Content deleted Content added
Jytdog 187,951 edits |
|||
Line 43: The decision was reported nationally and internationally by various news sources including the [[Washington Post]],<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-for-monsanto-in-genetically-modified-soybean-case/2013/05/13/c84d7710-bbdb-11e2-97d4-a479289a31f9_story.html | title=Supreme Court rules for Monsanto, says farmer violated genetically modified soybeans’ patent | publisher=Washington Post | accessdate=2013-05-13 | first=Robert | last=Barnes | date=2013-05-14}}</ref> [[USA Today]],<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/13/monsanto-patent-grain-biotechnology-soybeans-supreme-court/2116333/ | title=Supreme Court sides with Monsanto in major patent case | publisher=USA Today | accessdate=2013-05-13 | first1=Richard | last1=Wolf | date=2013-05-13}}</ref> CNBC,<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/100731742 | title=Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto in Patent Case | accessdate=2013-05-13}}</ref> Bloomberg,<ref>{{cite news | title=Monsanto Wins Seed Case as High Court Backs Patent Rights | url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-13/monsanto-wins-seed-case-as-u-s-high-court-backs-patent-rights.html | publisher=Bloomberg | accessdate=2013-05-13}}</ref> and [[Los Angeles Times]].<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-monsanto-seed-patenting-20130513,0,6469544.story | title=Supreme Court rules in favor of Monsanto in seed-patenting case | publisher=Los Angeles Times | accessdate=2013-05-13 | first=David G. | last=Savage | date=2013-05-13}}</ref> The UK Guardian<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/13/supreme-court-monsanto-indiana-soybean-seeds | title=Supreme Court rules for Monsanto in Indiana farmer's GM seeds case | publisher=Guardian | accessdate=2013-05-13 | location=London | first=Suzanne | last=Goldenberg | date=2013-05-13}}</ref> and France24<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.france24.com/en/20130513-us-supreme-court-finds-monsanto-seed-patent-battle | title=US Supreme Court finds for Monsanto in seed patent battle | publisher=France24 | accessdate=2013-05-13}}{{dead link|date=February 2015}}</ref> were among the first international publications to run a story on the decision. Thus far, there has been relatively little scholarly commentary on the case in law journals. Professor Ghosh expressed relief "that the ruling applies only to the facts at hand" and not to gene technology: <blockquote>The Court leaves open how the exhaustion doctrine applies to other self-replicating technologies. As a co-author of an amicus for the American Antitrust Institute on behalf of Bowman, I was relieved to read Justice Kagan’s rejection of the broad exception to the exhaustion doctrine for self-replicating technologies adopted by the Federal Circuit. Such a broad holding would mean that first sale and other applications of exhaustion would have no place in biotechnology or digital technologies. Contrary to the Federal Circuit, and citing treatment of software under copyright, the Court acknowledges that patent rights may not extend to necessary, but incidental copying, or to situations where copying occurs outside the control of the purchaser.<ref>Shuba Gholsh, [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/05/guest-post-monopoly-without-apology.html ''Monopoly Without Apology'', in Patently-O (May 21, 2013).</ref></blockquote> Professor Stern criticized the Court's over-readiness to classify planting seeds to grow crops from them as “ 'making' a new patented article rather than merely using a purchased article on which the patent rights had become exhausted,” for purposes of interpreting section 271(a).<ref>Richard H. Stern, [http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/Bowman.pdf ''Bowman v Monsanto: Exhaustion versus Making'', [2014] Eur. Intell. Prop. Rev. 255.</ref> He maintained that the Court erred by looking to a 1961 edition of ''Webster’s Dictionary'' to find the definition of "making" (i.e., “cause to exist”). Since the use of that word in the U.S. patent law dated from the original act of 1790, he insisted that the Court should have instead looked to an 18th century dictionary, such as Dr. Johnson’s 1755 ''Dictionary of the English Language'', which used such definitions as "To form by art what is not natural."<ref>''Id''. at 258.</ref> More important, he argued, is the fact "that farmers have saved and planted seeds for 12,000 years," since the [[Neolithic Revolution]] (or Agricultural Revolution).<ref>''Id''. at 259. See [Neolithic Revolution#Domestication of Plants], Agriculture in the Fertile Crescent.</ref> He argued that this "ancient practice" should not be forbidden without an indication from Congress that it wanted to do that: <blockquote>The Court should have left it up to Congress to say in the first instance–as Congress has never done before–that “making” for purposes of the patent law includes saving harvested seed and using it to grow a further crop. The Court should have respected 12,000 years of precedent among farmers and declined to outlaw that ancient practice unless and until Congress declares that farmers must end their cycling of John Barleycorn.<ref>''Id''. at 261.</ref> </blockquote> ==References== | |||