They also noted, "Defendants have
chosen to patent products that, by their very nature, will inevitably end up on
the private property of people who have no desire to use them. Plaintiffs'
uncontroverted allegations show that, for the first time in history, they can
be sued for something as natural as pollen drift, while simultaneously being
forced to take expensive and burdensome steps in order to continue their normal
businesses. The quandary of this type of liability is precisely the sort of
situation that the Declaratory Judgment Act was intended to address." The
amicus brief further explained, "The Supreme court has stated that the plaintiff "need not 'bet the
farm'" yet in this case, that is precisely what the district court
effectively required Plaintiffs to do in order to get their day in court --
continue farming the disputed crops until they are unquestionably liable to
Defendants for potentially crippling levels of damage before being able to seek
a declaratory judgment as to their rights"The district court noted that
'unlicensed -- and unintended -- use of transgenic seeds is inevitable"' but then
failed to address the fact that such unlicensed use is actionable and places
Plaintiffs at risk of enforcement actions by Defendants."
"It's time to end
Monsanto's scorched-earth campaign of frivolous lawsuits against America 's
family farmers," said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of Food Democracy Now! a grassroots community of more than
300,000 farmers and citizens dedicated to reforming food and agriculture.
"Monsanto's claims against farmers for patent infringement are exceedingly
weak, violating Americans' most basic sense of fairness and decency. Our
Founding Fathers would be outraged", stated Murphy.
For more information
and history of Monsanto, see http://en.wikipedia.org
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
2
1
