A reference please then? we must be talking about two different casees - this one involved canola.
Absolutely, Monsanto canola. We're talking about the very same case, Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser.
From the Wikipedia article: "The case drew worldwide attention and is widely misunderstood to concern what happens when farmers' fields are accidentally contaminated with patented seed. However by the time the case went to trial, all claims had been dropped that related to patented seed in the field that was contaminated in 1997; the court only considered the GM canola in Schmeiser's 1998 fields, which Schmeiser had intentionally concentrated and planted from his 1997 harvest."
And another selection: "The case is widely cited or referenced by the anti-GM community in the context of a fear of a company claiming ownership of a farmers crop based on the inadvertent presence of GM pollen grain or seed.[SUP]
[13][/SUP][SUP]
[14][/SUP] "The court record shows, however, that it was not just a few seeds from a passing truck, but that Mr Schmeiser was growing a crop of 9598% pure Roundup Ready plants, a commercial level of purity far higher than one would expect from inadvertent or accidental presence. The judge could not account for how a few wayward seeds or pollen grains could come to dominate hundreds of acres without Mr Schmeisers active participation, saying . . .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 Schmeisers crop" - in other words, even if the original presence of Monsanto seed on his land in 1997 was inadvertent, the crop in 1998 was entirely purposeful.