Hacker News Reader

Comment by jwcooper | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a fan of patenting genes in seeds, but in this case he knew that some of the seeds he was buying contained Monsanto seeds, but figured since he was a small fish in a big pond that Monsanto wouldn't mind. In Monsanto's view, they need to protect their investments in R&D.

From the article:

Starting in 1999, he bought some ordinary soybeans from a small grain elevator where local farmers drop off their harvest. ... He knew that these beans probably had Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene in them, because that's mainly what farmers plant these days. But Bowman didn't think Monsanto controlled these soybeans anymore, and in any case, he was getting a motley collection of different varieties, hardly a threat to Monsanto's seed business. 'I couldn't imagine that they'd give a rat's behind,' " he said.

View on HN

Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law: the guy at one time signed something with Monsanto stating his exclusive source of RR soybeans would be Monsanto.

However, if I buy 160 acres of land, and plant that land in soybeans from a non-Monsanto granary with some RR seed in it, then how could I be culpable if I had no dealings at all with Monsanto? I am guessing a case wouldn't be a straight 9-0 SCOTUS ruling.

"Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law"

Those people are wrong. Monsanto did, indeed, sue him for patent infringement, not breach of contract. The contract mentioned in the case is just his license to grow the plants from Monsanto. He was forbidden from replanting those soybeans (or other patented soybeans) by patent law because such actions exceeded the scope of his license. There is nothing at all in the opinion that refers to a contract where he agreed only to buy RR soybeans from Monsanto.

Point taken. But it still seems he had a direct relationship (the license).

My point still stands. If I, having no relation whatsoever with Monsanto, buy random soybeans as feed, then plant them, then spray them with Roundup to weed out the non-Monsanto seeds, then save the seeds selected for resistance, I believe that the Court would not have made such an "easy" 9-0 decision, assuming they tried to sue me at all (rather than the granary or someone else).

The intuitive purpose of the patent protection for RR seeds seems to be preventing a different genetic research firm from creating a similar seed and also selling "Roundup-Ready Seeds" -- not preventing some random Joe who selects some unidentified seed stock for resistance to Roundup to better his yields. The fact that we should all know there may be Monsanto seeds in the mix is (or should be) irrelevant.

So it seems to me that we're still waiting for a "real" case that deals 100% with the genetics and patents.

This isn't that case because that case was decided 12 years ago: J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U. S. 124 (2001) ("we hold that newly developed plant breeds fall within the terms of § 101 [which specifies what sorts of inventions are patentable]"). Or, really, 33 years ago: Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303 (1980) ("A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under § 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a 'manufacture' or 'composition of matter' within that statute.")

Is there any information about the person that sold the seeds in question?

It seems that Bowman bought seeds from Monsanto, planted them, sold the harvest, bought other seeds at a grain elevator from someone else, and got in trouble when he planted them. Why is Bowman in trouble and not the grain elevator guy that sold the seeds? Is it that Bowman signed an agreement with Monsanto when he bought seeds from them?

The grain elevator was selling the seeds for animal feed.

Thanks, didn't see that in the linked article.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com