NonGMF, I note your comments, and accept that "deep pockets" can be used to stall proceedings and starve out smaller parties, but I still find it hard to believe that in the case of an innocent party (a) they would pay up as if they had infringed and (b) the court system (I reiterate it is loaded towards the "accused" - the burden of proof is on the accuser) would allow a baseless claim to continue to that point.

Otherwise, why aren't more patentees (or just any old company who has wised up to this!) simply accusing widely and waiting for the money to roll in? Why would you need to actually work?

My previous posts were aimed at showing there are cheap options for innocent parties to counteract baseless accusations. Our own patent legislation prohibits "unjustified threats" of patent infringement, to deter patentees from standing over the innocent. I have not researched the Nelsons' case - and they may be the exception - but it seems to me that someone in their situation who pays up may not be whiter than white. Percy Schmeiser is a good example of this. Thank you for being big enough to note that he did actively choose and replant the patented seed - many anti-GMers are still denying this, even though this was admitted by him and the findings upheld up to the highest court in Canada.

The Nelsons may have been a far more deserving test case than Percy - why was the anti-GM money not applied to supporting them, rather than him (who I feel, by the results of his case and his continued Greenpeace-funded puppet show being trucked around the world, is damaging the credibility both of your cause and of any truly innocent grower).

UPOV 91 relates to Plant Breeder's Rights (PBRs), rather than patents. It is a different system of intellectual property right registration. GM plants are not usually PBR'd, and in fact Monsanto have no current registrations in Australia. Thus they could not enforce rights under UPOV here. Further, Australia's PBR legislation specifically allows for farm-saved seed.

You are just not even remotely interested in the other angle.
Lets look at yields:
Statistics show there was NO increase in yields when GM canola was introduced to Canada and yet Canadian farmers were promised 30-40% increase in yields.
If you look at annual figures you will show there was no average increase in yields except for good seasons. The same years that Canada had an increase in yield, USA had a decrease in yield yet they were also growing GM canola.
Australia on the other hand showed severe droughts but not every year. The yields where the droughts were not severe, yields were similar to US and Canada.
Of course when you do a 5 year average you will not see the similarities of yields that you would looking at annual figures.
When you look at the "benefit" offered to Australian farmers, it is NOT yield, it is weed control. When you look at the chemicals offered, they do not control our worst weeds as well as they would in Canada so Australian farmers will need to use more chemicals (such as trifluralin) to counter the lack of residual grass control that glyphosate offers.
Also, it is a severe restriction not being able to apply glyphosate post the 6 leaf stage (which our canola has already reached).
Your debate lacks reason if you are not looking at what we are being offered.

The one thing I find extremely concerning as regards Science Law and Agronomist is the complete lack of scepticism with the GE corporations.

With not a hint of doubt, both swallow, hook, line and sinker every claim made by Monsanto et al.

It is only by questioning that we learn, by checking and rechecking our findings that we find faults within a system or a product.

In this case the product has enormous potential to completely imbalance our eco-system. I am not saying that this will come to pass, but unless we are very cautious indeed, this new technology has the ability to completely change life on earth.

Why are you so trusting? And what is wrong with taking time on this technology? We failed to do so with nuclear (radioactive half-life, Chernobyl) and in chemical products (DDT, Thalidomide).

For people who claim expertise, you appear very gullible.

Julie, I am interested in the “other side”, I am just not interested when if flies in the face of reason. I have provided the evidence for the points I have made. I am afraid I can do no more. If you don’t want to accept reality, I really can’t help you. What I can say is that you are now denying reality knowing you are wrong. The evidence is there for all to see.

