courtesy: CBS/Applewhite
The Supreme Court of the United States is slated to consider a challenge against Monsanto.
The challenge has been brought by a small farmer, by the name of Vernon Hugh Bowman, who had been sued by MOnsanto over infringement of seed patent rights.
This is not the first case in Monsanto's longstanding practice of going after farmers who they see as infringing their seed patent rights, but who accidentally might have hybrid seeds in their land due to contamination from neighboring fields or other factors..
In Mr. Bowman's case, he is a David standing against Goliath as he faces off against Monsanto in the Supreme Court challenge.
This case however is different.
The challenge could change the course of the future of genetically modified crops, and affect other technology fields, alien to the Monsanto's challenge, where similar patent infringements are involuntary or fall outside of the patent right in some way.
Monsanto has long been criticized for its practices. Many consider them immoral. In one case, Monsanto has taken to court a farmer whose seeds were contaminated from a neighboring crop by bee cross-pollination. Monsanto claimed that because the bees pollinated the non-gmo crops, the farmer had in fact acquired their seeds and was using their patented seed by saving the seeds from his cross contaminated crop.
But let's review the Bowman case for a moment. Monsanto first brought suit against Bowman because it contended that Bowman, who is under contract with Monsanto, planted a crop late in the season that was with a mixture of bio-engineered seeds. Bowman contends instead that because the late crop has a higher degree of failure, he did not want to pay for the higher priced bio-engineered seeds and instead bought from a nearby grain elevator. In a sense, Monsanto is not just controlling the seed purchase, but also the use of the land.
In fact, farmers who are under contract with Monsanto are only obligated to not save their seeds and buy new ones from the biotech giant. That means that farmers sell their unused seed to a grain elevator where different farmers are bringing their seed for sale. The silos, in short, become a depository of a mixture of gmo and non gmo seeds.
Mr. Bowman then, bought his seed from a gain elevator and used them in his late season crop. Since Monsanto does not have any control of the seed once they are brought to grain elevators, they cannot in Bowman's view try to extend their patent rights on the grain elevator seeds. However, Bowman then sprayed the late-season crops with Roundup. Bowman is trying to appeal to the fact that once a product is sold, the patent rights expire, leaving the person who has purchased the item to do with the merchandise as he pleases.
Bowman's contention is that his case should be won because of patent rights exhaustion.
In Bowman's case, he was obeying his Monsanto contract, by buying their seeds for his main crop, but he was taken to court when he started using seed bought in the silos, because they contended that they were mixed in with some of their bio-engineered seeds. The first case brought against Bowman locally was awarded to Monsanto, but then the Supreme Court agreed to hear it.
However, a victory for Mr. Bowman would allow farmers to essentially save seeds from one year's crop to another, thereby voiding the patent's iron clad validity.
The gmo giant claims that if Bowman wins, it would be an irreparable loss for biotechnology, because its 'clients' would not buy the seeds yearly if they cannot stop farmers who are not under contract to make 'copies' of their seeds in continuity.
Unfortunately because of the scope of the decision, this would cut into many other fields, such as vaccines and other biotechnology innovations, so that the Supreme Court case might not stand a good chance at being successful. A ruling for it would in essence undermine patent law.
This has caused other entities, alien to Monsanto, to file in support of Monsanto's appeal. In addition, the Justice Department is also supporting Monsanto's case.
Even software and technology giants are arguing that if the case is lost, the decision could affect their sector by facilitating piracy practices.
If Bowman wins, the victory could be seen as a signal that Monsanto's and other biotechnology giant's grip on farmers Bowman, must be loosened, since their practice is leading to an increasing monopolistic activity, which is driving seed price increases and reducing choice of seeding, even including certain seeds variety that have a better yield naturally and therefore are not bioengineered whose use is being neglected because of Monsanto's grip on the sector.
Farmers who use Monsanto seeds must sign a contract in which they are forced to buy new seed every year, and must not reuse any seed from their crops. This, of course, is quickly driving the price of bio-engineered seeds higher.
Adapted from: Abc news/ New york times
source: Cbs news 2.20.13
No comments:
Post a Comment