Florence 1

Sandra Florence
PHIL-2300-F15-Drexler
December 5, 2015
Final Position Paper
Monsanto vs Bowman, The Supreme Court Case
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Vernon Bowman violated the patent rights of Monsanto. I
support the Supreme Court decision. My reasoning is grounded in the principles of the law over my philosophical
opinion of who should have prevailed.

What happened?
Vernon Bowman bought soybean seeds from a grain elevator that contained a mix of unmarked
seeds. The seeds sold were typically used for animal feed. The mix purchased
contained Monsanto patented seeds and he used the seeds to plant a second crop of
the season, and repeated the process over eight seasons. He was compelled to buy
the mixed seeds because the second crop of the season is risky and the seeds were a lower cost. After he
planted them, he treated them with glyphosate, which killed all the plants that did not have the Roundup ready
trait. He then harvested the resulting soybeans and used them in his second crop of each season . (Supreme Court
of the United States, 2013) When Monsanto discovered what Mr. Bowman had done, they sued him for patent

infringement.

Monsantos Position
Monsanto is a corporation that developed genetically engineered Soybean seeds that resist glyphosate-based
herbicides. This means that the seeds were Roundup Ready. Basically, the seeds have a genetic alteration that
allows them to survive when exposed to the chemical, glyphosate. This chemical is contained in herbicides such
as Roundup and effectively kills most other unwanted vegetation but doesnt kill the soybean. Monsanto placed a
patent on the seeds and they were sold under a limited use license that does not allow the entity buying the seeds
to use them for more than a single season. The buyer is also not allowed to save the seeds from the generated

Florence 2

crop and replant them. Under the patent the seeds were sold under, Monsanto sells
the seed subject to a licensing agreement that permits farmers to plant the purchased
seed in one, and only one, growing season. Growers may consume or sell the resulting crops, but may not save
any of the harvested soybeans for replanting. (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013) Monsanto claimed that Mr.
Bowman infringed on the patent because he saved the seeds and grew a second season crop (multiple times)
with their genetically engineered seeds.
Monsanto felt that the outcome of the case was bigger than just their interests. Dave Snively, Monsanto General
Counsel said; This case really centers on the question of twenty-first century technology such as what we bring in
agriculture and other companies bring for say stem cell research or nanotechnologyand how theyre going to be
handled under principles of intellectual property law . (Gillam, U.S. agriculture wary as Monsanto heads to Supreme Court,
2012) Seeds improved through biotechnology have been delivering greater yields on the same amount of land for

more than a decade in the U.S During this time, yield output per acre has skyrocketed and the use of
insecticides has decreased. Biotech crops are among the most thoroughly tested technologies in the world,
and have now been planted on more than two billion acres worldwide. (Snively, 2009)

Vernon Bowmans (Farmer) Position

Mr. Bowman argued that he used second generation seed and was not liable using a patent exhaustion defense.
Mr. Bowman asserts that he had the right to use or resell the seeds because the patent was exhausted after the
first season and that he had the right to use or resell the seeds in a second season. In an interview with Josh
Zepps, Mr. Bowman said: If they then claim that I cant use that, theyre forcing their patent on me. No law was
ever passed that said no farmers cant go to the elevator and buy grain and use it, so to me they either forced
their patent on me or they abandoned their patent by allowing it to be dumped in with non-Roundup grain No
Monsanto literature was ever printed that said that I couldnt go to the elevator and buy commodity grain and plant
it if I wanted to. (Bowman, 2013) Mr. Bowman asserted that the mix of grain he bought was junk and carried no

