Who owns seeds? Not you, Monsanto says.

US Supreme Court set to hear case of farmer using seeds grown from Monsanto's genetically modified seeds. Monsanto won the first round, claiming the farmer violated its patents, but his appeal has won a hearing in the Supreme Court.  

  • close
    A farmer holds Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybean seeds at his family farm in Bunceton, Mo. The Supreme Court is set to hear the case of whether an Indiana farmer can harvest seed from his Monsanto soybean crop, a move the company says violates its patents.
    View Caption
  • About video ads
    View Caption

Say you're a Hollywood studio who spent a couple hundred million dollars on a blockbuster movie. Someone buys it on DVD, and then proceeds to copy the DVD and sell those copies at a profit.

That would be against the law.

Can you make the same argument about buying patented seeds to grow a crop, and then keeping some of that first crop to reap seeds and grow a second crop? A third?

The United States Supreme Court will decide that in a case involving a 75-year-old farmer from Indiana named Vernon Bowman. Monsanto sued Bowman in 2007, claiming the farmer has for years used seeds reaped from a first crop of Monsanto Roundup Ready soybean seeds to grow another crop.

Monsanto said that violates its patent, as farmers sign an agreement when they buy the seeds to only use them once. The resulting crop can be sold for things like feed or oil, not to create another generation of seeds.

From Monsanto's perspective, what Bowman has done is like the farming version of Napster. From the farmer's perspective, to force him to buy new seeds every year is a monopoly, and Monsanto's patent should "expire" after the first crop.

Monsanto won in lower court, but Bowman has appealed, and in a move that caught corporate America off guard, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case next Tuesday.

At stake is Monsanto's multi-billion dollar seed industry. The company dominates the soybean seed market with its Roundup Ready seeds, which have been genetically modified so that farmers can spray weed killer on the plants without impacting the soybeans. The seeds are the result of years of development and have helped farmers boost yields, which in turn keeps food prices down.

How long should a company be compensated for something that is difficult to create, but is easy to copy? Monsanto isn't the only party concerned about a potential loss at the Supreme Court. (Read MoreSyngenta Upbeat for Spring Planting Season)

Filing briefs with the court on behalf of Monsanto is a broad array of industries, from the Business Software Association, representing companies like Intel andMicrosoft, to biotech firms, to other soybean farmers who fear the prices of Monsanto seeds could skyrocket, or the company could pull back investing in innovation.

A loss by Monsanto "would effectively eliminate the incentive to discover and develop new genetically-engineered plants," wrote the American Intellectual Property Law Association in a brief.

"We're also talking about DNA sequences used in vaccine development, biofuel reagents such as algae, and also software," said Cathleen Enright of the Biotechnology Industries Organization. She said investors may be less likely to fund research which could reap lower profits. "It can introduce uncertainty into their business models."

Bowman has his own supporters filing briefs on his behalf, including the Center for Food Safety, which wrote about "Monsanto Company's use of U.S. patent law to control the use of staple crop seeds by farmers." A Facebook page has been set up and a rally planned for Bowman next Tuesday in Washington, D.C.

Monsanto has already been fighting patent expiration issues in Brazil, now the world's largest soybean producer. The U.S. Supreme Court could decide to let the lower court's ruling stand, overturn it, or send it back for a new trial. (Read MoreWashington Apple Pickers Miraculously Defeat the Invisible Farm Labor Crisis of 2012)

Perhaps there could be some middle ground, where the patent expires after a second crop, but Enright of the biotechnology group noted that would put grain elevators in the difficult position of having to enforce new policies.

In the meantime, both sides have lawyered up preparing for Tuesday's arguments, a day that Cathleen Enright said her group never expected to happen. "We were surprised."

About these ads
Sponsored Content by LockerDome
Make a Difference
Inspired? Here are some ways to make a difference on this issue.
FREE Newsletters
Get the Monitor stories you care about delivered to your inbox.

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.




Save for later


Saved ( of items)

This item has been saved to read later from any device.
Access saved items through your user name at the top of the page.

View Saved Items


Failed to save

You reached the limit of 20 saved items.
Please visit following link to manage you saved items.

View Saved Items


Failed to save

You have already saved this item.

View Saved Items