[effable]

According to the article, such patents seem to come with a lot of restrictions and the patent apparently applies to traits of the patented plant:

When a company is granted a utility patent on a type of seed, it doesn’t just own the seed. It also owns its traits (color, texture, disease resistance, the way it was grown), future generations of that seed and all of the rights to research.

So, if a plant breeder like Morton develops his own variety of lettuce and the lettuce matches any of the traits of a patented variety – whether it be color, the curliness of the leaf or a trait that makes it conducive to a particular climate – the breeder is technically in violation of patent law and risks getting sued by the patent owner.

So according to the article, the patent system actually does place heavy restrictions on research in this area.

[gruez]

I searched around and found that "utility patents" are basically the default type of patent (as opposed to design patents or plant patents). Also, contrary to what the above passage might suggest, utility patents expire after 20 years, so it's not like companies will have a perpetual license over a particular trait. Finally, it's unclear how tightly scoped a "trait" has to be in the current patent regime. I would agree that exclusive rights for "heat tolerant broccoli" would be bad for innovation, because it prevents other companies from trying to developing other ways of heat resistance. However, I don't see anything wrong with granting exclusive rights to "heat tolerant broccoli broccoli by modifying this particular gene". Given how bad the Guardian article is with other parts of patent law, I'm somewhat skeptical of their implication that you can patent entire functional categories.