As to whether GM canola will work in Australia or not, I am more sanguine than you. I have seen farmers in Canada make GM canola work for them. Surprisingly, they use it in ways that the companies did not originally encourage. Farmers are great innovators and I expect Australian farmers are no worse than Canadian farmers at this. Of course, Australian farmers have never had the opportunity to see what they can make of the crop. I can provide evidence that GM canola does work. You can provide no evidence that it doesn’t. The vast majority of farmers that have grown GM canola, still grow it. If you are right, these crops will disappear from Australia almost immediately, therefore, there would be no harm in allowing farmers to try it out. What are you afraid of?

Fractelle, I am guessing you don’t read my posts carefully. Instead because I don’t agree with your position, I must “swallow, hook, line and sinker every claim made by Monsanto et al.” I suggest you re-read my comments to you on 25th May. I have looked at this carefully myself. My opinions on the issue are my own influenced by my careful reading, experience with these crops and experience with farmers who grow these crops. I have documented my position with the evidence. Perhaps I could ask you for the evidence to back: “the product has enormous potential to completely imbalance our eco-system” or “has the ability to completely change life on earth”. Where is the data showing these effects are likely? I could provide lots showing these effects are unlikely.

Our stance regarding GM is to avoid non-GM farmers being adversely impacted.

Percy's case exposed the difference in patent law.

The reason governments and researchers are so keen to get in bed with the GM companies is that they have the ability to collect far greater profits.

To quote pg 14/15 GRDC Groundcover May-June 2008:
"Monsanto has opted to charge grain growers in a way that resembles and End Point Royalty system". Yes, you can save your seed with EPR but you get charged for all produce from the farmer saved seed you plant.

The costs are ridiculous:
Seed prices are not available but it has been rumoured to be more than twice the price of non-GM.
Stewardship fee $1000/property (half price this year)
"Discounted" grain technology fee (EPR) of $10.20/tonne (wow...if that is a discount, what is the real price going to be?)

Personally I think farmers planting it have not done their profitability calculations but that is their problem.

What becomes my problem as a non-GM farmer is this quote from the same page:
"Executive director of the Australian Oilseeds Federation Rosemary Richards says that growers wanting to market their grain as non-GM must ensure the status of their seed prior to planting. Also, the grower will need to demonstrate traceability through the supply chain. This could involve procedures such as vendor declaration, monitoring contractors and delivery to storage in compliance with customer requirements."

This is very costly and very time consuming. Why should we be adversely impacted by someone elses decision to grow GM?

Yes agro agronomist, I am glad others can see where the truth lies. The GM gene only gives resistance to a chemical in the same way our non-GM crops do. It doesn't yield more.

NonGMF: “Percy established by very lengthy and expensive legal defence that the patent owner owns the [patented seed] even if it arrives on farm by accidental means”

Well that was a wise use of his time and money – did he (and do you) honestly think that someone else’s goods that arrive on your property by accident should belong to you? I gave the example above of my designer shirt blowing off my clothesline into your yard – does it become yours? What about if I leave my umbrella on the train, or my handbag at a restaurant – can I not get them back? Wow, can you, Percy and all your similar-thinking friends come to my place, and accidently leave your wallets, please?

And what about litigation for “contamination” – it’s your seed, now it’s on your property, isn’t it, so how can you blame Monsanto?

Re Monsanto withholding info from the Nelsons on tests – get a court order (eg subpoena/file notice to produce). If 40% of properties sampled were not the Nelsons – do you think the courts would have accepted that sample evidence?

You state “It is very important for farmer to know the legal implications of patents…” yet I feel you do not inform yourself when this could be done easily (you would have heard of a subpoena), preferring to take an alarmist viewpoint rather than a common-sense, this can’t be right, let’s research a bit more closely approach, because the alarmist view plays better to the public and scares farmers.

I also feel you mislead farmers; for example, you accept that “Australian farmers do not need to worry about being sued”, yet you (if Agro is correct in his identification of you) routinely scaremonger in the press that ending the moratoria will expose non-GM farmers to litigation by Monsanto/Bayer over adventitious presence. You state “Monsanto aims to patent all the world’s seed” when a brief review of the principles of patenting would show this is impossible.