> "Due to global warming, the sun is only available, on average, half the day"

Are you drunk?

Thanks, I was about to say the exact same thing.

You don't have to "prove" anything to file a lawsuit, and Monsanto launches many civil lawsuits based on "raids" (i.e. blatant trespassing) and anonymous tips. Remember these are civil cases, and the cost of defending civil actions can be more than even a large farm can bear.

Read about Pilot Grove for a good example. The suit was settled last year.

"What about when the neighboring farms spread their unwanted "Natural" pollen to the GE farms?"

The obvious difference is that if the pollen comes from a plant patented by Monsanto, you're at risk of getting sued.

"Pollen only affects seed production. Not root crops."

If any of those beets goes to seed, which is common, then next year you'll have Monsanto's IP growing in your field. Again, lawsuit time.

You appear not to have read the article.

The judge's decision has nothing to do with food safety. This case is about a GM food crop, patented by an extremely aggressive company, whose potential for unwanted cross-pollination was not investigated nearly well enough.

This judgement has nothing to do with food safety. It addresses the threat of unwanted cross-pollination by a patented food crop. Monsanto has no problem with suing farmers who are the victims of unwanted cross-pollination or seed drift.

Google Monsanto for a little background on the topic.