Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SageRaven 4779 days ago
Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law: the guy at one time signed something with Monsanto stating his exclusive source of RR soybeans would be Monsanto.

However, if I buy 160 acres of land, and plant that land in soybeans from a non-Monsanto granary with some RR seed in it, then how could I be culpable if I had no dealings at all with Monsanto? I am guessing a case wouldn't be a straight 9-0 SCOTUS ruling.
1 comments
pdabbadabba 4779 days ago
"Many folks are stating this was a clear-cut case of violation of contract law"

Those people are wrong. Monsanto did, indeed, sue him for patent infringement, not breach of contract. The contract mentioned in the case is just his license to grow the plants from Monsanto. He was forbidden from replanting those soybeans (or other patented soybeans) by patent law because such actions exceeded the scope of his license. There is nothing at all in the opinion that refers to a contract where he agreed only to buy RR soybeans from Monsanto.

link
SageRaven 4779 days ago
Point taken. But it still seems he had a direct relationship (the license).

My point still stands. If I, having no relation whatsoever with Monsanto, buy random soybeans as feed, then plant them, then spray them with Roundup to weed out the non-Monsanto seeds, then save the seeds selected for resistance, I believe that the Court would not have made such an "easy" 9-0 decision, assuming they tried to sue me at all (rather than the granary or someone else).

The intuitive purpose of the patent protection for RR seeds seems to be preventing a different genetic research firm from creating a similar seed and also selling "Roundup-Ready Seeds" -- not preventing some random Joe who selects some unidentified seed stock for resistance to Roundup to better his yields. The fact that we should all know there may be Monsanto seeds in the mix is (or should be) irrelevant.

So it seems to me that we're still waiting for a "real" case that deals 100% with the genetics and patents.

link
pdabbadabba 4779 days ago
This isn't that case because that case was decided 12 years ago: J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U. S. 124 (2001) ("we hold that newly developed plant breeds fall within the terms of § 101 [which specifies what sorts of inventions are patentable]"). Or, really, 33 years ago: Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303 (1980) ("A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under § 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a 'manufacture' or 'composition of matter' within that statute.")
link