I'm not really focusing on the "human" scenario above, it's was just to provide
a different framework for thinking about the decisions the current USSC is making.
Yes, analogies are never good devises in a debate.
And it's too easy to say
human situations are different.
But, corporations are now people (
), and precedents play such important roles in law.
This whole business of patenting genes started in disease-resistant corn and wheat seeds,
and so control over the new gene technology was placed under control of the US Dept of Agriculture.
This was the precedent.
The grain-company in this Monsanto-decision is selling (mixtures of)
seeds with
no preceding contract with Monsanto.
Their customers have no knowledge of the contamination with the patented seeds,
but these customers are now vulnerable to law suits from Monsanto
if they plant all the mixture and Monsanto finds the RoundUp gene in their crop.
IMO, patenting genes needs to be limited to the actual (physical)
substance or material produced by a patenting company,
and it's subsequent reproduction (inheritance) ignored, or simply
factored into the value of the initial batch of the product.
... sort of like bananas going bad on the grocery shelf.