Multiple Choice
Monsanto Canada Inc. developed a strain of canola seed that was resistant to a herbicide that Monsanto produced. Monsanto patented this strain of genetically-engineered seed. Schmeiser, a farmer, noticed that some of his crop was resistant to this herbicide. He collected these seeds and replanted them. When it turned out his plants contained the genetically-modified genes, Monsanto sued for patent infringement. In the case of Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser, what did the Supreme Court of Canada hold?
A) One can patent genetically altered plant forms. Monsanto lost the action, however, as the farmer's infringement was not deliberate.
B) While genetically altered plant forms can be patented for medical purposes, they cannot be patented for commercial gain.
C) One can patent genetically altered plant forms. By collecting, saving, and planting the seeds, the farmer infringed the Patent Act.
D) One cannot patent genetically altered plant forms. Life forms cannot properly be the subject of a patent application.
E) Possession of genetically-modified plants is illegal in Canada. Accordingly, the civil action was dismissed.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q51: Which of the following is true with
Q52: Pete is an accountant and Judy works
Q53: A person who develops a new computer
Q54: Which of the following is false with
Q55: Tom, a classmate of yours at Red
Q57: In order to successfully sue someone for
Q58: Which of the following is the correct
Q59: The Copyright Act provides remedies in the
Q60: The 2012 amendments to the Copyright Act
Q61: In Canada, software is protected primarily under