How Bowman v Monsanto Could Affect Patent Law Free Essay Example, 1500 words

Is the one that likely does not even enter into the consciousness of the decision-makers, legal department, and/or any other shareholders of Monsanto. The corporate drive for success, profitability, and dominance overshadow any reflection on such a concept as sharing. From a relativist point of view, the understanding that Monsanto has eternal rights to a self-replicating process seems as if it is something that should not be considered within the court of law but should be considered within a common-sense framework of understanding. By contrast, the utility of the farmer, at least in growing the seed itself, should not be infringed upon by any firm that seeks to dominate the buying habits of a consumer. However, in all fairness, it is ethically and morally incumbent upon the farmer, as long as Monsanto retains intellectual rights upon the seed in question, to remit or forgoes any profits that he would have from reselling the produce in question. In such a way, the corrective action would be for the farmer to cease and desist from the selling of seed and/or produce that was ultimately the intellectual copyright of another individual. We will write a custom essay sample on How Bowman v Monsanto Could Affect Patent Law or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/pageorder now However, it must be stated that this represents only a legal interpretation of what is right and what is wrong. With regards to a response to the above case, the first determine that must be measured is with regards to the ethical strength of the argument that Monsanto has for continuing to hold the legal rights to a patent for something such as a seed product. Whereas the student in question does not agree with the logic and/or rationale for the legality of any firm having intellectual property rights to something such as a seed, which can, by very definition, self replicate and render such a patent seemingly redundant and useless, if in fact, the court system chooses to uphold this legal precedent, then no individual has the right to infringe upon it by selling the product that another individual has worked to create.