Unless I'm missing something from your citation, he wasn't sued. He was the suer, and he won. I don't see what's controversial about that.
Edit: I see that the other suit[1] was not cited. In the Monsanto v. Schmeizer suit, he was accidentally planting Monsanto seeds that he had harvested, and did not mount a sufficient defense against it.
"Schmeiser supporters argued that his account still leaves open the possibility that the harvesting and replanting of Roundup Ready canola from the sprayed region was accidental and resulted from a miscommunication between Schmeiser and his farmhand, or from a failure of Schmeiser to have the presence of mind to instruct his farmhand to avoid taking canola seed for replanting from the sprayed region."
He knowingly used Monsanto seeds in his crops, but thought that using the seeds would not be theft because he didn't apply RoundUp to them. That's like suggesting that if I steal a Tesla roadster, but convert it to a gasoline engine, then I haven't stolen it.
Again though, I don't see this as terribly controversial, unless I'm missing something.
Stealing a physical thing (Tesla Roadster) is not at all like infringing a patent or violating a contract. Your arguments would work a lot better if you didn't say things like that.
I respect intellectual property, so the analogy works for me, but fine, it's like pirating an English film that's been dubbed into a language other than the one it was filmed in, and claiming that no piracy has occurred.
Edit: That first sentence came out unintentionally snarky, but I can't think of a better way to put it, so please understand that no snark was intended.
And are you saying that I don't respect intellectual property, if I disagree with the previous flawed analogy? Many people who respect intellectual property don't agree with it: just look at the reactions of experts to the various "Piracy is theft" PR campaigns.
Apologies. I knew it was going to come off snarky, but was in the middle of something then, and didn't have the cycles to fix it.
It was not my intent to imply that you did not respect IP, just that I do, and to me, the theft of an album is on equal moral footing with the theft of a car (though, commensurately less so, given the value). As, to me, they are the same, the analogy worked to me.
I don't know what's terrible about the second analogy, but either way, the guy knowingly used seeds that weren't his, claiming at one point that its planting was a miscommunication, and that it should have been allowed due to lack application of RoundUp at another.
The case was not concerned with any accidental plantings, but focused only on those plants that he intentionally harvested and planted, claiming imaginary "farmer's rights" of ownership of anything that happens to be upon his physical property.
I'll refrain from coming up with another flawed analogy here, but it doesn't seem controversial to me that he lost because he did not present a legally valid defense to the Canadian court system.
If they had been cross-pollinated (and nobody proved otherwise) the seeds had been his all the time. If you'd do DNA sequencing of such seeds you'd see a different DNA from the Monsanto seeds. But Monsanto claimed that as soon as the seeds produce plant resistant to their herbicide he has no right to use his own seeds.
The software analogy were, the computer virus infests your document files because you surf the same sites as your neighbors who pay "Monsanto protection." The infected files contained only the text you wrote, after running the Monsanto scanner only the infected files remain on your disk, all others are deleted. You can't preserve, copy or edit the infected files anymore because Monsanto, which produced the virus, has a copyright on avoiding Monsanto virus scanner, so as soon as the files aren't deleted by the Monsanto scanner you can't keep your own files.
If a software analogy is what you want, it's like he used some third party library which requires a license to make new software, but didn't pay for the license. Sure, the code is new and unique and his, but it contains the code that is patented.
Doing it by mistake is one thing. But he clearly did it on purpose and was trying to win in court to get away with it.
The advantageous property in the seeds he developed, originated from the cross-pollination. He just purified the Monsanto-originated genes into a usable strain.
Edit: I see that the other suit[1] was not cited. In the Monsanto v. Schmeizer suit, he was accidentally planting Monsanto seeds that he had harvested, and did not mount a sufficient defense against it.
"Schmeiser supporters argued that his account still leaves open the possibility that the harvesting and replanting of Roundup Ready canola from the sprayed region was accidental and resulted from a miscommunication between Schmeiser and his farmhand, or from a failure of Schmeiser to have the presence of mind to instruct his farmhand to avoid taking canola seed for replanting from the sprayed region."
He knowingly used Monsanto seeds in his crops, but thought that using the seeds would not be theft because he didn't apply RoundUp to them. That's like suggesting that if I steal a Tesla roadster, but convert it to a gasoline engine, then I haven't stolen it.
Again though, I don't see this as terribly controversial, unless I'm missing something.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeise...