The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

the iron law of the patenting of life 215from Schmeiser’s farm, which contained a level of contamination greaterthan 90 percent, the company decided to file suit while continuing to pressureSchmeiser to settle. 26 “During 1999, Schmeiser told Kempf “we wereoften watched by men in a car, who said nothing, did nothing, but were justthere, looking. Once they stayed three days in a row. When you walkedtoward them, they sped away. We also got anonymous phone calls, peoplewho said: ‘We’re going to get you.’ We were so afraid I bought a rifle that Ikept in the tractor when I was working in the fields.” 27The case finally came to trial in the provincial capital, Saskatoon, in June2000. Judge Andrew McKay issued his decision on March 29, 2001, provokingstupefaction among all Schmeiser’s supporters. The judge determinedthat in sowing his fields with seeds harvested in 1997, which he“knew or ought to have known are Roundup tolerant,” Percy Schmeiser hadinfringed Monsanto’s patent. He stated that “the source of the Roundupresistantcanola in the defendant’s 1997 crop is really not significant for theresolution of the issue,” and that “a farmer whose field contains seed orplants originating from seed spilled into them, or blown as seed, in swathsfrom a neighbor’s land, or even growing from germination by pollen carriedinto his field from elsewhere by insects, birds, or by the wind, may own theseed or plants on his land even if he did not set about to plant them. He doesnot, however, own the right to the use of the patented gene, or of the seedor plant containing the patented gene or cell.” This is so because “growth ofthe seed, reproducing the patented gene and cell, and sale of the harvestedcrop constitutes taking the essence of the plaintiff’s invention and using itwithout permission.” 28The judge thereby rejected out of hand the defense argument that Monsanto’sinterest in using the “essence” of GMOs was to be able to applyRoundup to crops, which Schmeiser had not done, as his herbicide invoicesshowed. He did not consider the fact that to take its samples, Monsanto hadhad to enter the farmer’s property illegally, nor that the tests conducted byexperts that Schmeiser had consulted showed a significantly lower level ofcontamination. As Kempf rightly pointed out, “the decision is extraordinary:it means that a farmer infringes the patent of any company producing GMseeds whenever his land is contaminated by transgenic plants.” The decisionobviously pleased Monsanto: “This is very good news for us,” said Trish Jordan,a representative of Monsanto Canada. “What the judge found was thatMr. Schmeiser had infringed on our patent, and awarded us damages.” 29