheat { May 11 2004 } Monsanto seed prices linked to india suicides Monsanto sees seeds of food revolution in europe { March 19 2004 } Monsanto vs schmeiser Monsanto wants soy royalties brazil Monsanto wins anti trust { October 1 2003 } Nas urges greater scrutiny of genetically modified foods Suit denied status as class action Files Listed: 21

Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security Archives

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purpose of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.