Genetically Modified Justice: Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Monsanto

Search form

Genetically Modified Justice: Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Monsanto

Genetically Modified Justice: Why the Supreme Court Ruled for Monsanto
Fri, 5/17/2013 - by Robert Barnes
This article originally appeared on Washington Post

Farmers must pay Monsanto each time they plant the company’s genetically modified soybeans, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting an Indiana farmer’s argument that his un­or­tho­dox techniques did not violate the company’s patent.

Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman asserted that because the company’s herbicide-resistent Roundup Ready soybeans replicate themselves, he was not violating the company’s patent by planting progeny seeds he bought elsewhere. But the justices unanimously rejected that claim, with Justice Elena Kagan writing there is no such “seeds-are-special” exception to the law.

“Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium,” Kagan wrote for the court, rejecting what she called Bowman’s “blame-the-bean defense.”

“Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans’ multiplication; or put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops,” Kagan wrote.

While the case was about soybeans, the broader issue of patent protection is important to makers of vaccines, cell lines, software and other products that might be considered self-replicating.

Corporations worried that their investments would be threatened if patents were honored only on the first sale of self-replicating products, a legal doctrine called patent exhaustion. It means companies have no control over their products once they have been sold.

But Kagan warned that the Monsanto decision was a limited one and did not address every issue involving a self-replicating product.

“We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse,” Kagan wrote. “In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose.”

But Kagan said the court concluded: “We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances.”

Kagan’s sprightly written opinion aside, the court’s reluctance to address those broader issues raised questions about why it accepted the case, since lower courts had also ruled for Monsanto.

As the justices had indicated at oral arguments in the case in February, they believed Bowman’s practices threatened the incentive for invention that is at the heart of patent law.

If someone is able to copy a patented product simply by planting it and collecting its progeny, “a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention,” Kagan wrote. “And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted.”

Bowman acknowledged that his techniques were unusual.

The farmer purchased Roundup Ready soybeans for his first planting of the year on the 300 acres he farms in southern Indiana. They are so named because they are resistant to Roundup, Monsanto’s omnipresent weed killer, which has revolutionized farming.

At the time of the purchase, Bowman agreed to the company’s demands that he not save seeds from the crop for future planting.

But for a second planting, which Bowman said is riskier because of the weather, he said it would not be cost-effective to pay Monsanto’s premium.

So instead he bought commodity soybeans, which are usually used for feed, from the local grain elevator. He believed those beans would also be Roundup Ready because about 90 percent of soybeans grown in the country are. Bowman acknowledged that he did save seed from those crops and bought more commodity beans for subsequent plantings.

Monsanto said Bowman’s plantings violated the company’s patent. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed and told Bowman to pay nearly $85,000 in damages.

Kagan noted that Bowman conceded that the exhaustion doctrine does not allow him to “make” a new product based on Monsanto’s invention.

“But it was Bowman, and not the bean, who controlled the reproduction (unto the eighth generation) of Monsanto’s patented invention,” Kagan wrote.

The case is Bowman v. Monsanto.

Originally published by Washington Post.

 

Article Tabs

Dozens of ranchers, farmers and Native Americans calling themselves the Cowboy and Indian Alliance rode into D.C. on horseback to set up camp in opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline.

A new report shows that top C.E.O.'s were paid 331 times more than the average U.S. worker in 2013, and the poorest fifth of Americans paid twice the average tax rate as the richest 1%.

Jeremy Rifkin's new book, "The Zero Marginal Cost Society," brings welcome attention to the Commons – which lies at the heart of a major cultural and social shift now underway.

Unrestrained data collection by private companies and the government is threatening the very nature of how the Internet – and, likewise, the companies that populate it – was intended to run.

Naveed Shinwari hasn’t seen his wife in 26 months. He suspects it’s because he refused to become an informant for the FBI.

Revolts are shaking the world, bursting in the most unexpected places, but they rarely take power. Is the big explosion still coming?

Posted 6 days 16 hours ago

The Vermont Senate passed a bill to require labeling on all GMO foods sold in the state – signaling a wave of nationwide victories against the Gene Giants may be underway.

Posted 6 days 16 hours ago

A new Cold War has arisen between Russia and the U.S. over the future of Ukraine.

Posted 3 days 16 hours ago

From climate change to Crimea, the natural gas industry is supreme at exploiting crisis for private gain.

Posted 6 days 16 hours ago

A right-wing Canadian outfit funded by the Kochs wants to privatize the Canadian health care system – and Prime Minister Stephen Harper is now steering policy that way.

Posted 6 days 18 hours ago

A new report shows politicians' campaign cash from the natural gas industry has soared 231% in states that frack, and more than doubled even in the states that don't. Fact: seven of eight U.S. Congress members are on the gas industry's payroll.

The Fourth Amendment Protection Act would prohibit state material support, participation or assistance to any federal agency that collects electronic data or metadata without a search warrant.

If the record ongoing releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere are aided and abetted by massive releases of methane, an even more powerful greenhouse gas, life as we humans have known it might be at an end on this planet.

I am from an impacted community in East Texas, home to oil and gas industry, on the southern route of the Keystone XL pipeline. My community will not "win" on climate and this idea delegitimizes the extraction industry impacts we already face.

Your Public Bus Conversations Are Being Recorded

Transit authorities in cities across the country are quietly installing microphone-enabled surveillance systems on public buses.

Sign Up