In one high-profile case ( Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser ) the Monsanto Company sued Percy Schmeiser for patent infringement after he replanted canola seed that he had harvested from his field, which he discovered was contaminated with Monsanto's patented glyphosate-tolerant canola by spraying it with Roundup, leaving only the resistant plants.

Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement for the 1998 planting ( the suit is known as Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser ).

* Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Federal Court of Canada decision

* Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, Supreme Court of Canada decision

Monsanto has enforced this patent against farmers who used the seed without paying Monsanto -- see Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.

# redirect Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser

Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser 1 S. C. R.

Monsanto v. Schmeiser was at times portrayed as part of the process of legally defining the bounds of new biotechnologies, including genetic engineering and ownership of higher lifeforms.

This angle on Monsanto v. Schmeiser was misleading, as the Supreme Court eventually took pains to point out, as the case focused strictly on the application of existing patent law, and did not break new ground in biotechnology areas.

* Percy Schmeiser: Schmeiser v. Monsanto

On March 19, 2008, Schmeiser and Monsanto Canada Inc. came to an out-of-court settlement whereby Monsanto would pay for the clean-up costs of the contamination, which came to a total of $ 660 Canadian.

In 1997 Percy Schmeiser discovered that canola growing on his farm was Roundup resistant.

Schmeiser harvested the seed from the surviving, Roundup resistant plants, and planted the seed in 1998.

Schmeiser claimed that because the 1997 plants grew from seed that was blown into his field from neighboring fields, that he owned the harvest and was entitled to do with it whatever he wished, including saving the seeds from the 1997 harvest and planting them in 1998.

The initial Canadian Federal Court rejected Schmeiser's defense and held for Monsanto, finding that in 1998 Schmeiser had intentionally planted the seeds he had harvested from the wind-seeded crops in 1997, and so patent infringement had indeed occurred.

Schmeiser appealed and lost again.

Schmeiser appealed to the Supreme Court which took the case and held for Monsanto by a 5 &# 8209 ; 4 vote in late May 2004.

Schmeiser won a partial victory, as the Supreme Court reversed on damages, finding that because Schmeiser did not gain any profit from the infringement, he did not owe Monsanto any damages nor did he have to pay Monsanto's substantial legal bills.

In spring 1998, before Schmeiser planted his 1998 crop, he was informed that Monsanto believed that he had grown Roundup Ready canola in 1997.

After this, Monsanto sued Schmeiser for patent infringement.

On August 11, 1999, Schmeiser sued Monsanto for ten million dollars for " libel, trespass, and contamination of his fields with Roundup Ready Canola ".

Schmeiser and his wife sent Monsanto a bill for $ 660 in cleanup costs.

Percy Schmeiser ( born January 5, 1931 ) is a farmer from Bruno, Saskatchewan, Canada.

Only Mr. Schmeiser's farming corporation, Schmeiser Enterprises Ltd., was held liable, as Mr. Schmeiser had acted in his capacity as director of the corporation.

Maximilian Schmeiser, an economist with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, noted that each additional year of SNAP participation increases the BMI of women and men by 1. 6 BMI points ( 2009 ).

As established in the original Federal Court trial decision, Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.

The Federal Court of Appeal in particular stressed the importance of the finding that Schmeiser had knowingly used the seed, in their decision to find Schmeiser in infringement of the patent, and noted that in a case of accidental contamination or a case where the farmer knew of the presence of the gene but took no action to increase its prevalence in his crop, a different ruling could be possible ( see paragraphs 55-58 of the appeal ruling ).

This interpretation is not consistent with the court rulings, which place no onus on a farmer in general nor Schmeiser in particular ( for example, see paragraph 76 of the Federal Court of Appeal ruling ) to prove the absence of the patented gene prior to growing seed.

" ( Supreme Court Decision, Paragraph 78 ) The court also held that by planting genetically modified Roundup resistant canola, Schmeiser made use of the " stand-by " or insurance utility of the invention.

The Court ruled that Schmeiser deprived Monsanto of its monopoly on the special canola plant by storing and planting the Roundup Ready canola seeds pursuant to his commercial interests.

Lincoln denounced the Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford as a conspiracy to extend slavery.

In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford ; Chief Justice Roger B. Taney opined that blacks were not citizens, and derived no rights from the Constitution.

One example of this ( from the Queen's Bench in England ) is Doyle v Olby ( Ironmongers ) Ltd 2 QB 158, the claimant appealed ( successfully ) on the basis that, although he won in the court below, the lower court had applied the wrong measure of damages and he had not been fully recompensated.

" " Graham v. Borgen ", 483 F 3d.

* Emperor Charles I. of Austria ( 1916 – 1918 ) http :// www. youtube. com / watch? v = jMU9FFzez1A

* Emperor Franz Joseph ( 1848 – 1916 ) http :// www. youtube. com / watch? v = jecUwMPk8pE & feature = related

The doctrine that no man can cast off his native allegiance without the consent of his sovereign was early abandoned in the United States, and Chief Justice John Rutledge also declared in Talbot v. Janson, " a man may, at the same time, enjoy the rights of citizenship under two governments.

Austrian economics, 3 v. Edward Elgar.

Description and scroll to chapter preview links for v. 1.

Part of Title I was found unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court as it pertains to states in the case of Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett as violating the sovereign immunity rights of the several states as specified by the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In fact, Congress explicitly cited Toyota v. Williams in the text of the ADAAA itself as one of its driving influences for passing the ADAAA.

Access Now v. Southwest Airlines

Access Now v. Southwest Airlines was a case where the District Court decided that the website of Southwest Airlines was not in violation of the Americans with Disability Act because the ADA is concerned with things with a physical existence and thus cannot be applied to cyberspace.