Download CAW 210 Corte Suprema EE UU falla a favor de Monsanto

CAW 210/13
14 de Mayo de 2013
Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos falla a favor de Monsanto
A continuación se adjuntan dos artículos que resumen la decisión de la corte
suprema de los Estados Unidos que ayer falló a favor de la compañía Monsanto en el
juicio que le inició a un productor del estado de Indiana por violación de la patente,
también se adjunta la decisión completa de la corte.
Según la corte y la compañía, el productor Vernon Bowman compró semillas de
soja a un elevador (en teoría para alimentación animal), sembró las semillas y las trató
con el herbicida glifosato, para luego cosechar la soja resistente al herbicida y sembrarla
en la próxima campaña como soja de segunda. La semilla de soja resistente al glifosato
está patentada por la compañía Monsanto y los productores se comprometen, mediante un
contrato con la compañía o sus licenciatarios, a sembrar la semilla una sola vez y no
guardar el producto de la misma para futuras siembras.
El abogado del productor argumentó el caso en base al ¨agotamiento de la
patente¨ indicando que los derechos de la compañía no se extendían más allá de la
primera generación. Sin embargo, los jueces de la corte fallaron en forma unánime a
favor de Monsanto, indicando que ¨la doctrina de agotamiento de una patente le permite
al productor hacer uso del producto comprado, pero no le permite replicarlo¨. El
presidente de la corte, apoyando los argumentos presentados por Monsanto dijo: ¨¿Porqué
alguien va a gastar dinero en tratar de mejorar una semilla, si tan pronto se vende la
primera cualquiera puede producir más y tener toda la cantidad que quiera?
Según otro de los jueces, la ley de semillas de los Estados Unidos le permite a los
productores que compran semillas patentadas realizar una variedad de usos tales como
alimentar animales, a su familia o producir productos derivados tal como tofu, ¨lo que
prohíbe es realizar una copia de la invención patentada y eso es lo que hizo este
productor¨. Otro argumento de los jueces fue económico: ¨el valor de una patente se
desplomaría después de la primera venta del primer producto que contenga la invención¨.
Esto quiere decir que los jueces interpretan que las semillas producidas a partir de
eventos patentados se transforman en nuevos productos con nueva protección bajo la
patente original.
El abogado del productor argumentó que ¨la lógica de la corte era problemática,
dado que la naturaleza de las semillas y de los organismos vivos era la de replicarse, sean
patentados o no. El argumento de Monsanto sobre que tiene derechos sobre un producto
natural que se replica es problemático, dado que las semillas a diferencia de los chips de
computadora son esenciales para la vida. Si a la gente se le niega un chip de computadora
Consejería Agroindustrial en Washington DC
Tel: (202) 238-6443/44/46
Fax: (202) 332-1324
[email protected]
1
no sufre hambre, sin embargo si se le niegan las semillas las consecuencias son más
preocupantes¨
Monsanto Receives Warm Reception in High Court
Reportedly 'hostile' justices question 'basic activity of farming'
- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
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.
Farmer Vernon Hugh Bowman, 75, outside
the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Feb. 19, 2013. (Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
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 Obamaappointed 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.”
Consejería Agroindustrial en Washington DC
Tel: (202) 238-6443/44/46
Fax: (202) 332-1324
[email protected]
2
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.
EDITORIAL
Soybeans and the Spirit of Invention
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: May 13, 2013
Vernon Bowman, an Indiana farmer, bought a mix of soybean seeds from a grain
elevator, planted them in a late-season crop and used seeds harvested from that crop to
plant his late crop the following season. Included in that mix (intended mostly for animal
feed) were Monsanto’s patented genetically altered seeds, which allow farmers to use
herbicide, like Roundup, to kill weeds without damaging the soybean plants.
Farmers who buy Monsanto’s Roundup Ready seeds have to sign a license agreement
that prohibits them from saving seeds from the crop for replanting. Mr. Bowman,
however, argued that he had the right to plant and save any seeds, including Roundup
Ready seeds, purchased from the grain elevator without following Monsanto’s rules,
because the company could no longer control use of seeds once they were sold to the
Consejería Agroindustrial en Washington DC
Tel: (202) 238-6443/44/46
Fax: (202) 332-1324
[email protected]
3
grain elevator.
In a unanimous ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled correctly for Monsanto. If
Mr. Bowman were given the right to make copies of the seeds, Justice Elena Kagan wrote
for the court, “a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item
containing the invention.”
Mr. Bowman bought Roundup Ready seeds for his main crop, and accepted Monsanto’s
conditions. But for his later crop, he sidestepped Monsanto by planting the cheaper seeds
from a grain elevator. The American Soybean Association called his practice
“unorthodox.”
Monsanto sued Mr. Bowman for patent infringement, contending that he used and copied
Roundup Ready soybean seeds without authorization. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a ruling against Mr. Bowman for patent
infringement. The justices properly affirmed that ruling and the principle that a farmer
cannot reproduce patented seeds without permission of the patent holder.
Consejería Agroindustrial en Washington DC
Tel: (202) 238-6443/44/46
Fax: (202) 332-1324
[email protected]
4