On February 19, 2013 the supreme court heard the case Bowman v. Monsanto Co, 11-796. The case is about soy seed patents. Monsanto is the number one soy seed producer and have patented their very own genetically modified seed that is resistant to their weed killer Roundup. Monsanto has roughly 80% of the soy seed market share and is notorious for cracking down on farmers that use their seed without authorization. This can be purposeful or accidental, for example the wind can carry seeds from farm to farm and thus inadvertently cause a patent violation.
The petitioner is the was Vernon Hugh Bowman, h argued that Monsanto's seed patent expired at the point of sale, which is traditionally not the case when it comes to patent law. The verdict, if in favor of Mr. Bowman, would hurt Monsanto's business model. It would eliminate Monsanto's capability to dictate what happens to their seeds after sale. Thus allowing farmers use their seed without actually purchasing them. My belief in regards to the case is that a company should not be able to patent a seed, because it is impossible to keep a seed from spreading throughout the ecosystem and to other farms.
Clarence Thomas has served on the supreme court since 1991. He is traditionally a conservative justice and is famous for not speaking when he's hearing cases. From 1976 to 1979 Justice Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto Co. This presents a problem. He has a conflict of interest. He cannot be an objective judge of a case if his former employer is the respondent. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself but as you would expect he did not. Justices in the past have recused themselves for far less of a conflict. As an example Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the challenge to Arizona's controversial immigration law because she served as Obama's solicitor general when the federal government filed a lawsuit against the state. What's puzzled me the most is that not one legal analyst has brought this up. It is bashful to think that such an obvious conflict will go unnoticed.
It doesn't look like from the arguments heard last week that the court will side with Bowman. I'm not exactly sure what the vote will be but I can assure you that Clarence Thomas will side with Monsanto.
The petitioner is the was Vernon Hugh Bowman, h argued that Monsanto's seed patent expired at the point of sale, which is traditionally not the case when it comes to patent law. The verdict, if in favor of Mr. Bowman, would hurt Monsanto's business model. It would eliminate Monsanto's capability to dictate what happens to their seeds after sale. Thus allowing farmers use their seed without actually purchasing them. My belief in regards to the case is that a company should not be able to patent a seed, because it is impossible to keep a seed from spreading throughout the ecosystem and to other farms.
Clarence Thomas has served on the supreme court since 1991. He is traditionally a conservative justice and is famous for not speaking when he's hearing cases. From 1976 to 1979 Justice Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto Co. This presents a problem. He has a conflict of interest. He cannot be an objective judge of a case if his former employer is the respondent. Clarence Thomas should have recused himself but as you would expect he did not. Justices in the past have recused themselves for far less of a conflict. As an example Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the challenge to Arizona's controversial immigration law because she served as Obama's solicitor general when the federal government filed a lawsuit against the state. What's puzzled me the most is that not one legal analyst has brought this up. It is bashful to think that such an obvious conflict will go unnoticed.
It doesn't look like from the arguments heard last week that the court will side with Bowman. I'm not exactly sure what the vote will be but I can assure you that Clarence Thomas will side with Monsanto.
No comments :
Post a Comment