I had to write about this for my Microeconomics class. It’s an argument between a farmer and the company Monsanto and their GMO (genetic modified organisms) canola.
P1. The canola was planted in Schmeriser’s neighboring farmers fields after making an agreement with Monsanto (patented).
P2. Because of a storm, the canola got onto Schmeiser’s field and destroyed everything.
P3. Schmeiser did not make an agreement with Monsanto to have any canola on his field.
------------
C. Monsanto can sue Schmeiser for having their canola on his field.
And sue Monsanto did. Even though Schmeiser didn't want the seeds on his field and he didn't willingly let them on the field, Monsanto still sued them. Good news is that Schmeiser came out on top, but more events with the company happened latter. That's another story for another time.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/9/17/percy_schmeiser_vs_monsanto_the_story
have you seen food inc? this is the identical sort of circumstance that happened in one case in the movie and i think it was in fact with monsanto. it seemed at first that you could take one of the premises away but after trying to do it myself i don't see a way to, so good job!
ReplyDelete