Did Monsanto even ever threaten to sue Runyon?
Did the board test the plants in the field to see how many had the genes?
He had seed (because he bought it from them). Monsanto thought he had saved some and was using it in his fields the next year. He claimed he didn't.
You nor I know what the result was because the case never went to court.
Maybe he was able to present convincing evidence that it was cross-pollination and Monsanto dropped it. Maybe they had evidence that it wasn't, and he figured he was going to lose.
Monsanto didn't think it was cross pollination. I don't know what his explanation was.
"The court heard the question of whether intentionally growing genetically modified plants constitutes "use" of the patented invention of genetically modified plant cells. By a 5-4 majority, the court ruled that it does. The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. "
Note, the use of the word INTENTIONAL!
Cross-pollination would be what?
---------- Post added February-20th-2013 at 09:59 PM ----------
I'd have a hard time ever supporting the idea that he can go to his local grainary and buy seed that will produce more seed where he essentially knows he's going to get patented technology and then intentionally treat them different from non-patented seeds in a manner where he benefits from the technology
(In other words, if he buys seed from his local grainary and treats them just like he would non-patented seed and harvest the soybeans, I think that should be protected.)
If not, your allowing him to create a loop that is not practically any different than him keeping the beans and benefitting from the technology. Every year, he can sell his beans to the grainary, re-buy beans from the grainary, and then replant them knowing he's likely got a large number of patented beans and treat them as such.
You my as well just allow him to keep the beans himself.
The patented technoloy will never be used up.