GMW:_Schmeiser_claims_moral_and_personal_victory_+_lots_of_

[Guest guest]

GMW:_Schmeiser_claims_moral_and_personal_victory_+_lots_of_links

" GM_Watch "

Mon, 24 May 2004 14:28:10 +0100

 

 

GM WATCH daily

http://www.gmwatch.org

------

1.Schmeiser claims moral and personal victory

2.Commentary from GRAIN

3.GOING FURTHER - lots of link from GRAIN

 

'...the Supreme Court decision could also trigger a major backlash against

Monsanto. The true face of the " gene revolution " and of the control handed to

transnational corporations through patents on life has been laid bare.' - GRAIN

(item 2)

 

DON'T FORGET: Tell Monsanto Where To Go!

http://www.etcgroup.org/action4.asp

Take immediate action in a global letter writing campaign to Monsanto regarding

GM contamination and the Supreme Court decision. Follow this link to take action

now!

------

1.Percy Schmeiser claims moral and personal victory in Supreme Court Decision

by Percy Schmeiser

May 22, 2004

 

http://www.percyschmeiser.com/decisioncomments.htm

 

The Supreme Court handed down their decision yesterday and I have mixed emotions

to it.

 

I have received many phone calls and emails from concerned supporters and

friends and I appreciate this very much. It was a personal victory and I want to

thank my lawyer Terry Zakreski for his dedication and perseverance on my behalf.

On the broader issues of my case, I regret that things did not work out for my

supporters.

 

I do not have to pay Monsanto one cent for profits, damages, penalties, court

costs or their technology use fee of $15/acre. I feel good about this ruling, as

I have said all along that I didn't take advantage or profit from Monsanto's

technology in my fields. I am pleased that the Supreme Court felt that way as

well. It has been my position that I didn't want their technology in my fields,

that I didn't use their technology by spraying, didn't sell their technology as

seed to another farmer and didn't earn any profit from it. I felt it hard to

accept that I should have to pay them for it.

 

I believe that Monsanto will have a hard time in pursuing patent infringement

against other farmers. They are now going to have to prove that a farmer

profited from having RR canola in their field. The Court noted that my profits

were the same whether I had conventional canola or RR canola, so I find it hard

to see how Monsanto can say in any future case that the farmer made more money

because of their product. This decision may have removed the teeth from their

patent.

 

I also believe that Monsanto will face huge liability issues down the road. The

Court determined that they have ownership to the plant and that I infringed by

having it in my field. With ownership comes responsibility and I assume more

lawsuits will be filed against them for the contamination of farmer's fields. I

was always concerned about this lack of responsibility that Monsanto took for

the unconfined release of RR canola in western Canada. I think the Court's

decision will force them to be held accountable for it now.

 

On the bigger issue of whether or not their patent was valid, the Court ruled

that it is, and we have to accept that judgment. For this to be changed

our Parliament will have to act. We have a conflict between plants breeder's

rights and patent law and the government will have to sort that out. All I did

was save my seed from year to year. Now it is clear that a company's patent will

take precedence over the rights of farmer's to save and reuse their

seed.

 

Farmer's should be concerned about this judgment as they now may lose their

ability to continue with this practice. I believe that this ruling is an

injustice and Parliament must act to ensure that farmer's rights are protected.

The playing field between farmer's rights and the bio-tech companies rights has

been tilted towards the companies with this decision.

 

I have always campaigned on the right of a farmer to save and re-use his own

seed. This is what I have been doing for the last 50 years. I will

continue to support any efforts to strengthen the rights of a farmer to save and

re-use his own seed.

 

In the near future, I plan on spending more time with my wife, children,

grandchildren and friends. They have been very supportive of my efforts and I

want to thank them for it. I could not have done this without them. I also wish

to thank the countless supporters that I had. I have met many people, groups and

organizations that gave me personal, moral and financial support. I won't name

them all at the risk of forgetting someone. I still have legal bills to pay and

I am grateful to all for any past and future contributions.

 

Louise and I have made many friends and acquaintances in this crusade and we

will cherish those memories and friendships forever.

------

2.Commentary from GRAIN

BIO-IPR docserver | http://www.grain.org/bio-ipr

 

Percy Schmeiser's long legal battle against Monsanto has reached an end. On 21

May 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in a tight 5-4 decision, that the

farmer was guilty of violating Monsanto's patent on a gene for resistance to

glyphosate ( " Roundup " , a broad-spectrum herbicide). The Court determined that

patent rights on a gene extend to the living organism in which it is found and,

consequently, that saving and planting seed

containing a patented gene without authorisation from the patent holder is

illegal.

