Comment Re:More ambiguous cruft (Score 1) 514
Speaking as a lawyer, which I am not and never will be, you can't state what his motivations were, only his actions. He may have been spraying the Roundup for other reasons, then noticed some surviving plants ad decided he had something there, regardless of how it got into his fields.
In any event, if Monsanto's product should deliver itself to him in the absolutely normal and predictable process of its being used as specified by Monsanto, is he forbidden from making use of it? Monsanto did not suffer a loss of product or profit, the plants did not "fall off a truck" and have to be taken as a loss by the company.
And, in connection with the first point, the farmer has no certain knowledge the plants were Monsanto product, not normal mutants. He is under no requirement to have them genetically tested before use, nor is he likely to have the kind of genetic knowledge that lets him calculate what the odds would be against Roundup resistance; even I don't know that.
Basically, he is the beneficiary of an event which he may have made preparations to make use of (or may not), but did not cause to happen; which represents no actual loss to his neighbor or Monsanto, this is not a runaway livestock or some such; is he required to forswear the benefits of this event on the grounds that it might be the result of the practices of said neighbor and/or Monsanto, which he himself did not cause, request, or contribute to?
As you say, you are not a lawyer. If you don't know the odds of spontaneous or random resistance to round-up then you early never worked on a farm either. The courts in Canada, with actual lawyers, and with actual Ag experts decided against Percy. There's also not a farmer around that would ever even consider spraying their seed crop with roundup, as they know without doubt they have just as much success setting it aflame in hopes of gaining a flame tolerant seed. Percy absolutely set out with the intent to acquire Monsanto seed and knew without any doubt the seed he planted, grew and went to sell was the same seed patented to them. In the opinion of Canadian courts he clearly had violated patents and was charged. What's more relevant is that nobody's normal farming practices in any way were threatened or chilled or even worried by his case.