Big bad companies...

[cdn_bc_ca]

Yes, precedent is important, that is why this farmer had to stand up for himself and set a precedent for other farmers to follow. Otherwise, the practice of relentlessly suing farmers just because a GM plant just happened to be growing on their field would still continue.

As for your second question, to put it simply, if I were a big company with $100 and you only had $5 dollars, I could threaten you with a lawsuit and give you the option of paying $1 to settle out of court. If you chose to pay the $1, then I win because then I can go after other people and force an out of court settlement as well - instilling fear amongst the masses.

On the other hand, if you chose to take me on... and you lose, well, then I win and you helped me set a precedent to go after everyone else and in the process bankrupted yourself too. If you win the case, however, I also win because it took $6 dollars to pay for legal costs... you only have $5 dollars.... now you are in debt and risk bankruptcy. For me, this is only one specific case. I could come up with a myriad of excuses to sue because, you know, patent lawyers are very creative.

Just look at how the RIAA has been going after alleged copyright violators. It has been proven time and time again that your IP address does not link to an individual person, yet they still sue people based on this assumption. They've even sued dead people. Why? Cause they have the money to do dumb things... and you don't.

The fear of getting sued and facing huge financial costs that could put you into bankruptcy has led most people to settle out of court.

 

[cdn_bc_ca]

What exactly did Monsanto do? They made a type of plant and sold seeds of that type of plant. What sort of responsibility are they supposed to have? Are bullet sellers liable for the murders the bullets are used for? Are vehicle makers liable for drunk driving deaths?

They seem to have a bad name for producing some monstrously unpopular GMO's (and lawsuits) but at the end of the day, it was our government who said they were okay for release into Canada.

It is hard to imagine what basis a lawsuit against them could have.

Well, they patented a type of seed that resists their Roundup pesticide. Roundup, as you know, kills everything. So, as a farmer, instead of spraying your fields with multiple pesticides to kill different varieties of weeds, you could just use the "Roundup ready" seed and then just spray one pesticide to kill everything except the crop.

The problem is that they patented the seed and put draconian restrictions on how the seed is used. For example, you cannot reuse seed from one year to the next. You must buy new seed from them. Second, you must use Roundup pesticides and fertilizers. You must pay a technology fee that is calculated per acre. The list goes on. In order to enforce these policies, M has investigators which, under the contract, gives them the right to enter your farm and investigate without cause.

Then they found that some farmers were lending their surplus roundup ready seed to their neighbours. Bad idea. One thing leads to another and M cannot control or figure out if a farmer willingly or accidentally obtained these patented seeds without permission for use on their own farm.

The other complication is that plants that did not contain this patented protein cross-pollinated with other plants from neighbouring farms that did. The result is that the seeds of these plants now contained the patented protein. These seeds were then used for the next years crop which M says is a violation of their patent.

I can't say much about the government, but when companies are allow to make large political contributions, I cannot believe that they have our best interests at hand.

 

[Cannuck]

If more consumers were aware of the dangers of eating Frankenfood and bought only organic foods this company would soon go belly up.

What is Frankenfood and what is the danger?

 

[bobnoorduyn]

In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that Percy Schmeiser's profits were not improved by the presence of the Roundup ready canola in his crop. He paid nothing to Monsanto, and the fact that the SC ruled in his favour 9-0 means that it is not worth Monsanto's time, or money to throw it away on these cases.

That was a precedent setting case. Monsanto can't have their legal bills paid, even though they won the case on patent infringement. So why would they bother paying people to check neighboring farmers fields, when they can't get any money from them, and can't get their legal bills paid for? That is all cost, and no benefit.

I admit I haven't followed this since leaving Sask, though it was in the news continuously prior. Good on Mr Schmeiser, and it shows that American justice hasn't migrated North to any great extent. The fact that a resolution took seven years from start to finish is mighty hard on an individual, not so much for a behemoth like Monsanto. A victory for the little guy, up here at least.

 

[Cannuck]

It would be interesting to know what percentage of farmers are ma & pa operations and how many are multinational agri-biz monstrosities.

In Canada, the majority are neither (at least the successful ones)