Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in major patent case

[Pointedstick]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... t/2116333/

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court usually isn't friendly toward questionable patents, but it came down overwhelmingly on the side of agribusiness giant Monsanto Monday in a case that's bound to resonate throughout the biotechnology industry.

The court ruled unanimously that an Indiana farmer violated Monsanto's patent on genetically modified soybeans when he culled some from a grain elevator and used them to replant his own crop in future years.

"If simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention," Justice Elena Kagan ruled in a short 10-page opinion. "The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years as the Patent Act promises, but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted."

[Tyler]

While I don't particularly like the way agriculture is moving towards a disposable business model where you must buy new seed every year (at increasingly high prices) rather than using what you have, I don't think this case is particularly controversial. 

Most farmers must find the greater yield from Monsanto seed to be worth the increased cost of buying new seed every year, or it wouldn't be so popular.  The farmer took the premium Monsanto seed over other options for a reason, but refused to live by their terms and conditions.  If you don't like a company's business practices, don't use their product.

[Pointedstick]

I actually quite agree with you, Tyler. Seems like this guy did the wrong thing after making a decision that obligated him to re-purchase new seeds every year.

Personally, while I'm not a farmer, if I was then I'm not sure my cost-benefit balance would tilt in favor if needing to re-purchase the seeds every year. There's something you lose by being so dependent on another entity, IMHO--especially one like Monsanto.

This case also brings attention to the interesting issue of patenting something that's self-replicating. Does it really make sense to be able to patent something that due to its nature, the user can create clones of? Though this guy did it deliberately, it's not hard to imagine a situation in which seeds were accidentally saved and re-planted, and if I'm remembering correctly, I believe there have been cases of Monsanto suing Indian farmers in this situation. Pretty scummy behavior.

[rocketdog]

Where Monsanto really goes off the rails is when they prosecute farmers who didn't buy their seed for having crops that are contaminated with Monsato's genetically modified plant DNA.  Which is impossible to prevent when the neighboring farms are all Monsanto seed-based, due to cross-pollination. 

If I were the farmers Monsanto went after in those instances, I would have counter-sued them for allowing their modified plant DNA to trespass on my property.  Turn-about is fair play in this instance. 

[RuralEngineer]

Where Monsanto really goes off the rails is when they prosecute farmers who didn't buy their seed for having crops that are contaminated with Monsato's genetically modified plant DNA.  Which is impossible to prevent when the neighboring farms are all Monsanto seed-based, due to cross-pollination. 

If I were the farmers Monsanto went after in those instances, I would have counter-sued them for allowing their modified plant DNA to trespass on my property.  Turn-about is fair play in this instance.

+1000 this

Monsanto was within their rights to sue the farmer who knowingly bought and then replanted their seed. It's all their other shady practices that have earned them a ride in the industrial wood chipper.