SASKATOON (CP) - A Saskatchewan farmer has lost his legal battle with a U.S. biotech giant, but his supporters say they'll push to make the fight against genetically modified crops an election issue. The Supreme Court of Canada sided with Monsanto on Friday in the firm''s lopsided patent fight against Percy Schmeiser. The court ruled 5-4 that Monsanto holds a valid patent on a gene it inserted into canola plants to make them resistant to Roundup herbicide, and that Schmeiser infringed the patent by knowingly planting the Roundup Ready seeds.

Lower courts had rejected Schmeiser's claim the canola landed on his fields by accident. But they didn't deal with the deeper issue of whether Monsanto could control a plant''s use because it had a patent on a gene.Schmeiser''s lawyer, Terry Zakreski, said the issue needs to be addressed by the federal government."The legal battle, as far as Percy's concerned, has drawn to a close, but I don't think it ends the war," said Zakreski. "It''ll continue in a different form. I think this is a matter that Parliament needs seriously to look at."That view was shared by both the National Farmers Union and the Council of Canadians, who joined Schmeiser at a Saskatoon news conference. Nadege Adam with the council promised her group will make genetically modified crops an issue during the next federal election."They can bet on that," she said. "We need our politicians to step in. We will not give them the opportunity to sidestep this one and ignore it."We will force them to take a stand, specifically Paul Martin. He needs to say where he stands on this. He needs to take action. We need to know whether we will see him protecting the biotech industry or protecting the interests of the public."The high court said even though a plant is a higher life form and therefore cannot be patented, a gene in a plant can be, and that gives the patent-holder some rights over the plant's use.The minority of the court, however, said Monsanto should not be allowed to do indirectly what Canadian law has not allowed it to - acquire ownership protection over whole plants because of a gene patent.Schmeiser did win a small victory. He won''t have to pay his earnings from the 1997 crop year to Monsanto, because he never sprayed the crop with Roundup, and therefore didn''t profit from the patented gene. He also won''t have to pay Monsanto''s legal costs.Schmeiser, 73, became the international flag-bearer for environmental and agricultural groups opposed to genetically modified foods. Speaking engagements around the world helped to defray legal costs he estimated at almost $500,000.But he won''t pursue the issue any further."I brought it as far as I could, all the way to the Supreme Court," he said. "I''ll always be fighting for the rights of farmers to be able to use their seed from year to year."So, the battle ends for me today, but not the battle in my heart."Monsanto welcomed the court''s decision."It was a statement about respect for intellectual property rights," said Monsanto''s executive vice-president Carl Casale from St. Louis, Mo."It''s great from an investment standpoint in Canada. It says that companies can be rewarded for the investments they make."When asked what he might say to Schmeiser after the long legal battle, Casale said he''d tell him the system worked."There were opportunities for discussion and opportunities for appeal and at the end of the day the court made a decision," he said."I think that''s a system that works well."BIOTECanada, which represents Canada''s biotech companies, also applauded the decision."We have a strong, vibrant biotech industry in Canada that is growing every day," said president Janet Lambert. "We congratulate the court for confirming the vital role scientific discovery and innovation play in Canada."Schmeiser accepted the verdict with disappointment."My wife and I lost 50 years of research and development on rapeseed and canola. That was very difficult to also accept - that overnight we could lose our rights through patent law."The court had ruled earlier in the case of a Harvard mouse that higher life forms cannot be patented. Schmeiser based his case on a claim that a plant, too, is a higher life form, and exempt from patent.
http://ca.fullcoverage.yahoo.com/fc/breakingca/high_tech/