Florence 3

patent agreement. If the court agreed that the seed he bought was not protected under the patent, then Mr.
Bowman was not prohibited from saving the seed and using in a subsequent season. Mr. Bowman indicated; It
didnt occur to my mind that this would be a problem. Farmers have always been allowed to go and buy elevator
grain and use for seed. You have no idea what kind of seed youre buying at an elevator. They claim Im making
a new seed by planting it. But thats far-fetched reasoning. (Gillam, 2013)
Who has a stake in the Supreme Court decision?
Many organizations took an interest in this case representing a wide range of views, from
environmentalists to intellectual property experts. If fact more than 50 organizations,
including the US Government filed briefs hoping to sway the courts decision in this case.
Intellectual Property Proponents
Hans Sauer, deputy general counsel for the Biotechnology Industry Organization asserts that; Companies
developing patented cell lines and tools of molecular biotechnology could lose their ability to capture the ongoing
value of these technologies if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bowman. (Gillam, 2013) Those representing
intellectual property rights were concerned that if Mr. Bowman prevailed in the case technology companies would
not be able to recoup the costs associated with developing their products. Monsantos legal counsel states;
Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers
and consumers. Without protection of patents, there would be little incentive for privately owned companies to
pursue and reinvest in innovation. (Snively, 2009) In addition, Dermont Hayes, an Iowa State University
agribusiness and economics professor states; If Monsanto were to lose the case, many companies would have a
reduced incentive for research in an area where we really need it right now. The world needs more food. (Gillam,
U.S. agriculture wary as Monsanto heads to Supreme Court, 2012)

Environmental Proponents

Florence 4

Dozens of briefs were filed with the court in favor of the farmers position. They point out several concerns. They
want the Supreme Court to expand the farmers ability to use the seed they purchase and they felt that the courts
decision would have a huge impact on how agricultural producers meet the demands of a growing global
population. There is also a building resentment against large corporations that are perceived to have too much
power. Monsanto is a poster child for the face of corporate evil. This sentiment is seen in statements such as
Andrew Kimbrells, the executive director of the Center for Food Safety; Through a patenting system that favors
the rights of corporations over the rights of farmers and citizens, our food and farming system is being held
hostage by a handful of companies. Nothing less than the future of food is at stake. (Gillam, U.S. agriculture wary as
Monsanto heads to Supreme Court, 2012) Another component of the concern is that genetically modified foods are not

safe. Many want Monsantos work in genetically modifying seeds to stop. Another school of thought coming from
the environmentalist perspective is that the seeds reproduction belongs to nature and not to farmers or
corporations. The idea of placing a patent on a living organism does not sit well with many environmentalists.
This also begs the questions; should a corporation be able to own a product, such as soybeans, that have a
wealth of health benefits that many experts consider to be essential to life? Many in the environmentalist camp
believe that patents should not be allowed on a living thing. In addition, the genetically modified seeds are so
successful at growing prolific soybean crops that they are literally destroying the biotic community they are grown
in. The fertility of the soil is impacted and the soil becomes impoverished. The decline in organic matter affects
the soils ability to hold water, which in turns produces soil erosion. This creates problems holding water and
facilitates flooding which then carries the herbicides and pesticides used into the waterways.
I sympathize with Mr. Bowman. However, after reviewing both sides of the case, I agree with the Supreme Court
decision. Mr. Bowman benefited from the genetically altered seeds which he purchased for his first crop of the
season each year. He clearly understood the value of soybean seeds that were resistant to Roundup and he
benefited from planting crops that had higher yields than if he had used non-patented seeds. Because the
second planting of the season was risky, he didnt want to spend the money required to buy the patent protected

