Okay, my data is from the Wikipedia version, which says:
" Schmeiser first discovered Roundup-resistant canola in his crops in 1997.
[2] He had used Roundup herbicide to clear weeds around power poles and in ditches adjacent to a public road running beside one of his fields, and noticed that some of the canola which had been sprayed had survived. Schmeiser then performed a test by applying Roundup to an additional 3 acres (12,000 m
2) to 4 acres (16,000 m
2) of the same field. He found that 60% of the canola plants survived.
At harvest time, Schmeiser instructed a farmhand to harvest the test field. That seed was stored separately from the rest of the harvest, and used the next year to seed approximately 1,000 acres (4 km˛) of canola."
So Schmeiser did indeed use the free seed. I would be more sympathetic with him if he had not used the seed. He has no problem with GMO's - he just didn't want to buy the expensive seed! He would command more respect had he sued Monsanto for contaminating his land with nasty GMO plants - but oh no, no organic purist he, rather he decided to use the seed to make a bigger profit by avoiding expensive cultivation for weed control - and then refused to pay Monsanto what was - arguably - rightfully theirs!.
My problem is, Dice, that I think we should be encouraging these corporations that have the financial capability to develop these new cultivars, rather than demonizing them as "bad guys." Can you imagine what food would cost if we had to return to my grandfather's day!
The problem with the African village analogy is that the scenario of using the patent to unethically acquire farmer's land by bankrupting them with lawsuits would not serve the interests of the corporation. They want to sell seed, not land. It's in their interest that their customers make a profit and prosper. No business, not even in darkest Africa, wants to destroy their customers
.
Jack