The Story of a Canadian Farmer’s Fight to Defend the Rights of Farmers and the Future of Seeds

[marmar]

from Democracy Now! :




....(snip)....


AMY GOODMAN: Explain what a GMO is.

PERCY SCHMEISER: Genetic modified organisms. And what that really means is that they took a gene from another life form, put it into canola, which made it resistant to Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain what canola is.

PERCY SCHMEISER: Canola is—well, here—in most parts of the world, we call it rapeseed. But canola is an oil-based crop, and primarily it is used for making cooking oil. And the meal from it, after it’s pressed, is good animal feed, both for cattle and for pigs.

AMY GOODMAN: And explain how it ended up on your property.

PERCY SCHMEISER: My neighbor had grown it in 1997, and the following year it had true cross-pollination. But at that time, we believe it was primarily the contamination came from seeds blown in the wind, transportation by the farmer to the market, to his field, and from his field to his granaries.

AMY GOODMAN: So, if you didn’t buy it and plant it, how could Monsanto sue you for using it?

PERCY SCHMEISER: Well, they said that it does not matter how it gets into any farmer’s field, and they specified just what I said before—cross-pollination, seed movement and so on. And because they have a patent on one gene that makes that plant resistant—canola plant resistant to a chemical, then they—that they own the ownership. So it doesn’t matter how it gets to your field, for patent law. They can take the whole total farmer’s crop from him or make him destroy it. And in our case, my wife and I were seed developers in canola, which we had been doing for over fifty years, research in the development of disease control and so on. Even we lost all that research when the court ordered, through patent law, they own it.

AMY GOODMAN: That Monsanto owned it.

PERCY SCHMEISER: That Monsanto owns it.

AMY GOODMAN: And how much did they fine you?

PERCY SCHMEISER: Well, initially they wanted so-much-an-acre fine, but it ended up that they laid another lawsuit of $1 million against my wife and myself. And that also, we had to fight. And besides that, there was another lawsuit in the seven years before it went to the Supreme Court, where they tried to seize all our farmland. They tried to seize our whole—our farm equipment, so they could stop us, because we were using mortgages on our farmland to pay for our legal bills. ..........(more)

The complete piece - in audio, video and transcript formats - is at: http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/17/percy_schmeiser_vs_monsanto_the_story

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. Dude purposefully planted Monsanto seed, then tried to sell the next gen seed to other farmers.

:shrug:

[Romulox]

3. "we believe it was primarily the contamination came from seeds blown in the wind..."

That's directly from the OP.




It might be time. :shrug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Courts were never able to decide on that, either way.

What they were able to decide is that he kept the seeds of the plants that he claims "were contaminated by wind", planted his whole crop with them the next year, then sold them to other farmer as Round-up Ready but without paying Monsanto any royalties.

Take those glasses and read a little closer. This guy's a scheister.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

[Romulox]

10. But you were, huh? I guess it's just a reflex with you. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Well, not really.

It's irrelevant to the case.

If the Netflix truck crashes into a tree, and their movies land on my lawn, I might have a case of littering I can complain about.

But if I take those movies, make a whole bunch of copies of them, and sell them to my friends, I'm in a whole shitload of trouble.

Various people would take me to court, I'd lose a lot of money, and rightfully. Of course if I were like Schmeiser I'd play the innocent victim of the whole thing, and sucker a lot of chumps into believing me.

[Romulox]

22. And if your analogy was on all fours, there'd be no case.

It isn't because you're ignoring the fact that a farmer grows his crop, rather than "takes" it. If a loose bull breaks down my fence and impregnates my cow, the owner of the bull doesn't therefore receive title to the cow. So again, your analogy doesn't really illuminate. :hi:

[LanternWaste]

23. The farmer made copies of the seeds?

The farmer made copies of the seeds? If not, the analogy is flushed eve prior to beginning its Coriolis..

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Yes.

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

20. Don't see "then sold them to other farmer as Round-up Ready".....

in fact:

Schmeiser's principal defense at trial was that as he had not applied Roundup herbicide to his canola he had not used the invention. This argument was rejected; the court said that the patent granted for the invention did not specify the use of Roundup as part of the invention, and thus there was no basis for introducing the requirement that Roundup had to be used in order for the invention to be used. That is, a patent prohibits unauthorized use of an invention in any manner, not merely unauthorized use for its intended purpose.

The Court considered the question of whether knowingly (or, where one ought to have known) planting and cultivating genetically modified canola constitutes "use" of Monsanto's patented invention of genetically modified canola cells, even if the crop is not treated with Roundup and the presence of the gene affords no advantage to the farmer. The court ruled in favour of Monsanto, holding that his use of the patented genes and cells was analogous to the use of a machine containing a patented part: "It is no defense to say that the thing actually used was not patented, but only one of its components." The court also held that by planting genetically modified Roundup resistant canola, Schmeiser made use of the "stand-by" or insurance utility of the invention. That is, he left himself the option of using Roundup on the crop should the need arise. This was considered to be analogous to the installation of patented pumps on a ship: even if the pumps are never actually switched on, they are still used by being available for pumping if the need arises.


....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser

[SlipperySlope]

29. It's in the OP because Schmeiser is lying

The quantity and concentration of roundup ready crop on Schmeiser's land could not possibly be explained by pollination. Schmeiser himself admitted that he selected for the roundup ready trait, and the courts ruled the crop was not there by accident.

His whole "woe is me" story is a lie. A lie that many want to believe, but a lie nonetheless.

[nosmokes]

6. did he really?

says you. got proof? or just monsanto propaganda?

[marmar]

7. Monsanto propaganda for $100, Alex.

nt

[Junkdrawer]

16. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9148227&mesg_id=9148650

[marmar]

18. Thx for that.....I wonder sometimes.

nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Look at the court case for yourself.

it's in the wiki link.

[druidity33]

24. I've read it...

and i didn't see it in there...

:shrug:

[LiberalAndProud]

11. His work was destroyed. Read, listen or watch the interview.

You're embarrassing yourself.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

13. Read the actual case.

No crocodile tears for Schmeiser.

:nopity:

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Did you see where he had to take Monsanto to court for $650?

And Monsanto fought it? Did you read that part? Did you read where he won? Did you read how Monsanto wanted to revoke his right to talk about any settlement or to sue in the future? Did you read that part?

Or how Monsanto tried to take his farm from him to remove his only means of fighting the lawsuit?

Crocodile tears my ass.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

17. I read that Monsanto asked for a gag order.

Which is rather common in civil trials, yet he tried to claim Monsanto was violating his right to free speech.

Should have been evidence right there that the guy was a performance artist.

[LiberalAndProud]

19. Clearly you've already made up your mind.

If you're interested in what transpired after that court case, you should really delve a little deeper.

But you've got your own set of facts. Run with it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. LOL, that goes for both of us.

Me, I'm on the side of the Canadian supreme court.

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. Dirty disgusting tactics by Monsanto. No surprises there.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Tactics may be dirty. But they are legal. That is the outrageous thing.

If we don't get some laws on the books to protect small farmers, we'll be in a world of hurt.

[LiberalAndProud]

8. Emphasis here.

PERCY SCHMEISER: I hope my battle with Monsanto is over. But I realize that as long as I bring awareness around the world about Monsanto’s patent—not only Monsanto’s patent, but Bayer, Syngenta, DuPont—what their patents do for the control of the future of our seed and our food supply, and that’s what it was all about. GMOs were never meant to feed a hungry or starving world. They were meant to get control of farmers’ seed supply. That gives them the control of the world food supply. And so, that’s where we stand at now, to bring that awareness around the world.

[nosmokes]

14. You hit the bone marrow.

Food and water:the ultimate WMD.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

25. K&R What an amazingly brave and kind man Percy Schmeiser is.

Thank you for sharing this. I really enjoyed hearing his story. Monsanto is the most evil corporation in the history of the world.

[provis99]

27. Percy Schmeiser is a right-wing asshole and thief,

[Canuckistanian]

28. I see one Monsanto fanboy here

Now, where's the other one?

[Junkdrawer]

30. Kick

:kick: