You are on the jury and you must decide whether Schmeiser is guilty or not. What are the key arguments you would make to support your view? What are the arguments that most stand out that contrast your view? What is the main takeaway going forward from this case? The key arguments supporting the view that Schmeiser is guilty of patent infringement are based on the legal principles of patent law. In this case, Monsanto, a biotechnology company, held a patent for a genetically modified (GM) construct. Schmeiser, a farmer, was found to have this GM construct in his crops without having purchased the seeds from Monsanto, thus infringing on Monsanto's patent rights. The contrasting argument is based on Monsanto's actions' ethical and environmental implications. Monsanto should bear some responsibility for introducing a GM construct into the environment that has the potential to self-replicate, potentially leading to uncontrolled spread and unforeseen ecological consequences. Critical Arguments for Guilt: Violation of Patent Rights: The prosecution may argue that Schmeiser knowingly violated Monsanto's patent rights by cultivating genetically modified Roundup Ready canola without obtaining the necessary licenses or permissions. Evidence of Monsanto's patent for Roundup Ready canola and Schmeiser's cultivation of this patented crop could support the argument for guilt. Knowledge of Infringement: The prosecution might present evidence suggesting that Schmeiser was or should have b