Monday, May 13, 2013

A Grudging Acknowledgment that Monsanto Deserved to Win

By Mike Dorf

In the circles in which I sometimes run (vegans, hippies, commies, etc.), Monsanto is considered a very evil company.  For one thing, the company has never quite shed its image as one of the two chief manufacturers of Agent Orange (along with Dow).  More directly to the current topic--i.e., the Supreme Court's decision today in Bowman v. Monsanto Co.--the company is the single most important promoter of conventional farming.  Although I'm not as worried about the inherent dangers of GMOs as some of my fellow crunchy green hippies are, I do share the concern that Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" seeds raise serious problems.  More about that below, but first, a few words on today's decision.

Monsanto makes and markets both Roundup--a weed killer--and Roundup Ready (RR) seeds.  Plants grown from the RR seeds have been genetically modified to survive the application of Roundup to the field.  Thus, farmers buy the seeds, plant them, then spray the field with Roundup, which kills just about everything except the plants the farmer is trying to grow, in this particular case, GM soybeans from RR seeds.

As a condition of sale, Monsanto tells farmers that they can plant the RR seeds they buy but they cannot plant the RR seeds produced by the plants that grow from those seeds.  Bowman, however, did just that, and Monsanto sued him for patent infringement.  (Bowman also planted soybeans he bought from other farmers who had grown them from RR seeds.)  He said that the suit was impermissible because the doctrine of "patent exhaustion" gives the purchaser of a patent item (here the RR seeds) the right to control secondary uses and sales.  The SCOTUS, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Kagan, disagreed.  To plant second and successive generations of seeds from the plants grown from the original RR seeds is to make new copies of the patented product, which both the patent and the license prohibit.

The opinion is short and persuasive.  If Monsanto had lost, there would be little incentive for companies to develop seeds or other potentially self-replicating products because after the initial sale, the original manufacturer would not be able to capture the monopoly profits that warrant the initial investment in developing the product.  If you think Monsanto's RR seeds are evil (more on that in a moment, I promise), you might think that's a good non-investment in this particular case, but the general principle espoused by the Court is sound.  Consider a patented 3d printer capable of making innumerable sorts of useful (or fanciful) objects, including an exact replica of itself.  Surely the patent rights of the inventor of the 3d printer include the right to block its use for making (and then selling without any royalties) such second and successive generations of 3d printers.  (Seriously, self-replicating machines are possible and not at all evil.  What could possibly go wrong?)

Are seeds different?  The SCOTUS did not think so, and in the context of this case, I agree.  Bowman deliberately set his mind to growing second and successive generations of RR seeds and plants. However, lurking just below the surface--and expressly set aside as outside the scope of the holding in Bowman--is a far more troubling question: What about farmers who do not deliberately set out to grow infringing RR plants but find that their fields are contaminated by the RR plants?  Bees and even the wind spread seeds from the fields of farmers who purchased RR seeds to those who didn't.

Some of these farmers may consider the contamination a benefit.  They were already using Roundup  but with unmodified seeds.  Now they get higher yields and make more money.  Should these farmers have to pay Monsanto on an unjust enrichment theory?  In one sense, they have "made" infringing copies of Monsanto's product, but if they were truly passive, then in another sense they didn't.  To hold such passive recipients of Monsanto's bounty liable feels unfair.  At the same time, however, a rule that excuses these accidentally benefited farmers from having to pay royalties could be difficult to administer.  How is Monsanto or its minions to prove that the seeds were not just blowin' in the wind?  Who bears the burden of proof on the question of whether there was deliberate planting or a kind of second-hand high from the RR seeds?

A second category of farmers stands in a very different position: Organic farmers who want to grow--and get paid a premium for growing--non-GMO plants without the application of Roundup or (with respect to insecticide-resistant seeds) insecticides to their crops.  There have been reported cases of organic farmers experiencing contamination of RR crops, which, for them, is definitely not a benefit.  Do they have to pay Monsanto a royalty for infringement?  Conversely, should they be able to sue Monsanto and/or their neighbors for taking inadequate precautions to prevent the RR seeds from spreading?

There are also systemic harms that blow from one farm to the next.  A recent study indicates that RR seeds and, more generally, the reliance on seeds that have been genetically modified to resist herbicides, leads to increasing use of herbicides because extensive use of Roundup breeds Roundup-resistant weeds.  Eventually this could mean that Roundup is no longer effective, which would actually be unfortunate for people who don't buy exclusively organic: As herbicides go, Roundup is relatively benign.  The herbicides that will be used in its place may not be.  A similar fate probably awaits insecticide-resistant seeds and their respective complementary insecticides.

Thus, in the long run, the Monsanto strategy looks bad for sustainable agriculture and maybe even bad for Monsanto.  But that's in the long run.  In the short run, Monsanto makes a lot of money from its RR seed business and deserved to win in the Bowman case.  Here, as elsewhere, we shouldn't confuse the right legal outcome with generally good news.

