Monsanto and its supporters, not surprisingly, see the case very differently. They argue that when a company like Monsanto goes to great expense to create a valuable new genetically modified seed, it must be able to protect its property interests. If farmers like Bowman are able to use these seeds without paying the designated fee, it will remove the incentives for companies like Monsanto to innovate.
Monsanto accused Bowman of patent infringement and won an $84,456 damage award. Rather than pay up or work out a settlement, Bowman decided to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. He said Monsanto should not be able, just because they ve got billions of dollars to spend on legal fees, to try to terrify farmers into obeying their agreements by massive force and threats.
The central issue in the case is whether patent rights to living things extend to the progeny of those things. Monsanto argues that its patents extend to later generations. But Bowmans supporters argue that Monsanto is trying to expand the scope of patents in ways that would enrich big corporations and hurt small farmers. They say that if Monsanto wins, the impact will extend far beyond agriculture―locking up property rights in an array of important areas. Knowledge Ecology International contends that the Supreme Court s ruling could have profound effects on other biotech industries.
If this were a Hollywood movie, the courageous old Indiana farmer would beat the profit-minded corporation before the credits rolled. But this is a real-life argument before a Supreme Court that has a well-earned reputation for looking out for the interests of large corporations. This case gives the court an opportunity to rein in the growing use of patents to protect genetically engineered crops and other life forms―but the court may well use it to give this trend a powerful new endorsement.
【英语六级(三):仔细阅读答案及解析】相关文章:
★ 2013年6月英语六级考试备考深度阅读试题模拟与解析(21)
★ 2013年6月英语六级考试备考深度阅读试题模拟与解析(16)
最新
2016-10-18
2016-10-11
2016-10-11
2016-10-08
2016-09-30
2016-09-30