re: "Given the unequivocality of [Schmeiser's] claim, it seems easily verifiable [that the cause was cross-pollination]."

I agree that Monsanto v Schmeiser is the most famous case to date.  I also agree with the comment above that given the unequivocality of his claim, it should have been easy to verify.  That's not how it played out in court, however.  Monsanto's experts measured his crops as 90% derivative of their stock, a percentage so high that natural cross-pollination is improbable.  Schmeiser's experts measured it at 0-68%.  The Court essentially avoided the question altogether and found them both right.  The Court never made a finding of fact on how or how much of the Monsanto stock got into his crops.  

Regardless, the reply misses the point.  Monsanto's claims in that specific case are irrelevant.  What's driving their behavior is the clause that makes intellectual property defense an all or nothing proposition.  Patent and copyright holders do not have what in the criminal system is called prosecutorial discretion.  They must prosecute every infringement or they risk losing the right to prosecute any infringement.  We (and they) need to be working our respective Legislatures to fix that problem.
 
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