When does an object become a patent? In some cases when a possession is not in
your hands anymore it no longer belongs to you. But in other cases it can still be your
possession no matter where it is. There are very odd cases where problems like this arise.
In the case Monsanto V. Bowman, the company, Monsanto is suing a man because he
took advantage of Monsanto’s patent wrongfully.
Monsanto is a Company that produces and sells herbicide and genetically
modified organisms, (GMOs) which are generally herbicide resistant. They have two
patent soybeans, that both resist their herbicide “Round Up”, which are called, “Round
Up Ready”. The “Round Up Ready” soybeans are genetically modified to have chimeric
genes, which is what makes them …show more content…
In Monsanto’s Technology agreement it
says it “Limits the use of their seeds and technology to a single season and prohibits
supplying it to a third party or replanting second generation seeds.” (Bowman V.
Monsanto Company). Monsanto does let the Farmers sell their second-generation seeds
to local grain elevators to use as commodity seeds, but does not allow replanting of the
second generation. Seventy two year old soybean farmer, Vernon Bowman, had really
liked Monsanto’s patent and would buy it often. Because of the price of Monsanto’s
seeds, Bowman decided to purchase and test local commodity beans from the local grain
elevator to see if he could get any of the patented beans with out paying the full price …show more content…
Furthermore, in chapter 28, it discusses bailments and property. A bailment is the
rightful possession of goods by one who is not the owner, usually by mutual agreement
between the bailor and the bailee. In this court case however, the agreement refers to the
first transaction but not any farther than that. When Monsanto became aware of what
Bowman was doing, it wasn’t agreed upon and is essentially the main conflict they have
with each other within the case. Bowman was the bailee who didn’t have permission to
use the property from the bailor, which was Monsanto.
Even though it is a very close case, In My opinion, I believe that Bowman should
be sued for patent infringement. If Bowman had read the exhaustion doctrine, he would
have known not to do this. Even though Bowman did buy the patent soybeans from a
third party grain elevator, they are still Monsanto’s patent. Bowman knew they were
Monsanto’s Soybeans and purposely purchased and planted them and created a third
generation of the soybeans., “There is a problem, because of the coming about
your hands anymore it no longer belongs to you. But in other cases it can still be your
possession no matter where it is. There are very odd cases where problems like this arise.
In the case Monsanto V. Bowman, the company, Monsanto is suing a man because he
took advantage of Monsanto’s patent wrongfully.
Monsanto is a Company that produces and sells herbicide and genetically
modified organisms, (GMOs) which are generally herbicide resistant. They have two
patent soybeans, that both resist their herbicide “Round Up”, which are called, “Round
Up Ready”. The “Round Up Ready” soybeans are genetically modified to have chimeric
genes, which is what makes them …show more content…
In Monsanto’s Technology agreement it
says it “Limits the use of their seeds and technology to a single season and prohibits
supplying it to a third party or replanting second generation seeds.” (Bowman V.
Monsanto Company). Monsanto does let the Farmers sell their second-generation seeds
to local grain elevators to use as commodity seeds, but does not allow replanting of the
second generation. Seventy two year old soybean farmer, Vernon Bowman, had really
liked Monsanto’s patent and would buy it often. Because of the price of Monsanto’s
seeds, Bowman decided to purchase and test local commodity beans from the local grain
elevator to see if he could get any of the patented beans with out paying the full price …show more content…
Furthermore, in chapter 28, it discusses bailments and property. A bailment is the
rightful possession of goods by one who is not the owner, usually by mutual agreement
between the bailor and the bailee. In this court case however, the agreement refers to the
first transaction but not any farther than that. When Monsanto became aware of what
Bowman was doing, it wasn’t agreed upon and is essentially the main conflict they have
with each other within the case. Bowman was the bailee who didn’t have permission to
use the property from the bailor, which was Monsanto.
Even though it is a very close case, In My opinion, I believe that Bowman should
be sued for patent infringement. If Bowman had read the exhaustion doctrine, he would
have known not to do this. Even though Bowman did buy the patent soybeans from a
third party grain elevator, they are still Monsanto’s patent. Bowman knew they were
Monsanto’s Soybeans and purposely purchased and planted them and created a third
generation of the soybeans., “There is a problem, because of the coming about