Comments on: Protection for Genetically Modified Organisms http://iplj.net/blog/archives/721 Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Blog Fri, 03 Feb 2012 01:53:08 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tony Wheeldon http://iplj.net/blog/archives/721/comment-page-1#comment-58276 Tony Wheeldon Sat, 25 Jul 2009 00:01:11 +0000 http://iplj.net/blog/?p=721#comment-58276 In the case of plants particularly where the GM technology is dispersed through pollen as in the Canadian case of Mr. Schmeiser. I would argue that the company knowingly and intentionally by it's free dispersal, wanted or unwanted, of it's patent is divesting it's right over not only the pollen, but the patent itself , by their acts. As it stands it is in the companies interests to spread pollen as widely as possible and to then have the ability to harvest "users" of it's patent. Alternately I would arge that if if the pollen remains in the ownership of the company then the intentional or reckless dispersal where such property is dispersed onto adverse land then it constitutes a tresspass. There is no continuation of any historical usage where farmers give any right or licence to pollen freely available to let their crops be pollenated. Does a tresspasser gain ownership rights by their intentional, designed and purposeful act of tresspass? It would seem that in the case that the companies holding such patents then these rights have been extracted from legislators. If I do not confine my dog and it bites a passerby or defecates on a neighbors lawn then I do not have the right of charging the passerby for pet hire or charging the neighbor for fertiliser. In the case of plants particularly where the GM technology is dispersed through pollen as in the Canadian case of Mr. Schmeiser.
I would argue that the company knowingly and intentionally by it’s free dispersal, wanted or unwanted, of it’s patent is divesting it’s right over not only the pollen, but the patent itself , by their acts.
As it stands it is in the companies interests to spread pollen as widely as possible and to then have the ability to harvest “users” of it’s patent.

Alternately I would arge that if if the pollen remains in the ownership of the company then the intentional or reckless dispersal where such property is dispersed onto adverse land then it constitutes a tresspass.
There is no continuation of any historical usage where farmers give any right or licence to pollen freely available to let their crops be pollenated.
Does a tresspasser gain ownership rights by their intentional, designed and purposeful act of tresspass? It would seem that in the case that the companies holding such patents then these rights have been extracted from legislators.
If I do not confine my dog and it bites a passerby or defecates on a neighbors lawn then I do not have the right of charging the passerby for pet hire or charging the neighbor for fertiliser.

]]>