[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[SANET-MG] more on the the Canadian supreme court decisiion
The article below provides a reporter's view of the Schmeiser case. The judges
allowed that polluting GM crops need to be licensed but took a more sane view
than did the Saskatchewan courts. The lower courts said that Schmeiser had to
pay Monsanto for profits from the canola crop even though roundup was not used
to produce the crop. The highest court had minimal human intelligence, in
contrast to the Saskatchewan courts ,which had tried to make Schmeiser pay
Monsanto. Of course the Saskatchewan judges will be in tears and will probably
take up collections so that Monsanto will not be sad. In Canada we have been
told that the principle is that the polluted must pay, and to bad for people
who cannot sell their crops because the crops have been polluted with patented
21 may 2004
Monsanto wins key biotech ruling
By KIRK MAKIN and ALLISON DUNFIELD
Globe and Mail Update
The Supreme Court of Canada made biotechnology history Friday with a 5-4 ruling
that a Saskatchewan farmer violated a patent Monsanto Canada Inc. held on genes
of genetically engineered canola seeds.
The ruling is considered to have global importance to the biotechology industry,
farmers, health care and any other field where genetic engineering has made
inroads. Canada is believed to be the first country where a top court has ruled
on patent issues involving plants and seed genes.
At the centre of the litigation was a gene that Monsanto invented, patented and
introduced into canola. Created in 1996 and known as Roundup Ready, it makes
canola plants resistant to a common weed-control herbicide that the company
markets under the name of Roundup. Its progeny are equally resistant.
The litigation commenced in 1997, when Monsanto found its genetically engineered
canola plant growing on Percy Schmeiser's farm. Mr. Schmeiser contended that
since a plant is a higher life form and cannot be patented, he had done nothing
Monsanto did not claim protection for the genetically modified plant itself, but
rather for the genes and the modified cells it is composed of.
At a news conference after the ruling, Mr. Schmeiser said he felt that the past
six years had been a personal victory because the case made it all the way to
the Supreme Court.
"That's where I always wanted it to be, at the Supreme Court, where the whole
issue of patenting life forms would be addressed, or the patent of organisms.
... It may not be the victory that we were looking for, but ... I and my wife
have done everything possible to bring it this far."
He said he hoped that the whole issue of patenting genes and putting them into
organisms and then claiming ownership of the plants would be examined in the
near future by Parliament.
Carl Casale, Monsanto's vice-president of North American and Latin America
North, said the decision shows a genuine regard for technological innovation.
?The message that Canada sends in terms of respect for intellectual property and
what it means to international investment is very, very strong,? he told
globeandmail.com in an interview.
Mr. Casale said Monsanto will continue to expand its product lines in Canada, in
contrast to its activities in countries such as Argentina, where the company
recently withdrew from the soya bean market ?because our intellectual property
rights were not being respected.?
The 5-4 majority, led by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Mr. Justice Morris
Fish, concluded: "The appellants actively cultivated Roundup Ready Canola as
part of their business operations. In light of all of the relevant
considerations, the appellants used the patented genes and cells, and
infringement is established.
?By cultivating a plant containing the patented gene and composed of the
patented cells without licence, the appellants deprived the respondents of the
full enjoyment of the monopoly,? they said, writing on behalf of Mr. Justice
Ian Binnie, Mr. Justice Jack Major and Madam Justice Marie Deschamps. "The
appellants' involvement with the disputed canola was also clearly commercial in
Mr. Schmeiser saved the seed and reused it ?for production and advantage,? the
majority noted. ?Whether or not patent protection for the gene and the cell
extends to activities involving the plant is not relevant to the patent's
The dissenting judges, however, said the majority were being inconsistent with a
recent Supreme Court ruling that higher life forms ? which include seeds ?
cannot be patented. That case involved a genetically engineered laboratory
animal known as the Harvard mouse.
Led by Madam Justice Louise Arbour, the dissenting faction said a reasonable
observer would conclude that ?gene claims and the plant-cell claims should not
be construed to grant exclusive rights over the plant and all of its offspring.
