A patented GM product means the farmer pays a fee for the GM product(and the breeding).

A plant breeder right means the farmer pays a fee for the breeding.

In neither case does the farmer have an explicit right to replant and subsequently sell second, third, or n generation products without the consent of the initial seed supplier (be that the patent holder, or the breeder)

Unless the information in the link you initially provided was wrong. It may be that breeders waive these rights, or charge fees less than patent fees – but the rules, as your source presents them, show no appreciable commercial difference between the treatment of patented or plant breeder right covered crops.

When you say I got it wrong do you mean the link you supplied us got it wrong?

and I quote

“The seed or other propagating material which is purchased with the authority of the breeder can be sown and the harvested material (first generation crop) can be sold. A farmer can save the seed (or other propagating material) from the first crop and use it to grow a second generation crop. The harvested product from it can only be sold with further authorisation from the grantee.”

So yes, you have the right to replant whatever seed you grow. However, you specifically do not have the right to sell anything other than the first generation seed without “further authorisation”

I dont see how this functionally differs from a patented product – other than, in general, as I understand it, patented seeds will not allow you to grow the second generation (essentially the permission to grow is enforced as a seed purchase each season)

Growers have a choice whether to choose a seed that can be saved, or not. Many will choosen(even in Australia) seeds that cannot be saved legally when the “plusses” of buying annually outweigh the “minuses”.

Accidental presence will not trigger requirement to pay “royalty”.

April 16, 2009 at 8:53 am
Deborah,
First – volunteer is a common term used in agriculture. You can ask any farmer. I didn’t use it because it sounds friendlier.
—————-
I understand you did not coin the term and did not mean to imply it. I only meant to note that it is quite a euphemism for “contamination.”

Perhaps, instead of this ‘problem’ of contamination by drifting pollen (again, the closest Roundup Ready canola field was 5 miles away) there is another culprit in the case of Mr. Schmeiser? The court case stated that none of Mr. Schmeiser’s suggested possible sources can explain the concentration of the patented trait in his field.

It may be that some Roundup Ready seed was carried to Mr. Schmeiser’s field without his knowledge. Some such seed might have survived the winter to germinate in the spring of 1998. However, I am persuaded by evidence of Dr. Keith Downey, an expert witness appearing for the plaintiffs, that none of the suggested sources could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality evident from the results of tests on Schmeiser’s crop. His view was supported in part by evidence of Dr. Barry Hertz, a mechanical engineer, whose evidence scientifically demonstrated the limited distance that canola seed blown from trucks in the road way could be expected to spread. I am persuaded on the basis of Dr. Downey’s evidence that on a balance of probabilities none of the suggested possible sources of contamination of Schmeiser’s crop was the basis for the substantial level of Roundup Ready canola growing in field number 2 in 1997.

April 15, 2009 at 8:27 am

Again – from the court document:
Other farmers who found volunteer Roundup tolerant plants in their fields, two of whom testified at trial, called Monsanto and the undesired plants were thereafter removed by Monsanto at its expense.

===================
One thing I would say to that, look how early on the contamination/”volunteer,” which sounds so much more friendly, started. Immediately. There is clearly a problem.

April 15, 2009 at 8:27 am

That’s certainly not what I am claiming.

===========

I did mean to edit out the “as you claim” but stand by the rest. I realize that isn’t what you actually claim. But I do consider it.