In 1978 the U.S. Supreme Court with a one vote majority decision ruled that a life form could be patented. The patent and subsequent litigation was brought by Diamond Chakrabarty and G.E. (General Electric,) in pursuit of a patent on an oil eating microbe. The microbe associated with this patent was never deployed due to the fact that the ravenous microbe had an appetite for things other than oil. However, this decision was the basis for a wholesale patenting of some 11,000 seeds and life forms in the following decades. Lead by Monsanto, the pesticide industry virtually consumed the seed industry in the 80,s and 90’s. The case against genetically altered seeds, plants and foods is presented in two recent documentaries; “The Future of Food” and “Food Inc” (available on Hulu.)

The larger question—

If the genetics of seeds can be altered in the lab to suppress and or embrace biological qualities at will; given the current ethical climate (realistically—the absence thereof) how long will it be before agricultural conglomerates will manipulate and infiltrate our food and/or water supplies with contaminates for which they hold the patents on the antidote. Could this be the true end game of recent health care legislation—to provide a deep pocket client for genetically engendered illnesses? If things proceed on a parallel track with patented seed scenario cited below, humans with biologic cures in their blood for genetically altered contaminants fostering illnesses, could be deemed in patent violation—evoking a new era of slavery in a scenario where the government were unable to pay for the genetically altered microbe that counters an illness brought on by a genetically altered seed, with both patents held by the same conglomerate.

The 1978 landmark decision that enabled the patenting of seeds and other life forms is ethically invasive. If an oil eating microbe were clandestinely deployed near an oil spill and later traces of the patented microbe were found in the spill, the party responsible for the oil spill would be guilty of patent infringement across the entire breadth of the spill. For centuries, it has been the responsibility of select seeds and livestock owners to constrain or fence in their genetic assets. On the basis of this decision allowing the patenting of an oil eating microbe, it thereafter became the responsibility of all farmers and ranchers to keep patented seeds out of their fields. If a patented seed is found mixed in with a farmer’s field where a traditional (non—patented) crop has been planted, the whole field is deemed to be in violation of patent rights and the farmer is held financially liable for the genetically altered seeds that has invaded his crop. It is a recipe for bankruptcy that no farmers have been able to contemplate beyond initial legal saber rattling. Every farmer sued by Monsanto and its affiliates for patent infringement on genetically altered seeds has settled out of court, unable to match the legal reserves of the conglomerate behemoth.

Some thirty—plus years after this landmark decision to patent seeds and life forms altered the legal topography of the American Farm landscape; the oil eating microbe is benched and AWOL (absent without leave) in its promised benefit of turning an oil spill into a harmless buffet. Under the circumstances, should the powers that be reverse and vacate all patents on life and seeds? The oil eating microbe defaulted on its promise of protecting us from oil spills. Should not American Farmers and Consumers be relieved of patents on seeds and life that threaten our way of life, (present and future) well beyond the depravity and recent exploits by financiers on Wall Street?

Much of the concern cited in “Food inc” and “The Future of Food” would be countered if the 1978 decision to patent seeds and life forms were reversed and the patents on seeds—unwound.

Peripheral issue: If a person was found to have genetically altered cure in their bloodstream, would corporations and government officials support amnesty for patent violators with the same vigor that so many support amnesty for illegal immigrants from Mexico? Standing there with your hands in your pockets is the same as support—is it not?

The 1978 decision is cited below.

U.S. Supreme Court

DIAMOND v. CHAKRABARTY, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)

447 U.S. 303

DIAMOND, COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS v. CHAKRABARTY.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CUSTOMS AND PATENT APPEALS.

No. 79-136.

Argued March 17, 1980.

Decided June 16, 1980.

Title 35 U.S.C. 101 provides for the issuance of a patent to a person who invents or discovers “any” new and useful “manufacture” or “composition of matter.” Respondent filed a patent application relating to his invention of a human-made, genetically engineered bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil, a property which is possessed by no naturally occurring bacteria. A patent examiner’s rejection of the patent application’s claims for the new bacteria was affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals on the ground that living things are not patentable subject matter under 101. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals reversed, concluding that the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law.