15 comments:

Craig J. Albert said...

Agreed. The relevant policy questions include things like "what is the outside limit of patentability?", "what kind of remedies should be available to the holders of certain types of patents?", "how long should patents last?", "should there be compulsory licenses?" and so forth. Those are hard questions that Congress ought to get its act together to answer. It has shown no inclination to do so.

Shag from Brookline said...

How about a nuisance/trespass tort liability claim against Monsanto asserted by an organic grower whose crop is contaminated by Agent RR by means that were or reasonably should have been anticipated by Monsanto. (Would the bees, Mother Nature and the farmer using RR seeds be required to be named as parties?) Or does the grant of a patent result in immunity from such a claim?

Bob Moss said...

The seeds from pollen that was blowing in the wind should be considered to be replicating themselves, and that's no one's fault and Monsanto's problem. Then the question is, How does one prove the seeds came from the wind and not by deliberate action? While the Court's reasoning may be persuasive in terms of traditional patents, it now has a can of worms waiting down the line, bad enough that the Court should have employed more creativity while it had the chance.

Shag from Brookline said...

" While the Court's reasoning may be persuasive in terms of traditional patents, it now has a can of worms waiting down the line, bad enough that the Court should have employed more creativity while it had the chance."

Something like Justice Scalia's pre-emptive dicta in Heller to address "blowing-in-the-wind-slope" concerns? Perhaps the Court thinks "Roundup" will also kill worms. Perhaps "originalism" limits creativity on the Court's part, although the Patent Clause in the Constitution is quite simply stated, such that both Congress and the Court can screw it up. And the Patent Office may not be helpful.

What we need is a modern "Parable of the Monsanto Seed."

smith rose said...

If you're already familiar with an earlier version of Microsoft Project, follow the links in this document for information about what's new and different in Project 2010 Download.

Vivian Salvatore said...

If you can get a hold of extra Buy GW2 Gold, like in which trebuchets blast the most effective, or even how much well being do the NPC mankind has, learn that, way too D3 Gold.Understanding will be power, use it effectively (c).Metagame. I have a a little unconventional meaning of what consists of metagame.

Camelia Alyka said...

Consider a patented 3d printer capable of making innumerable sorts of useful (or fanciful) objects, including an exact replica of itself. Surely the patent rights of the inventor of the 3d printer include the right to block its use for making (and then selling without any royalties) such second and successive generations of 3d printers. pembesar payudara herbal perawatan kulit red pomegranate red pomegranate

Stefen Curry said...

To hold such passive recipients of Monsanto's bounty liable feels unfair. At the same time, however, a rule that excuses these accidentally benefited farmers from having to pay royalties could be difficult to administer. How is Monsanto or its minions to prove that the seeds were not just blowin' in the wind? Who bears the burden of proof on the question of whether there was deliberate planting or a kind of second-hand high from the RR seeds?cheap fifa 14 coins  lol boosting  fut coins  league of legends elo boost

jorden jems said...

In a representative democracy, the voters need, deserve, and are entitled to as much information about the workings of their government as possible, kryon poker , clubjack casino , zynga holdem , skyclub casino , 3slot games

justin lander said...

I think this is an informative post and it is very useful and knowledgeable. therefore, I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article. Assar Poker : Number One Slot : Pixar Casino

Bryan Johnson said...

Very interesting post you got here, very informative and very creative. Sub Poker : Panthar Poker : King Poker Choice : Groom Poker : Pro Poker Mania : Luxury Slot : Summer Slot : Temple Slot : Golden Night Casino : Lucky One Casino : Stud Casino Room : Typical Gambling

jorden jems said...

Good work! I always like to leave comments whenever I see something unusual or impressive. I think we must appreciate those who do something especial. 77vegas casino : 88poker games : sky pokernet : silver poker news : online poker kings : free win pokies : casino memory : ezine poker : 7game slot : Lenny casino game : palace casino wheel : Maxino casino games

Aura Valensia said...

Hello, I truly enjoyed reading your post. I found your site from Google. Will bookmark to return later. Thanks!
produk kecantikan korea | perawatan wajah murah | agen produk kecantikan | obat herbal asma

aminos lahragui said...


Very awesome post , i am really impressed with it a lot


فوائد الزنجبيل
فوائد الرمان فوائد الحلبة فوائد البصل فوائد الزعتر فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم قصص جحا صور يوم الجمعه علامات الحمل تعريف الحب حياة البرزخ فوائد الزبيب

Toko Fashion Kita said...

I appreciate your post and look forward to more verbalize from the heart and clarity on this important subject can be easily observed.
serum rambut botak
serum penumbuh rambut
pembesar payudara herbal
cream pembesar payudara
abayweb