Re: Obvious
Just for reference, the contamination thing has been pretty overblown in many cases, in particular the case of the farmer who was sued for having Monstanto Roundup Ready crops in his fields.
It's almost always said that the seeds blew in and contaminated his crop - by the anti-Monsanto brigade..
What's almost never mentioned, even though it's a google search away, is the the farmer was clearing down the field with Roundup, and found a decent amount of corn was resistant to roundup - blowover from his neighbours field/from a lorry/whatever. He did some more tests, and found a fair whack of crop (somewhere around 3-4 acres) was resistant to Roundup. He then got someone to grab the seed, and store it seperately. He then replanted that seed on 1000 acres of his land.
When it was eventually discovered, he had a 95% Roundup Resistant crop.
So he didn't have a handful of seeds blow in, then get sueballed for having the gall to trust in nature to find a way, etc, he was - correctly - sued for IP theft, for using a proprietary product that he hadn't paid for, in a way that simply could not have occurred by accident.
"The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmer’s crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed. "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 95–98% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeiser’s active participation, saying ‘. . .none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop’" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser
No doubt Monsanto have some (lets face it, probably quite a few) crappy business and legal practises - who doesn't at that scale? - and yes, contamination is an issue with these IP protected crops, but it's important to disseminate the facts evenly if you want to stick it to someone with some weight.
And no, I'm not a paid shill for Monsanto (nor am I a huge fan of their business practises, which do appear to be rather brutal in many respects) otherwise the arches on my car wouldn't be so fucking rusty. And I wouldn't be living in a bedsit. But it's important to have balance when bringing up these subjects, otherwise it leaves the person open to claims of wild bias and lack of objectivity, which can harm an argument as badly as a lack of evidence would.
In short, read the case notes, fuck agressive business practises, and where are my goddamn glow in the dark broccoli and drought resistant pizza plants to feed the starving in the poorer parts of the EMEA?
Steven R
Biting the hand that feeds IT