Florence 5

seeds. But a risky season and the desire to purchase lower priced seeds did not give him the right to violate the
patent law. Each second season that he used the seeds that he saved, he killed off any of the non-patented
seeds with an herbicide. He had to know that he was effectively growing a group of the genetically altered
Monsanto seed. Under the patent exhaustion doctrine, Bowman could resell the patented soybeans he
purchased from the grain elevator; so too he could consume the beans himself or feed then to his animals. But
the exhaustion doctrine does not enable Bowman to make additional patented soybeans without Monsantos
permission (either expressed or implied). And that is precisely what Bowman did. He took the soybeans he
purchased home; planted them in his fields at the time he thought best; applied glyphosate to kill weeds ( as well
as any soy plants lacking the Roundup Ready trait); and finally harvested more (many more) beans than he
started with. (Supreme Court of the United States, 2013)
My opinion in support of the Supreme Court ruling is solely based on whether or not I believe that Mr. Bowman
violated Monsantos patent rights to the soybean seeds. That said, my research suggests that Monsanto has
been embroiled in a whole host of controversial practices, including: creating herbicide resistant super weeds,
Agent Orange, Lasso, Roundup, Dioxin, growth hormone for cattle and the use and promotion of PCBs. In
addition, they have been widely accused of pressure tactics, manipulation of scientific data and having too much
power with government officials. Many believe that Roundup resistant soybeans have a damaging effect on the
environment.
From John Stuart Mills Utilitarian perspective, Monsanto is not acting in a manner that creates the best outcome
for all, they are instead acting in their own best interest. This is really the center of the debate with Monsanto.
They believe Biotechnologies make possible harvests of better quality, higher productivity, and sustainable
agriculture protecting the environment. (Robin, 2010, p. 259) If you buy their rhetoric, their motives are purely
utilitarian. If Kant were to weigh in, he would be interested in Monsantos motives. I believe their motivation for
profits outweighs any moral obligation they feel to society. They are developing genetically modified soybeans in
spite of research that suggestions they are bad for the environment and potentially dangerous for humans. The

Florence 6

disdain for Monsanto runs far and wide. Interestingly, The Organic Consumers Association (OCA), IFOAM
International Organics, Navdanya, Regeneration International (RI), and Millions against Monsanto, joined by
dozens of global food, farming, and environmental justice groups announced today that they will put Monsanto, on
mock trial for crimes against nature and humanity, in The Hague, Netherlands, next year on World Food Day,
October 16, 2016. (Sustainable Pulse, 2015) A mock trial will be symbolic at best. As long as there is money to be
made, Monsanto will press forward regardless of the environmental consequence.
Monsanto may have deserved to win the lawsuit with Vernon Bowman, but they violate the very essence of Aldo
Leopolds Land Ethic. Monsantos actions treat the environment as something that has mere economic value.
Aldo Leopold said it best; A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic
community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise. (Leopold, 1949, pp. 224,225) Monsantos actions tend otherwise.

Works Cited
Bowman, V. (2013, February 20). Vernon Bowman, Indiana Grain Farmer: Monsanto
'Grabbing at Straws'. (J. Zepps, Interviewer)
Gillam, C. (2012, October 16). U.S. agriculture wary as Monsanto heads to Supreme
Court. Retrieved from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-seedsidUSBRE91E06Q20130215#rzIOCBzTv1Ds7cBb.97
Gillam, C. (2013, February 20). Vernon Bowman, Indiana Grain Farmer: Monsanto
'Grabbing At Straws'. Retrieved from Huff Post Green:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/20/vernon-bowman-farmer-vsmonsanto_n_2727067.html
Greenberg, J. (2013, February 20). The Supreme Court Rules on Plant Patents. (J. Zepps,
V. Bowman, B. Freese, E. Haug, & M. Newell-McGloughlin, Interviewers)
Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac: and Sketches Here and There. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Robin, M.-M. (2010). The World According to Monsanto (English Translation). Fairfield: The
New Press.
Snively, D. (2009, September). Monsanto Corporate Counsel. (C. Beasley Jr., Interviewer)
Supreme Court of the United States. (2013). Bowman v. Monsanto Co. Et al. Washington
D.C.: Certiorari to the Unites States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Sustainable Pulse. (2015, December 3). Monsanto Put on Mock Trial for Crimes against
Humanity in the Hague. Retrieved from Sustainable Pulse:

Florence 7
http://sustainablepulse.com/2015/12/03/monsanto-put-on-trial-for-crimes-againsthumanity-in-the-hague/#.Vmk7E7erSvW