?Mr. Schmeiser was entitled to conclude that since plants cannot be patented,
they fell outside the scope of patent protection,? they said. ?Accordingly, the
cultivation of plants containing the patented gene and cell does not constitute
an infringement. The plants containing the patented gene can have no stand-by
value. To conclude otherwise would, in effect, confer patent protection on the
Mr. Schmeiser, 74, cast himself as a farmer of the old school who habitually
used seeds from previous crops to plant new canola. No fan of chemical
herbicides, Mr. Schmeiser used Roundup sparingly in 1997 to eliminate weeds
around some power poles and ditches.
He has steadfastly insisted that the seed somehow blew onto his fields from
passing trucks or from neighbouring farms, which had paid Monsanto Canada Inc.
the licensing fee of $15 an acre to use it.
He said he was astonished to discover that a great deal of the canola in those
areas survived his spraying, suggesting that had somehow acquired a resistance
to the herbicide. He used portions of the seed from those areas for his crop
the following year.
On Friday, Mr. Schmeiser said he got into the legal battle because he felt that
"a farmer should never, ever lose his rights to use his seed year to year.
"That was the basis we fought for, for the rights of farmers, and I know that if
my grandfather and my father were here today, that's exactly what they would
want me to do because that's the reason they came to this country, to be free
and to use their seeds from year to year."
With the aid of environmentalists, he quickly acquired the image of a little guy
taking on a greedy corporate conglomerate.
Although Monsanto disputed Mr. Schmeiser's version of events, the company's main
contention was simply that Mr. Schmeiser reaped and reused the
herbicide-resistant seed without authorization.
Approximately 20,000 farmers now plant Roundup Ready canola, representing 40 per
cent of the Canadian canola crop.
Mr. Schmeiser lost the first round on March 29, 2001. Mr. Justice Andrew MacKay
of the Federal Court of Canada ruled that Mr. Schmeiser ?knew or ought to have
known? his 1998 seed was resistant to Roundup. He said it was more likely that
he planted the seed himself than that he came by it innocently.
The Canadian Canola Growers Association, one of a dozen intervenors in the case,
warned when the case was argued in the Supreme Court that an overly restrictive
court ruling could harm Canadians interests.
Such a ruling, it said, would make Canada ?the only significant canola exporter
to refuse to patent plants and plant material, which would drive away
technology developers and leave Canadian growers without access to
technological advances in new varieties.?
In assessing damages after the original trial, Judge MacKay noted that tests
revealed that 1,030 acres of the canola on the farm were more than 95 per cent
resistant to the herbicide. He awarded Monsanto the equivalent of Mr.
Schmeiser's profits on his 1998 canola crop ? $19,832 ? as well as legal costs
estimated at $153,000.
The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the ruling in 2002. In an unexpected twist on
Friday, however, the Supreme Court reduced the damages to zero.
It said that Mr. Schmeiser profits ?were precisely what they would have been had
they planted and harvested ordinary canola.?
Since there was no evidence that he sprayed Roundup herbicide to reduce the
weeks, the majority said, there is no way to conclude that he gained any
financial advantage. ?On this evidence, the appellants earned no profit from
the invention and the respondents are entitled to nothing on their claim of
Mr. Schmeiser's lawyer, Terry Zakreski, said Friday that he felt that "we're at
the end of the road as far as the legal battle is concerned. " While he
characterized Friday's Supreme Court decision as a "well-fought legal battle,"
he said he had hoped that they would have won their ground of appeal that they
won on was the one that would say that just because a company has a patent on a
gene or a cell, it does not have a patent on a plant.
He said he feels the decision gives a large company such as Monsanto the ability
to patent a higher life form.
"Many people around the world had pegged their hopes on that ground of appeal
and hoped that we would succeed, but I don't think it ends the war. The war's
going to continue."
A representative for the Council of Canadians said that the council is calling
on elected officials to assume responsibility and to update the country's
Patent Act to address these newly created life forms.
To unsubscribe from SANET-MG:
1- Visit http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html to unsubscribe or;
2- Send a message to <firstname.lastname@example.org> from the address subscribed to the list. Type "unsubscribe sanet-mg" in the body of the message.
Visit the SANET-MG archives at: http://lists.sare.org/archives/sanet-mg.html
For more information on grants and other resources available through the SARE program, please visit http://www.sare.org.