Supreme Court Rules For Monsanto In Patent Case

Pigskin-Referee writes in with news of the Supreme Court's decision in a dispute between Monsanto and an Indiana farmer over patented seeds. "The Supreme Court has sustained Monsanto Co.'s claim that an Indiana farmer violated the company's patents on soybean seeds that are resistant to its weed-killer. The justices, in a unanimous vote Monday, rejected the farmer's argument that cheap soybeans he bought from a grain elevator are not covered by the Monsanto patents, even though most of them also were genetically modified to resist the company's Roundup herbicide. Justice Elena Kagan says a farmer who buys patented seeds must have the patent holder's permission. More than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready' seeds, which first came on the market in 1996."

Comments

Re:This is disgusting!!

[Synerg1y]

Did you read TFA? The farmer knew exactly what he was doing and was trying to get around the patent to save money... he got caught.

The bigger issue here is:

Monsanto has a policy to protect its investment in seed development that prohibits farmers from saving or reusing the seeds once the crop is grown. Farmers must buy new seeds every year.

That's a very harsh policy and they probably charge a premium for their seed, it must be tough to be a farmer nowadays.

Judges got it wrong...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the patent only applies to the seed made/raised by Monsanto.

Once it's been through a single planting / harvesting - it is no long the exact same seed - mutations have set in.

Unless it is 100% genetically identical to the seed sold by Monsanto, whether or not it carries the RR gene sequence is irrelevant - the patent applies to the entire gene sequence, not just the bit that makes it RR.

So once a single dna chain is modified (ie through natural selection) - it is no longer the patented product.

End of story.

The judges are WRONG.

Re:The farmer's recourse is to sue to sell

[SirGarlon]

I think the key word here is "sold." In the old-fashioned days, when you bought a physical object, it would become yours to do with as you will: to eat, plant, or whatever else you may want to do (including silly things like using them as alternative flooring in your house).

In other words, by the strict definition of the verb "to sell," the seller loses control over what the buyer does with the item once the item has changed hands. IANAL but what worries me about this case is that the idea of selling something for limited set of purposes seems to be implicitly accepted. Why? How can the elevator sell seeds "for" one purpose but not another, and why is the court willing to respect those conditions? It seems like a huge backward step for property rights and a worrisome precedent from that perspective.