re: " There have been non-GMO crops cross pollinated with the neighbors GMO crops and Monsanto in these cases has sued the non-GMO farmer for harvesting his own seed since it now has the patented Gene."

I get so very tired of this story.  Yes, the story is real but that description is a gross oversimplification.

Background:
-  Monsanto invested a great deal of money to develop Roundup-resistant seeds.
-  Monsanto sought and was granted a patent on the seed.  (Personally, I am skeptical of the idea that living organisms should be patentable but that is the current law.)

-  Monsanto sells the seed only with a strict contract clause that prohibits the buyer from saving, selling or replanting subsequent generations of seed.  (Again, there can be reasonable debate about whether this is a good social policy but it is clearly stated up front as a condition of the contract.)
-  When Monsanto discovers that a farmer has saved seed regardless, they do sue the farmer for breach of contract.


Now the complication.  Two actually:

1)  Some farmers have claimed that they did not save seed (or buy from someone who saved) and that the Monsanto gene must have gotten into their seed through cross-pollination.  It is possible that the farmer is telling the truth.  It is also possible that the farmer is lying.  I would like to believe that all farmers are pillars of society but as a group they are as honest (and dishonest) as the rest of society.  It is up to a jury to decide whose testimony credible and who, if anyone, is lying.  Unfortunately (from the point of view of an outside observer), every case that I'm aware of settled before going to trial.  We have not yet had a finding of fact on comparative credibility.
2) Under existing intellectual property laws, you can only retain your right to your intellectual property if you "vigorously defend" your rights from infringement.  If you allow your copyright or patent to be violated and do nothing about it, you can be legally presumed to have waived the right - not just in that case but in _every_ case.  It is this absurd twist in the law that results in Monsanto and the RIAA suing their own best customers.  They know that if they don't at least go through the legal motions of defending the patent or copyright, they risk losing it altogether.  Their entire investment, not just locally, but on a worldwide basis, is rendered moot and valueless.  While I agree strongly that this result is ridiculous, the fault is not with the intellectual property owner - or at least no completely their fault.  Congress deserves a large part of the blame for creating the situation where they must attempt to defend their right to
 such ridiculous and counter-productive extents.

So back to bees.  Could this happen if a manufacturer patented a special bee, perhaps with a pesticide resistance?  Yes.  It might not be Monsanto but it is not an impossible concept.  And yes, we would be equally at legal risk if our queens flew out and were naturally mated with drones from a patented queen.  The answer is not to rail against Monsanto or even to bemoan the gullibility of juries.  The only long-term answer is to lobby Congress to change the intellectual property laws and to bring this unintended consequence back into line with a reasonable social outcome.  Yes, we have a vested interest now in creating better laws so we won't fall into the same trap if/when a patented queen is eventually developed.


Mike Rossander


             ***********************************************
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