In our piece about fighting in the organic foods industry we said context was everything. Well, we’re having a hard time thinking that despite Monsanto’s expected victory,this isn’t something way less than half-full; this isn’t something really, really bad. Its hard to put a good spin on this, even though the Supreme Court ruling was expected.
Yes, patent law is straightforward, but this ruling seems foreboding suggesting the possibility that limiting corporate might in our current system of governance is like trying to stop the fog from rolling into San Francisco.
Of course, some will argue that Monsanto is merely protecting its product and its brand; this is more than disingenuous. The wizardry of creative a captive market offers pause itself, but more importantly, the long-term effects of GMO seeds of course requires, if not in this particular court case, far more scrutiny.
While this case was not expected to go against Monsanto, hopefully it will have us turn even more of our attention to letting Congress know that the time has come to stop big agribusiness from ruling Washington. Who’s up for fog catching?
On the Washington Post Comments section for the story on the Supreme Court ruling LEFTYGUY wrote:
Jonas Salk was once asked whether he regretted the fact that he did not patent the discovery of the Polio Vaccine. He said that the thought never crossed his mind, and even if it did he was compelled to turn the discovery over to the public so that the fruits of his work could help the world. Polio has been nearly eradicated thanks to Salk’s unselfish stand. Another era.
While comparing Salk to Monsanto is a bit like comparing your grandmother to the Large Hadron Collider, an April 2013 article in Forbes Magazine piece estimated Salk would have earned $7 billion had he chosen to patent his vaccine.
