Bowman deliberately bought seeds from a third party that contained Monsanto's patented genes and claimed that because a third party was involved, the patent did not apply. This has nothing to do with accidental contamination.
It isn't FUD, its a small leap. Did you read your link? It's about the patent not being exhausted after the first sale. Everyone in the chain becomes implicated. If I accidentally use a patented algorithm, that isn't a defense, and it isn't in this case.
What happens if these farmers keep seed aside for next year? They're intentionally planting gm wheat. Worse, what if they sell their crop?
What would have happened 50 years ago if a farmer had sprayed weed killer and discovered a resistant wheat? They'd be jumping up and down because they'd be rich, now they have to worry about getting sued.
This question you're posing assumes that all patents and products are created equal. There is a difference between a living thing and a non-living thing. Living things replicate through entirely natural processes. It is one of the most basic truths of life.
Trying to impose a patent which prevents a farmer from replanting seeds, or attempts to interrupt basic function of living things (making plants that do not replicate) is morally wrong. In the name of profit, companies like Monsanto will deliberately make their products "infertile" and unable to replicate. They do this so they can sell you new seeds every year.
Bit different from a patent on a phone screen. You can water it, leave it in the Sun, and a phone screen will never replicate itself in a million years.
"We've been doing it for (years/decades/centuries)" is not, in itself, an argument that something is safe, wise, or moral.
If you wish to argue that imposing patents preventing farmers from replanting seeds is moral, then it seems like it would make sense to actually make an argument that addresses the morality in any way, shape, or form.
They signed the contract when they bought the seed. They entered the agreement willingly. No different then when you skip past the EULA on a video game saying you won't distribute it or crack it.
That...has absolutely nothing to do with patents. Or morality.
The contract is directly between the farmers and Monsanto; patents are filed with the government, and have force no matter what contracts exist.
And "they signed the contract" is a purely legal argument, it has no moral force. Particularly given your apt analogy to EULAs, indicating clearly that the large companies create contracts that are a) guaranteed to provide disproportionate benefits to them, and b) effectively impossible for laypeople to understand without assistance. Sure, it's legal for them to create contracts like this...but would you really argue that it's moral?
I said contract because you used patent incorrectly. You think the patent is what stops farmers from replanting but it's the contract and the licensing. The patent stops other companies from using the genes to create their own seed. (I'm incorrect here. Just took a look at Monsanto's patent page and they say they do use it to assert breeding rights. I guess the laws around DNA aren't defined enough for licensing and contracts alone.)
And yes it is moral. They are not under durress. There are plenty of competitive viable alternatives. The contract is very clear in the farmers inability to replant as so many are quick to point out. And all parties consented. Farmer gets a product, business gets money. Business makes sure they have a future by making sure the farmer doesn't regrow their product and sell to other farmers.
Tell me why it isn't moral. Are you advocating that patents and product licenses are immoral.
If a farmer unknowingly plants Monsanto seed because another farmer sold it to him. The purchaser can sue the seller for damages just like any other business. It has everything to do with contracts because the only people getting sued are the ones that have enough seed to plant a second crop. That second crop came from a farmer who signed a contract saying they wouldn't grow seed crops or resell their seed. So someone in the chain broke their contract trying to undercut Monsanto business.
All patents are supposed to be exhausted after first sale. Are you not familiar with this or are you saying it's not applicable here or that it's not interpreted correctly?
"The exhaustion doctrine, also referred to as the first sale doctrine, is a U.S. common law patent doctrine that limits the extent to which patent holders can control an individual article of a patented product after a so-called authorized sale." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaustion_doctrine_under_U....
There is no discussing these topics with people who have quasi-religious beliefs. Red Delicious apples have been patented 42 times along the road, doesn't make them any less edible.
Why is it a quasi-religious belief, to be against the patenting of organisms? Organisms do the things themselves, without the hand of man, that seems a reasonable argument against granting patents by itself. You may not agree with the argument, but it isn't quasi-religious.
Someone spends in R&D for making a better aspirin, they can profit by patenting it. Someone spends in R&D for making a better tomato, you oppose them patenting it? Why do you want patents to protect the ability to profit from R&D investments in one industry, but not in another?
Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
Most these genes or modifications are genes from other organisms. It's not like they choose A-T and G-C one by one creating a set of genes whole cloth. They copy something else that already exist. I don't call that an invention. So I don't understand why you can patent genes you find in other organisms. It's not your invention. I don't think it really has anything to do with it being alive. Copying something that exists is not an invention.
Charging money for some arbitrary work isn't some natural right, granting the ability to patent something isn't some natural right. Maths isn't patentable, for a long time it wasn't obvious that computer programs were either. Patents are a construct to encourage R & D, therefore disagreeing about the patentability of something isn't quasi religious.
Second plants breed, by themselves. Does someone deserve to patent a plant they just found growing in their garden?
What happens if someone does patent a better tomato, and then a tomato naturally does the same thing itself? Do you sue the tomato plant? What about the non obviousness test? If it's so easy a tomato can do it...
So yes plant breeding is different to other industries. Patents control how people reproduce your things, plants reproduce by themselves, and the reproductive parts are why we buy 90% of plants for.
> Someone makes a virus for targeted killing of cancer cells. Can they patent it? Are viruses organisms?
This raises the question whether advances in medicine should be able to be patented. With jacked up insulin prices causing people to risk their lives rationing doses, I'm not sure it's a good thing. I know patents create an investment incentive, but I have to wonder if there's not a better way. And government subsidized research adds another layer of complexity, although I'm not sure if that can or can't be patented in various jurisdictions.
Also, many people here are opposed to software patents (imo rightfully so), so it should be unsurprising that they'd be against patenting crops.
