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.  

Dan Gill/AP/File
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.

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."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.