Slashdot Mirror
Patented Seeds
rhh writes: "Seeds and plants grown from seeds are now patentable. Yesterday the US Supreme Court ruled that seeds and seed grown plants can be covered by patents. This is a major victory for companies such as DuPont, Monsanto and others that develop new crop varieties. In J.E.M. AG supply, Inc., DBA Farm Advantage, Inc., et al. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. farmers had sued saying that patents drove the price of seed up. A PDF of the Court's opinion can be found here."
Let's say that I was conceived in a lab -- a test tube baby, if you will -- and carried to term by my mother. In the creation of the viable egg that would become me, genetic alterations were made so that I would have abnormally hardy kidneys (assume my parents had a family history of kidney failure, and they wanted to assure their offspring wouldn't suffer the same proglem). They paid a bundle for the privilege -- gotta make sure XYZ Genetic Corp. gets their licencing fees.
A little bit out there, but likely a possible scenario in my lifetime.
Now... do you think XYZ Genetic Corp. has any right to prevent me from either having children or selling one of my super kidneys to the highest bidder?
There's fundamentally no difference between me and a plant.
Method of processing duck feet
The key to a patent is that you are the first to patent it -- not the first to discover it. Large companies like Monsanto have been trying to patent native, unaltered, unresearched varieties of local seeds in an attempt to create a revenue stream.
In India, big American companies are claiming patents on local varieties of basmati rice so that local farmers will have to pay money for seeds they grew themselves, from strains that have existed for millenia.
Patents aren't about new discoveries. They are about money. The first to "invent" something completely new deserves a patent. However, being the first to patent something that nature created does not deserve a patent.
There's fundamentally no difference between me and a plant.
The law certainly recognizes the difference between plants and humans. It even recognizes the difference between animals and humans.
For example, you can buy and sell most plants and most animals. But, in the US at least, it is not legal to buy and sell humans. You can forcibly breed plants and animals now, without genetic engineering, to get better strains. You can't do this with humans. We do all kinds of medical research on all levels of animals, but, again, this is illegal to do on humans.
In general, the law has heretofore recognized a significant difference between humans and non-human life. There's no reason to expect this will be any different.
Let me also point out, aside from any legal precendent, most people would disagree with your final statement in every sense. I see what you're saying, but in most Americans' worldview, there is a qualitative difference between humans and plants. Aside from a few radicals, almost everyone would disagree with your last statement on political, ethical and even spiritual grounds.
I do not think we need to fear any scenario such as that you described. Or, let me amplify: we shouldn't fear corporations violating humans' rights simply because they can do it to plants.
Come on, give it up, that's
Or as I remember from childhood, in our gardens sometimes plants would come up from seed left over from the previous year. If I buy their seed this year and someone elses patented seed next year, and then the two patented plants cross-pollenate, who owns the "new" variety? Obviously I don't want to own it as that would infringe upon both of the other patents and I don't want to have to fight their lawyers.
I realize that a lot of genetically altered seed or hybrid seed are sterile, but they do have to be able to reproduce one time in order for them to be of any value to the farmers (in most cases) as it is the seed that is usually the desired crop in some form.
I don't have a problem with companies producing seed that produce sterile off-spring, but if they plan to patent and enforce the patent seed, this is a different proposal. By producing hybrid seed, they ensure that they can line their pockets (which is their right in a free market economy such as ours), but they do not endanger the freedom of others to make a living. A patent will allow them to make money off of accidental cross-pollenation that can't be controlled. And this is most likely to happen to small farmers that can't afford to defend themselves.
If this flys for a little while, I am going to patent some version of the dandilion. Those things reproduce like crazy and there is no way in this world to control them from spreading everywhere. I will be able to sue everyone for growing my patented flower and live like no king ever dreamed for the rest of my life.
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
What is grown in the earth, watered by rain and nurtured by our sun is given by the earth. I'll pay the person who collects it but I'm sad to see other people get involved.
This is wealth that bankrupts us all.
Bo
It ALSO prevents screaming protesters from claiming that the plant in question will escape from the farms and overrun all the native plants, which is supposedly the INTENDED purpose of the genes.
Not to say that I don't think the executives at the companies in question love the 'rebuy the seeds every year' side effect...
Then again, I don't recall ever hearing of seed companies sending armed thugs around to farmers hinting that they'd better not buy 'reproducible' seeds, either...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
True, this case allows utility patents on plants, a practice that has been going on for over a decade. This case just specifies that the practice is OK.
As far as the dangers of not being able to replant, nothing is preventing the farmers from replanting unmodified seeds. Farmers can still do business exactly as they did before, just not with GM patented seeds for which they sign an agreement that they won't replant. Not to be cynical, but if they don't want to agree to this, they shouldn't buy the seeds. And if the seeds are so great that they must buy them, then such an agreement doesn't sound so bad--since the farmers are getting such great seeds. That, and the fact that if we want such seeds, we absolutely must allow companies who develop them to reap profit. They can't do this if farmers replant.
As far as this being CONTRARY to the PVPA, the court specifically ruled that this is NOT CONTRARY to the PVPA. The PVPA has lower thresholds for protection, and offers less protection. Patent law has stricter standards, and offers better protection. Nothing in the patent laws nor the PVPA nor the PPA says you can't patent plants. (Or so sayeth the Platonic Nine--or Eight, since O'Conner didn't participate.)
You also say the court overturned congressional intent. They address that too. Congress has known about patenting of plants for over a decade, they have made vast changes to parts of the patent code during that time. But they have never suggested that you should not be able to plant patents, and they have had ample chance. According to the court in their opinion.
As far as patenting gene sequences, I have envisioned a world in the future where you take out a license on a genetic trait--blue eyes, for example. You take an inhaler or injection that modifies your genes, modifies them by a patented process. You sign a license when you do this that says every year you will pay $100 to keep your blue eyes. If you don't, you infringe.
Now, the person with natural blue eyes, he would obviously not infringe. He did not use the innovative patented process for changing eye color genes. And since his eye color OCCURS NATURALLY, no one can patent it. No one. Except GOd, because he invented it.