Comment by richbell | Hacker News Reader

Comment by richbell | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> I remember, there was a case where a farmer grew patented plants on his field. They spread to his neighbours field who then got sued by the patent holding company for not licensing that plant. My memory is a bit fuzzy here but you get the idea.

You are thinking of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise.... He is often heralded by anti-GMO activists as an example of the dangers of GMOs and Monsanto, but the fact of the matter is that the "cross contamination" is a myth. He deliberately took cultivars from his neighbour's plot and analysis showed that they comprised a significant portion of his crops, which wouldn't be possible by cross-pollination alone.

Should seeds be patented? Are Bayer, Monsanto, Syngenta, and agrochemicals companies evil? These are all worth discussing (the answer to the second question is yes), but that particular myth is not.

> He deliberately took cultivars from his neighbour's plot

You mean stole? Where do you see this in the link you provided?

That's what I read in the article.

> As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Percy Schmeiser, a canola breeder and grower in Bruno, Saskatchewan, first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.[4] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m2) to 4 acres (16,000 m2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived. At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km²) of canola.

> The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology.

Used their technology, yes, barely. Stole it? Well, the courts unequivocally didn't feel like he damaged (deprived?) Monsanto of anything.

Thanks for the link :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com