Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Nationwide review found that Monsanto has filed 90 lawsuits targeting 147 farmers & 39 small businesses since '97. Article from '05, assuming research was done up until then.

Probably the sole one to go to trial & get significant bouts of attention.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-01-14/news/050114025...

Here's a farmer that won though: http://www.percyschmeiser.com/ :)



You're not replying to my comment so much as you're using it as a coat rack to hang more random news stories about Monsanto on.

Obviously, the practice of suing farmers for (ostensibly) abusing licensed seed is controversial. Obviously you're going to find a lot of stories with a lot of angry farmers and angry farmers' advocates.

But you're not actually making a point with those citations, unless I'm missing it. Help me understand what this has to do with whether Monsanto is right or not?

Schmeisser, by the way, is a uniquely bad example: he didn't just make unauthorized copies (accidentally or not) of Roundup-ready seeds; he also used Roundup to control weeds on the Roundup-ready crops.


"The ruling did increase the protection available to biotechnology companies in Canada, a situation which had been left open with the Harvard mouse decision, where it was determined that a "higher lifeform", such as an animal, or by extension a plant, cannot be patented. This put Canada at odds with the other G8 countries where the patent had been granted. In Monsanto vs. Schmeiser, it was determined that protection of a patented gene or cell extends to its presence in a whole plant, even while the plant itself, as a higher lifeform, cannot be patented. This majority view, based on the precedent of mechanical devices, was central to the Supreme Court's decision, and put the onus on the Canadian Parliament to make distinctions between machines and lifeforms as it saw fit."

Sure sounds like a win in comparison to the alternative.

"Schmeiser won a partial victory, where the court held that he did not have to pay Monsanto his profits from his 1998 crop, since the presence of the gene in his crops had not afforded him any advantage and he had made no profits on the crop that were attributable to the invention. The amount of profits at stake was relatively small, C$19,832, however by not having to pay damages, Schmeiser was also saved from having to pay Monsanto's legal bills, which amounted to several hundred thousand dollars and exceeded his own."





Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: