Monsanto
Monsanto
Discuses a patent infringement case regarding the seed company, Monsanto vs. Percy Schmeiser of Saskatchewan, Canada.
2,370 words (
approx. 9.5 pages) |
10 sources |
MLA | 2007
Paper Summary:
This paper discusses a legal case study that revolves around the Monsanto company (plaintiff) versus Mr. Percy Schmeiser (defendant), of Saskatchewan, Canada. The paper relates that Monsanto claims that Mr. Schmeiser knowingly planted Monsanto's patented canola seed by saving the cross-pollinated seed from the previous year and is seeking patent infringement damages, since he was not a licensee of the patent. On the other hand, Mr. Schmeiser claims that he did not plant or buy any seed from Monsanto, and that his canola seeds were naturally cross-pollinated by bees, wind, and passing trucks. The paper outlines the legal issues and arguments on both sides of the case and concludes that the main issue of the case is that Monsanto is becoming a monopoly. The paper argues that the farmers must take control of this situation immediately and demand sovereignty against Monsanto's control. The paper further argues that the farmers must formulate a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto, and stop buying seed or anything else Monsanto is selling. Governmental regulators then need to stay the course and find in favor of traditional farming.
Table of Contents:
Diagnosis
Focal Points For Action
Short Term Issues
Long Term Issues
Profitability Segment
2005 Data
United States Patent Law
Canadian Patent Law
Patent Rights
Alternatives
The Issue
Decisions and Recommendations
From the Paper:
"Canada does not allow higher life forms to be patented, yet, the Schmeiser decision, by a 5-4 majority, suggests that patent holders of components of higher life forms have found way around this barrier. This decision does an apparent end run around the prohibition against planting higher life forms by finding patent infringement in cases where a non-licensee possesses a whole that contains a patented part. This effectively provides a monopolistic protection of the whole to patent holders of the part, even though such patents are not permitted under law."
Sample of Sources Used:
- "Monsanto Buys DPL." monsanto.com. Date Unknown http://www.monsanto.com/http://www.monsanto.com/investors/financial_reports/pro_forma_data [1]
- "Monsanto Expects To Double Gross Profits Over Five Years." Leonard, Christopher 11-08-2007 http://www.aol.comhttp://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/monsanto-expects-to-double-gross-profits/n20071108174909990036 [2]
- "Transaction Costs, Trust and Property Rights." Moore, James. Date Unknown. http://www.ag.uiuc.edu http://www.ag.uiuc.edu/famc/program98/moore.htm [3]
- Thompson, Arthur, Strickland, A. J., and Gamble, John. Crafting and Executing Strategy: The Quest For Competitive Advantage Concepts and Cases. New York 2007[4]
- "Transaction Costs, Trust and Property Rights." Moore, James. Date Unknown. http://www.ag.uiuc.edu
Monsanto (2012, January 15). Retrieved February 11, 2012, from http://www.academon.com/Case-Study-Monsanto/108967
"Monsanto" 15 January 2012. Web. 11 Feb. 2012. <http://www.academon.com/Case-Study-Monsanto/108967>