| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/abstract
|
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S … Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology. The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However, by the time the case went to trial, all claims of accidental contamination had been dropped; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted. Schmeiser did not put forward any defence of accidental contamination.d any defence of accidental contamination.
, De zaak Monsanto vs. Schmeiser is een rech … De zaak Monsanto vs. Schmeiser is een rechtszaak aan het Hooggerechtshof van Canada tussen het biotechbedrijf Monsanto en de Canadese boer Percy Schmeiser, die handelt over patenten voor de moderne biotechnologie. De centrale vraag was of het opzettelijk groeien van genetisch gemodificeerde planten onder het gebruik valt van de gepatenteerde uitvinding omtrent genetisch gemodificeerde plantcellen. Met een meerderheid van 5-4 heeft het hof geoordeeld dat het gebruik van de planten onder het patentrecht valt. De zaak trok wereldwijd de aandacht en is vaak misbegrepen als een zaak over wat er gebeurt wanneer een veld van een boer per ongeluk wordt gecontamineerd met gepatenteerde zaden. Tegen de tijd dat de zaak voorkwam waren echter alle claims rond een veld waarop gepatenteerde zaden waren gevonden in 1997 al ingetrokken. Het hof heeft enkel rekening gehouden met Schmeisers velden in 1998, waarop Schmeiser met opzet de gepantenteerde zaden heeft geconcentreerd en geplant vanuit zijn oogst in 1997. Met betrekking tot zijn velden in 1998 heeft Schmeiser geen enkel bewijs van toevallige contaminatie voorgelegd.js van toevallige contaminatie voorgelegd.
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageID
|
1984280
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageLength
|
27970
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageRevisionID
|
1123858056
|
| http://dbpedia.org/ontology/wikiPageWikiLink
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Percy_Schmeiser +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Roundup_Ready_Canola +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Canadian_biotechnology_case_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Harvard_mouse +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Annabel_Soutar +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Patent +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/International_Center_for_Technology_Assessment +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Genetically_modified_organisms_in_agriculture +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Genetic_engineering_and_agriculture +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/G8 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:2004_in_Canadian_case_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Genetic_engineering +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Harvard_College_v._Canada_%28Commissioner_of_Patents%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Plant_breeding +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Glyphosate +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bruno%2C_Saskatchewan +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Biotechnology +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Patent_infringement_in_Canadian_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:2004_in_the_environment +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Attorney_General_of_Ontario +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Canadian_patent_case_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co. +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Monsanto_Co._v._Geertson_Seed_Farms +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/The_Future_of_Food +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Supreme_Court_of_Canada +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/National_Farmers_Union_%28Canada%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Agriculture_in_Canada +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Food_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Weed +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Monsanto_litigation +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Gene +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Sierra_Club +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Monsanto +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/List_of_Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Action_Group_on_Erosion%2C_Technology_and_Concentration +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Council_of_Canadians +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Harvard_University +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Patent_Act_%28Canada%29 +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Montreal +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Canola +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Monsanto_Company +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Genetically_modified_canola +
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/caseName
|
Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/citations
|
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34, 239 D.L.R. 271, 31 C.P.R. 161
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/decidedDate
|
"2004-05-21"^^xsd:date
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/dissent
|
Arbour J.
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/docket
|
29437
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/fullCaseName
|
Percy Schmeiser and Schmeiser Enterprises Limited v Monsanto Canada Incorporated and Monsanto Company
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/heardDate
|
"2004-01-20"^^xsd:date
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/joindissent
|
Iacobucci, Bastarache, LeBel JJ.
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/joinmajority
|
Major, Binnie, and Deschamps JJ.
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/majority
|
McLachlin C.J. and Fish J.
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/ruling
|
Monsanto appeal allowed in part
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/scc
|
2004
|
| http://dbpedia.org/property/wikiPageUsesTemplate
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Rp +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Reflist +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Short_description +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Monsanto +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Lexum-scc +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:SCCInfoBox +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:Convert +
|
| http://purl.org/dc/terms/subject
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:2004_in_Canadian_case_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Food_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Supreme_Court_of_Canada_cases +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Genetic_engineering_and_agriculture +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Genetically_modified_organisms_in_agriculture +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Canadian_biotechnology_case_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Monsanto_litigation +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Agriculture_in_Canada +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:Canadian_patent_case_law +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:2004_in_the_environment +
|
| http://purl.org/linguistics/gold/hypernym
|
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Court +
|
| http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#wasDerivedFrom
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser?oldid=1123858056&ns=0 +
|
| http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/isPrimaryTopicOf
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser +
|
| owl:sameAs |
http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/m.06bx_k +
, http://yago-knowledge.org/resource/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser +
, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser +
, https://global.dbpedia.org/id/2C83k +
, http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2331631 +
, http://th.dbpedia.org/resource/%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B0%E0%B8%AB%E0%B8%A7%E0%B9%88%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%87%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%A3%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%A9%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%A1%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%8B%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%99%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%95%E0%B9%89%E0%B9%81%E0%B8%84%E0%B8%99%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%9A%E0%B8%8A%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%A1%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%8B%E0%B8%AD%E0%B8%A3%E0%B9%8C +
, http://nl.dbpedia.org/resource/Monsanto_vs._Schmeiser +
|
| rdf:type |
http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Organism100004475 +
, http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/LivingThing100004258 +
, http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Place +
, http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/WikicatGeneticallyModifiedOrganismsInAgriculture +
, http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Object100002684 +
, http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/PhysicalEntity100001930 +
, http://dbpedia.org/class/yago/Whole100003553 +
|
| rdfs:comment |
De zaak Monsanto vs. Schmeiser is een rech … De zaak Monsanto vs. Schmeiser is een rechtszaak aan het Hooggerechtshof van Canada tussen het biotechbedrijf Monsanto en de Canadese boer Percy Schmeiser, die handelt over patenten voor de moderne biotechnologie. De centrale vraag was of het opzettelijk groeien van genetisch gemodificeerde planten onder het gebruik valt van de gepatenteerde uitvinding omtrent genetisch gemodificeerde plantcellen. Met een meerderheid van 5-4 heeft het hof geoordeeld dat het gebruik van de planten onder het patentrecht valt. De zaak trok wereldwijd de aandacht en is vaak misbegrepen als een zaak over wat er gebeurt wanneer een veld van een boer per ongeluk wordt gecontamineerd met gepatenteerde zaden. Tegen de tijd dat de zaak voorkwam waren echter alle claims rond een veld waarop gepatenteerde zaden waren een veld waarop gepatenteerde zaden waren
, Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S … Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser [2004] 1 S.C.R. 902, 2004 SCC 34 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada case on patent rights for biotechnology, between a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, and the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto. The court heard the question of whether Schmeiser's intentionally growing genetically modified plants constituted "use" of Monsanto's patented genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it did. The Supreme Court also ruled 9-0 that Schmeiser did not have to pay Monsanto their technology use fee, damages or costs, as Schmeiser did not receive any benefit from the technology. The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patlds are accidentally contaminated with pat
|
| rdfs:label |
Monsanto vs. Schmeiser
, Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser
|
