| The Supreme Court handed down their decision
yesterday and I have mixed emotions to it. I have received many phone
calls and emails from concerned supporters and friends and I appreciate
this very much. It was a personal victory and I want to thank my lawyer
Terry Zakreski for his dedication and perseverance on my behalf. On
the broader issues of my case, I regret that things did not work out
for my supporters.
I do not have to pay Monsanto
one cent for profits, damages, penalties, court costs or their technology
use fee of $15/acre. I feel good about this ruling, as I have said
all along that I didn't take advantage or profit from Monsanto's
technology in my fields. I am pleased that the Supreme Court felt
that way as well. It has been my position that I didn't want their
technology in my fields, that I didn't use their technology by spraying,
didn't sell their technology as seed to another farmer and didn't
earn any profit from it. I felt it hard to accept that I should
have to pay them for it.
I believe that Monsanto
will have a hard time in pursuing patent infringement against other
farmers. They are now going to have to prove that a farmer profited
from having RR canola in their field. The Court noted that my profits
were the same whether I had conventional canola or RR canola, so
I find it hard to see how Monsanto can say in any future case that
the farmer made more money because of their product. This decision
may have removed the "teeth" from their patent.
I also believe that Monsanto
will face huge liability issues down the road. The Court determined
that they have ownership to the plant and that I infringed by having
it in my field. With ownership comes responsibility and I assume
more lawsuits will be filed against them for the contamination of
farmer's fields. I was always concerned about this lack of responsibility
that Monsanto took for the unconfined release of RR canola in western
Canada. I think the Court's decision will force them to be held
accountable for it now.
On the bigger issue of whether or not their patent
was valid, the Court ruled that it is, and we have to accept that
judgment. For this to be changed our Parliament will have to act.
We have a conflict between plants breeder's rights and patent law
and the government will have to sort that out. All I did was save
my seed from year to year. Now it is clear that a company's patent
will take precedence over the rights of farmer's to save and reuse
their seed.
Farmers should be concerned about this judgment
as they now may lose their ability to continue with this practice.
I believe that this ruling is an injustice and Parliament must act
to ensure that farmer's rights are protected. The playing field
between farmer rights and the bio-tech companies rights has been
tilted towards the companies with this decision.
I have always campaigned on the right of a farmer
to save and re-use his own seed. This is what I have been doing
for the last 50 years. I will continue to support any efforts to
strengthen the rights of a farmer to save and re-use his own seed.
In the near future, I plan on spending more time
with my wife, children, grandchildren and friends. They have been
very supportive of my efforts and I want to thank them for it. I
could not have done this without them. I also wish to thank the
countless supporters that I had. I have met many people, groups
and organizations that gave me personal, moral and financial support.
I won't name them all at the risk of forgetting someone. I still
have legal bills to pay and I am grateful to all for any past and
future contributions.
Louise and I have made many friends and
acquaintances in this crusade and we will cherish those memories
and friendships forever.
|