Farmer’s Clever Case Against Monsanto Didn’t Sway Supreme Court

Amien Essif

Our most important fundraising drive of the year is now underway. After you're done reading, please consider making a tax-deductible donation to ensure that In These Times can continue publishing in the year ahead.

After a preliminary Supreme Court hearing in Bowman v. Monsanto Company yesterday, the Washington Post reports that the justices may be preparing to once again uphold the right of corporations to patent a living thing and its offspring: Questions from the justices during oral arguments indicated that they agreed with the contention of Monsanto and other companies that research and development would dry up if the companies’ patents were easily circumvented. “Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked.After Indiana farmer Harry Bowman planted Monsanto’s genetically modified Roundup Ready bean among his feed soybeans, the bio-tech giant sued him in 2007 on the grounds of patent violation. Now, Mother Jones reports, the case had made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices have so far taken Monsanto’s side that Bowman was manufacturing a patented invention.Bowman’s lawyer, however is countering with “patent exhaustion”—in other words, that Monsanto’s patent on the seeds cannot determine how farmers use the next generation of sprouts. In fact, the court has never considered patent exhaustion in the context of self-replicating technologies. Bowman carefully exploited a seeming loophole in Monsanto's rigid protections on the use of its seeds. Grist reports: There is one tiny crack in Monsanto’s legal fortress. The company allows farmers to sell saved seeds from harvests of Roundup Ready crops to local grain elevators…. The grain elevators mix the seeds up with other seeds from brand-name hybrids and resell them as generic seed packs, called “commodity seeds” in the trade, which are often used for late-season “second crop” planting.This argument is unlikely to be upheld by a court with a history of defending Monsanto. But it may score a smaller victory against Monsanto by bringing into public scrutiny the ethics of owning not just seeds, but their offspring.

Support progressive media

As a nonprofit, reader-supported publication, In These Times depends on donations from people like you to continue publishing. Our final, end-of-year fundraising drive accounts for nearly half of our total budget. That’s why this fundraising drive is so important.

If you are someone who depends on In These Times to learn what is going on in the movements for social, racial, environmental and economic justice, the outcome of this fundraising drive is important to you as well.

How many readers like you are able to contribute between now and December 31 will determine the number of stories we can report, the resources we can put into each story and how many people our journalism reaches. If we come up short, it will mean making difficult cuts at time when we can least afford to do so.

If it is within your means, please make a tax-deductible donation today, to ensure that In These Times can continue publishing in the year ahead.

Amien Essif is a regular contributor to Working In These Times and maintains a blog called The Gazine, which focuses on consumerism, gentrification, and technology with a Luddite bent. His work has also appeared on the Guardian and CounterPunch. You can find him using Twitter reluctantly: @AmienChicago
Subscribe and Save 66%

Less than $1.67 an issue