On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:11 AM, randy oliver <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>
> This certainly is the "truth" as reported by the Press.  Has anyone on the
> List read the actual court transcripts to see if such an assertion is
> indeed valid?  Are our juries actually such fools?
>

The most famous case in Canada is Percy Schmeiser.  From
http://www.percyschmeiser.com

"

*The Trial was heard June 5-20, 2000 in Federal Court in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan. *

The Canadian federal court hearing lasted three weeks before a judge in
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. At trial, Monsanto presented evidence from two
dozen witnesses and samplers that Schmeiser's eight fields all were more
than 90% Roundup Ready, indicating it was a commercial-grade crop. Monsanto
performed no independent tests as their tests were all performed in house
or by experts hired by the company.

 In his defense, Schmeiser showed his own farm-based evidence that the
fields ranged from nearly zero to 68% Roundup Ready. These tests were
confirmed by independent tests performed by research scientists at the
University of Manitoba, in Winnipeg, MB. Schmeiser's defense also contained
evidence that he didn't knowingly acquire Monsanto's product, segregate the
contaminated seeds for future use or spray his canola with Roundup

Monsanto did not directly try to explain how the Roundup Ready seed got
there. "Whether Mr. Schmeiser knew of the matter or not matters not at
all," said Roger Hughes, a Monsanto attorney quoted by * The Western
Producer*, a Canadian agriculture magazine. A  canola scientist, in an
affidavit for Monsanto in the trial, said Schmeiser's theories of
cross-pollination by wind and bees did not make sense to him, given the
purity of plants grown based on Monsanto's tests. "It was a very
frightening thing, because they said it does not matter how it gets into a
farmer's field; it's their property," Schmeiser said, in an interview with *
Agweek*. "If it gets in by wind or cross-pollination, that doesn't matter."

Monsanto outlined their request for patent infringement seeking damages
totaling $400,000. This included a list of civil damages, including about
$250,000 in legal fees, $105,000 in profits they feel Schmeiser made on the
1998 crop, $13,500 ($15 an acre) for technology fees and $25,000 in
punitive damages. Schmeiser feels that Monsanto has asked for exorbitant
amounts to serve as a warning to other producers. At that time Schmeiser
said he has already spent $160,000 of his own savings for legal fees and
another $40,000 of his own time, travel and compensation for labor he had
to hire when he was away from the farm.

He says that if he would have "bowed on my hands and knees" in the
beginning, Monsanto might have settled for what it calculated were unpaid
technical fees of about $15,000. Schmeiser says he has received donations
to help his legal bills--mostly in $50 and $100 cheques from other farmers.

Later in the article it says:

The Federal Court of Canada issued their judgment in the case of Monsanto
vs Schmeiser Enterprises over the technology use fee for Round Up Ready
canola on March 29, 2001. Justice Andrew McKay upheld the validity of
Monsanto's patented gene which it inserts into canola varieties to make
them resistant to their herbicide Round Up.

McKay dismissed Schmeiser's challenge to the patent based on the claim
Monsanto could not control how the gene was dispersed through the
countryside.

In a key part of the
ruling<http://www.percyschmeiser.com/T1593-98-%20Decision.pdf>,
the judge agreed a farmer can generally own the seeds or plants grown on
his land if they blow in or are carried there by pollen -- but the judge
says this is not true in the case of genetically modified seed.

It was that part of the ruling that most upsets Percy Schmeiser. The
implications <http://www.percyschmeiser.com/crime.htm> are wide
ranging<http://www.percyschmeiser.com/fanciful%20tail.htm>and
Schmeiser has launched an
appeal <http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Appeal.htm> that was heard on May 15
<http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Patent%20Not%20Violated.htm> &
16,<http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Appeal%20Wrap-Up.htm>2002 in
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. The Federal Court of Appeal subsequently
rejected Schmeiser's appeal. Schmeiser then asked for leave from Canada's
Supreme Court to hear the case. Leave was granted in May 2003 and the case
was heard on January 20, 2004.

The Supreme Court issued their decision in May 2004 and one can view the
decision as a draw. The Court determined that Monsanto's patent is valid,
but Schmeiser is not forced to pay Monsanto anything as he did not profit
from the presence of Roundup Ready canola in his fields. This issue started
with Monsanto demanding Schmeiser pay the $15/acre technology fee and in
the end, Schmeiser did not have to pay. The Schmeiser family and supporters
are pleased with this decision, however disappointed that the other areas
of appeal were not overturned.

end quote

Randy, if you click on "the ruling" I think you will get what you requested

Stan

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm