Monsanto Receives Warm Reception in High Court
Reportedly 'hostile' justices question 'basic activity of farming'
Observations from Tuesday's Supreme Court hearing between the Monsanto corporation and Indiana soybean farmer Hugh Bowman indicate that the sympathy of the nine justices leaned heavily towards the agro-chemical giant while heaping skepticism on the arguments made on behalf of the small farmer.
Presenting his case to the court, Bowman's attorney Mark Walters argued that based on the principle of "patent exhaustion," patent rights to seeds do not extend beyond the first generation.
However, according to reports, Walters' arguments were received with 'hostility' from the bench as he was "peppered with skeptical questions from almost every justice."
"The exhaustion doctrine permits you to use the good that you buy," said Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "It never permits you to make another item from that item you bought."
Reporting on the other courtroom reactions, Bloomberg News writes that a majority of the nine justices signaled support for Monsanto's argument:
"Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" Chief Justice John Roberts said.
He and other justices signaled that they view seeds harvested from patented crops as new products with fresh patent protections.[...]
Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law lets a purchaser use patented soybeans for a variety of purposes, such as feeding animals or one's family, or making "tofu turkeys."
"What it prohibits is making a copy of the patented invention, and that is what he did," Breyer told Bowman's lawyer.[...]
"That's all he is prevented from doing," [added Justice Antonin] Scalia. "He can plant and harvest and eat or sell. He just can't plant, harvest, and then replant."
Mr. Walters responded to onslaught saying, "we disagree that the activity of basic farming could be considered making the invention."
Anticipating a corporate-friendly reception in the high court, representatives from sustainability advocacy groups the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Save our Seeds (SOS)--who are supporting Bowman's appeal--wrote in an op-ed Tuesday that this particular logic is troubling because "it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate." They continue:
Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.
According to the New York Times, Monsanto's attorney received a far warmer reception, saying that Seth P. Waxman, a former United States solicitor general, "was allowed to talk uninterrupted for long stretches, which is usually a sign of impending victory."
The Times added that "the justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling."
As critics worry, if the justices side with Monsanto in this case, the ability of corporations "to own products of life" will be further ensconced in judicial precedent, further solidifying the ability of large agro-chemical firms to dictate the lives and practices of the world's farmers.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Observations from Tuesday's Supreme Court hearing between the Monsanto corporation and Indiana soybean farmer Hugh Bowman indicate that the sympathy of the nine justices leaned heavily towards the agro-chemical giant while heaping skepticism on the arguments made on behalf of the small farmer.
Presenting his case to the court, Bowman's attorney Mark Walters argued that based on the principle of "patent exhaustion," patent rights to seeds do not extend beyond the first generation.
However, according to reports, Walters' arguments were received with 'hostility' from the bench as he was "peppered with skeptical questions from almost every justice."
"The exhaustion doctrine permits you to use the good that you buy," said Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "It never permits you to make another item from that item you bought."
Reporting on the other courtroom reactions, Bloomberg News writes that a majority of the nine justices signaled support for Monsanto's argument:
"Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" Chief Justice John Roberts said.
He and other justices signaled that they view seeds harvested from patented crops as new products with fresh patent protections.[...]
Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law lets a purchaser use patented soybeans for a variety of purposes, such as feeding animals or one's family, or making "tofu turkeys."
"What it prohibits is making a copy of the patented invention, and that is what he did," Breyer told Bowman's lawyer.[...]
"That's all he is prevented from doing," [added Justice Antonin] Scalia. "He can plant and harvest and eat or sell. He just can't plant, harvest, and then replant."
Mr. Walters responded to onslaught saying, "we disagree that the activity of basic farming could be considered making the invention."
Anticipating a corporate-friendly reception in the high court, representatives from sustainability advocacy groups the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Save our Seeds (SOS)--who are supporting Bowman's appeal--wrote in an op-ed Tuesday that this particular logic is troubling because "it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate." They continue:
Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.
According to the New York Times, Monsanto's attorney received a far warmer reception, saying that Seth P. Waxman, a former United States solicitor general, "was allowed to talk uninterrupted for long stretches, which is usually a sign of impending victory."
The Times added that "the justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling."
As critics worry, if the justices side with Monsanto in this case, the ability of corporations "to own products of life" will be further ensconced in judicial precedent, further solidifying the ability of large agro-chemical firms to dictate the lives and practices of the world's farmers.
Observations from Tuesday's Supreme Court hearing between the Monsanto corporation and Indiana soybean farmer Hugh Bowman indicate that the sympathy of the nine justices leaned heavily towards the agro-chemical giant while heaping skepticism on the arguments made on behalf of the small farmer.
Presenting his case to the court, Bowman's attorney Mark Walters argued that based on the principle of "patent exhaustion," patent rights to seeds do not extend beyond the first generation.
However, according to reports, Walters' arguments were received with 'hostility' from the bench as he was "peppered with skeptical questions from almost every justice."
"The exhaustion doctrine permits you to use the good that you buy," said Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "It never permits you to make another item from that item you bought."
Reporting on the other courtroom reactions, Bloomberg News writes that a majority of the nine justices signaled support for Monsanto's argument:
"Why in the world would anybody spend any money to try to improve the seed if as soon as they sold the first one anybody could grow more and have as many of those seeds as they want?" Chief Justice John Roberts said.
He and other justices signaled that they view seeds harvested from patented crops as new products with fresh patent protections.[...]
Justice Stephen Breyer said federal law lets a purchaser use patented soybeans for a variety of purposes, such as feeding animals or one's family, or making "tofu turkeys."
"What it prohibits is making a copy of the patented invention, and that is what he did," Breyer told Bowman's lawyer.[...]
"That's all he is prevented from doing," [added Justice Antonin] Scalia. "He can plant and harvest and eat or sell. He just can't plant, harvest, and then replant."
Mr. Walters responded to onslaught saying, "we disagree that the activity of basic farming could be considered making the invention."
Anticipating a corporate-friendly reception in the high court, representatives from sustainability advocacy groups the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and Save our Seeds (SOS)--who are supporting Bowman's appeal--wrote in an op-ed Tuesday that this particular logic is troubling because "it is the nature of seeds and all living things, whether patented or not, to replicate." They continue:
Monsanto's claim that it has rights over a self-replicating natural product should raise concern. Seeds, unlike computer chips, for example, are essential to life. If people are denied a computer chip, they don't go hungry. If people are denied seeds, the potential consequences are much more threatening.
According to the New York Times, Monsanto's attorney received a far warmer reception, saying that Seth P. Waxman, a former United States solicitor general, "was allowed to talk uninterrupted for long stretches, which is usually a sign of impending victory."
The Times added that "the justices appeared alert to the consequences of their eventual ruling."
As critics worry, if the justices side with Monsanto in this case, the ability of corporations "to own products of life" will be further ensconced in judicial precedent, further solidifying the ability of large agro-chemical firms to dictate the lives and practices of the world's farmers.