What do you think of Clarence Thomas writing the majority decision on GM patents?

I

imported_rickinnocal

New member
The case in question was Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. J.E.M Ag Supply and involved two Monsanto competitors suing each other.

Monsanto was not a party to the case.

Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto for a few years but has not been employed by Monsanto since 1974, long before the company was involved in biotechnology or even owned a seed business.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer v. J.E.M. upheld the ruling of the appeals and lower court decisions that plants are indeed subject to patent protection under U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts.

While Justice Thomas indeed wrote the majority opinion, this was a 6-2 decision. Justice Thomas was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsberg – none of whom have or had any association with Monsanto. Justices Breyer and Stevens dissented, and Justice O’Connor did not participate in the decision.

In short, while one former Monsanto employee was involved in a Supreme Court case to which Monsanto was not a party, the decision in that case merely confirmed the substantial prior case law and U.S. Patent Office precedent to the effect that plants are subject to patent protection under U.S. law.

Edit... Monsanto did indeed isolate and identify agrobacterium in 1973 - as a bacterium for which they sold an anti-bacterial agent. There were no modified genes to be transplanted back then, though, so the idea of using it a vector simply couldn't have arisen.

Richard
 
The case in question was Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. J.E.M Ag Supply and involved two Monsanto competitors suing each other.

Monsanto was not a party to the case.

Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto for a few years but has not been employed by Monsanto since 1974, long before the company was involved in biotechnology or even owned a seed business.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer v. J.E.M. upheld the ruling of the appeals and lower court decisions that plants are indeed subject to patent protection under U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts.

While Justice Thomas indeed wrote the majority opinion, this was a 6-2 decision. Justice Thomas was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsberg – none of whom have or had any association with Monsanto. Justices Breyer and Stevens dissented, and Justice O’Connor did not participate in the decision.

In short, while one former Monsanto employee was involved in a Supreme Court case to which Monsanto was not a party, the decision in that case merely confirmed the substantial prior case law and U.S. Patent Office precedent to the effect that plants are subject to patent protection under U.S. law.

Edit... Monsanto did indeed isolate and identify agrobacterium in 1973 - as a bacterium for which they sold an anti-bacterial agent. There were no modified genes to be transplanted back then, though, so the idea of using it a vector simply couldn't have arisen.

Richard
 
He was a former attorney for Monsanto, which controls 90% of the transgenic traits worldwide.
Agrobacterium was discovered and implemented by Monsanto in 1973. Agrobacterium is the first vector through which genes could be modified in plants.
The first reports on it were published in 1975
Wow, if copy and paste can earn you a top contributors rank, I'm in the wrong racket. I asked what you think also, not for something it takes 2 seconds to google.
And the gene-implanting implications were immediately apparent to all Monsanto scientists. This was heralded as a "Revolutionary breakthrough in agricultural science"
 
The case in question was Pioneer Hi-Bred International v. J.E.M Ag Supply and involved two Monsanto competitors suing each other.

Monsanto was not a party to the case.

Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto for a few years but has not been employed by Monsanto since 1974, long before the company was involved in biotechnology or even owned a seed business.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Pioneer v. J.E.M. upheld the ruling of the appeals and lower court decisions that plants are indeed subject to patent protection under U.S. patent law. The Supreme Court agreed with both lower courts.

While Justice Thomas indeed wrote the majority opinion, this was a 6-2 decision. Justice Thomas was joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Souter and Ginsberg – none of whom have or had any association with Monsanto. Justices Breyer and Stevens dissented, and Justice O’Connor did not participate in the decision.

In short, while one former Monsanto employee was involved in a Supreme Court case to which Monsanto was not a party, the decision in that case merely confirmed the substantial prior case law and U.S. Patent Office precedent to the effect that plants are subject to patent protection under U.S. law.

Edit... Monsanto did indeed isolate and identify agrobacterium in 1973 - as a bacterium for which they sold an anti-bacterial agent. There were no modified genes to be transplanted back then, though, so the idea of using it a vector simply couldn't have arisen.

Richard
 
Back
Top