|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 05:29 PM EDT |
You're not following the entire comment stream here
Title:
That was for deliberate reproduction
Monsanto has stipulated and is now
on the hook for not enforcing
accidental/incidental reproduction (as from a
contaminated field).
In the SC case, the farmer had actually taken
"contaminated" seed,
then self-selected for plants that had Monsanto's gene, and
thereafter used that
seed to plant.
Title: Yeah
so?
Title: Yeah, so?
From what I
understand, the farmer had a contract and the
contract specified he could not do
just what he did
(deliberately screening seeds). So he was in breach
of
contract.
No word or decision about anything
else.
This is the post you (I assume it was you) replied to (not
my post...), I then replied to your post, you then replied to me (mistaking me
for this anonymous but that's irrelevant). His reasoning for why that being
deliberate reproduction mattered was wrong, but his conclusion that it mattered
was correct. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|