I'm all for GMOs but this idea of owning DNA that spreads naturally on its own is unfeasible. We will have to find a new model of dealing with GMOs if we want to bring them into common usage.
The problem here, as I see it, lies with the Mosanto Company. If they can prevent their GMO from spreading to other farmers' fields, then they can reasonably claim it as their intellectual property. If not, then not only should they not be allowed to offload the cost of the enforcement of their property rights unto others, but any farmer whose land is subjected to the spread of the GMO without his expressed content should be able to claim just restitution, for the unauthorized alterations to his property.
That said, I can see some cases where a farmer might be tempted to collect a GMO strain from a Company-licensed field and then introduce it into his own field, without attaining permission from the Company. If the Company can somehow prove that such a case has occurred, then they may justly demand restitution for the unauthorized use of their intellectual property, as well as any additional acts of theft, vandalism or trespassing committed by the farmer in the act.
Also, any involved party should of course be able to freely pursue voluntary agreements with any other party, which should then be honoured in turn, taking precedence over the above guidelines. Such an agreement should specify an arbiter of conflict and also the specific penalties involved for each party, should they break any part of their agreement. For instance, Mosanto Company could include in their license agreements a stipulation that any licensee must take certain, predefined steps to protect any Company property that is in use upon their land, or else face a predetermined fine.
This seems like a very simple, straightforward piece of moral reasoning to me. It should be entirely possible to prevent any disputes, with only a minimum of foresight. Does anyone else have an alternative viewpoint?