 

This ruling follows a ground breaking decision by the same court, in the Harvard

oncomouse case, to reject patents on higher life forms. The judges

were equally aware that no Canadian government has put forward a policy or law

that prevents farmers from saving seed on their own farm, although the

Plant Breeders' Rights Act makes swapping or selling seed harvested from

protected varieties without authorisation illegal. Canadian farmers have a long

and strong tradition of seed saving, especially in the western prairies where

Schmeiser is from. Canola, the crop Schmeiser grew, is itself a product of

farmer seed saving, farmer selection and publically funded research. It's an

example of what plant breeding can accomplish without patents. It's also an

example of why co-existence between GM (genetically modified) and non-GM crops

is impossible. Today, all of the canola acreage in Western Canada is

contaminated with Monsanto's patented " Roundup-Ready " (RR) gene.

 

None of this mattered to the majority of the court. Their decision focused on a

narrow interpretation of case law, treating plants like any other

manufactured good that the Canadian patent system was designed for, even though

the judges repeatedly pointed out the special nature of biological

" inventions " . They reasoned that the owner of a patented gene should have

monopoly rights over any living organism containing that gene, no matter how

it got there and even if, as the majority of judges confirmed, the plants

themselves are not patentable. It didn't matter that Schmeiser never

deliberately planted Monsanto seeds in his fields. He committed a crime merely

by growing plants containing Monsanto's gene.

 

With this Supreme Court decision, not only are farmers being told they have to

suffer the economic, ecological and social effects of GM contamination but they

will held in violation of someone's property right for it. Which may mean that

more farmers will try to escape the threat of legal action by buying Monsanto's

seeds and signing a technology use agreement. Otherwise, like soybean farmers in

Brazil, they could expect to find Monsanto at the grain elevator, waiting to

test their harvest for the presence of patented genes and charge them royalties

when the genes are detected.

 

But the Supreme Court decision could also trigger a major backlash against

Monsanto. The true face of the " gene revolution " and of the control handed to

transnational corporations through patents on life has been laid bare. As

Schmeiser says, " This ruling is an injustice. " The struggle now leaves the

court and goes firmly into the political arena.

------

GOING FURTHER (compiled by GRAIN)

 

Full text of the Canada Supreme Court decision (Monsanto Canada Inc v

Schmeiser), Ottawa, 21 May 2004:

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2004scc034.wpd.html

 

National Farmers' Union, " Supreme Court Decision Sets Dangerous Precedent, "

Saskatoon, 21 May 2004.

http://www.nfu.ca/Releases

Supreme%20Court%20decision%20sets%20dangerous%20precedent.pdf

 

Anna Maria Tremonti, " The Current " , CBC Radio One interview with Percy

Schmeiser, Saskatoon, 20 May 2004 (Real Media format).

http://media.cbc.ca:8080/ramgen/cbc.ca/thecurrent/media/200405/20040520thecurren\

t_sec2.rm

or go to http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2004/200405/20040520.html and scroll down

to part 2

 

Stephen Leahy, " Canada's Top Court Backs Monsanto Against Farmer " , Inter Press

Service, 21 May 2004.

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23862

 

ETC Group, " Canadian Supreme Court Tramples Farmers' Rights -- Affirms Corporate

Monopoly on Higher Life Forms " , news release, Winnipeg, 21 May

2004.

http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=454

 

" Biotech giant wins Supreme Court battle " , CBC News, 21 May 2004.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/05/21/canada/schmeiser_monsanto040521

 

Further news stories via Google:

http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8 & oe=utf8 & persist=1 & hl=en & client=google & newsc\

lusterurl=http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp%3Fidnews%3D23862

 

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Canadian border, farmers and state

legislators are agitating for the right to save seed despite patent law in

the United States:

-- Danny Henley, " Seed buying contracts may become state issue " , Morris News

Service, 15 May 2004.

http://www.cjonline.com/stories/051504/bus_seed.shtml

-- Associated Press, " Lawmaker Monsanto agreement unfair to U.S. growers " ,

Hannibal (Missouri), 18 May 2004.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/local/8695844.htm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Messenger