Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation at Cardozo Law School, who is the lead attorney on the suit, says this is a misrepresentation. “This is the exact phrase they’ve said to every single person who’s ever asked them about it, including the judge. One problem is the words ‘inadvertent means.’ Well, they imply in their papers that they submitted to the courts, and they haven’t denied it, that they believe it’s the burden of the organic farmer to use their own property to set up buffer zones, and if an organic farmer isn’t forgoing using their full property to create a buffer zone with their neighbors who are Monsanto customers, well then, any resulting contamination is their own fault and not inadvertent.”
In other words, it’s the responsibility of the non-GMO farmer to keep the GMO off his farm. Patent law is very powerful and gives the holder – usually a large corporation – a fistful of rights. Farmers claim this is not fair.
Ravicher calls the company a “patent troll” and argues in the filed complaint that Monsanto’s use of patents in this way is invalid.
“The patents are invalid for a couple different reasons, including that law requires patented things to have social utility, and GM seed, we will prove, has no social utility. It is not good for society. It is harmful for society, and therefore it cannot be patented,” Ravicher says.