Michael Palmer said:

> Have I got the facts correct?

The link below appears to be a fair summary of the suit, and
it is important to note that much less was "proven" than was
alleged by Monsanto:

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/crime.htm

You can read the farmer's side of the story at his website.
(Everyone seems to have a website these days...)

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/

You can find news articles and other summaries with
a Google search string that would include, for example:

        "Saskatchewan canola Monsanto court"

...which yields 2,100 hits or so.

It is puzzling that the farmer's lawyer did not prevail on the grounds that
Monsanto's "proprietary genetics" were, in net, a form of "pollution", and
something that harmed the farmer's crop, creating a tangible liability
for Monsanto.  Was this view even offered?  I dunno.

To take matters to extremes, it appears that this ruling would allow
Monsanto to fly an airplane around, dropping their "Round-Up Ready"
seeds on every farm in Saskatchewan, and then make similar demands
for "technology fees" from every farmer in the province.  As the judge
said:

     "...the source of the Roundup resistant canola...is really not
      significant for the resolution of the issue of infringement..."

...which brings new meaning to the term "planted evidence".  :)

Now, if Monsanto had filed an "in rem" action against the "infringing land"
solely to obtain the right to take possession of or destroy their (polluting)
"property", I think that we would have a much more rational situation.
The judge's statement would be fair if applied to a request by Monsanto for
relief limited to removing the infringement at Monsanto's sole expense.

But to make the farmer a party to the action is weird.  I wonder if his lawyer
even thought to file a "motion to sever"?

Here's a good test - somebody in Saskatchewan should place a single
beehive with no identification markings in a field known to be planted with
"Round-Up Ready" canola.  Then, call Monsanto, and ask them if the beehive's
stores of pollen are considered an "infringement" of Monsanto's rights.

I can see the headlines now - "Beehives - The Napster of Agriculture".  :)


Monsanto is apparently having less success in the USA with their
"enforcement" efforts.  Here's one example:

http://www.nelsonfarm.net/issue.htm

But the news report below, claimed to be from the "Manitoba Co-operator"
is the one that gives rise to the most concern in my mind, since it
appears to make the point that there is no avoiding more problems like this.

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Tolerance.htm

To quote Bob Dylan, "The answer is blowin' in the wind".
But then, so is the problem.

                jim

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BEE-L has no "Frequently Asked Questions",
but any topic can be reviewed by searching
the  archives.  The archives are the FAQ!
BEE-L archives can be searched at:
 http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::