My project recently has been to learn about what happens when Roundup Ready soybeans go off patent in 2014. I've done several hours of reading, and haven't made much progress. It's clear that this is really important, and we need to get it right. The issue is further complicated by the fact that the major players in the controversy are able to hire some pretty high powered lawyers, lobbyists, and public relations firms.
There was a political philosopher in the last century named Leo Strauss. I've never read him, wouldn't understand him if I did, but I'll always remember one thing about him. He maintained that no writer is completely honest with his audience -- that every piece of writing has to be subjected to textual analysis that takes into account the forces that surround the writer. Nobody ever means exactly what they say. This weekend, as I read the various letters, advertisements, and positions taken by the two corporate players in the controversy, I felt like a full fledged Straussian, trying to figure out the meanings of the various texts.
Here, in no particular order, are some things I think I learned:
*Everybody agrees we can save back Roundup Ready seed after the patent expires. Unless the variety is patented as well -- no wait, Monsanto says we can plant some patented varieties.
*Pioneer wants Monsanto to share data, which Monsanto says it will do for a "reasonable" price. This is important for foreign registrations, and maintaining the ability to export beans.
*Monsanto and Pioneer are agreed that nobody but a damn fool would plant saved seed, because their new traits are so valuable that they'll be worth the extra money.
*It will be different to work through these issues on Roundup Ready than it will be on insect resistant traits, because they are regulated in different ways.
*If the data isn't shared, it's the same as extending the patent. Farmers need to be particularly careful here, because is no one has an interest in maintaining the expensive data sets, we won't be able to export Roundup Ready beans to places where they are still regulated, which is most of the world. Every country requires re-registration on a different time period-some countries demand new registrations on a 3 year basis, some on a 10 year cycle.
All of this will provide a great opportunity for new and exciting ways to erect non-tariff trade barriers.
My head hurts, and I'm going to go watch a basketball game.
Transparent process
Both the drug and ag chem industry have existing frameworks for dealing with this issue, and it is very important that the seed industry work out a framework of their own. We need to have a transparent process available that every one involved can understand a whole lot better than I understand the issue now.
Patent protection provides a chance for innovators to earn monopoly profits for a period of time, to encourage innovation and to pay for years of expensive research. We in agriculture benefit from that system, but we've got to be darned careful to make sure that the system is transparent, and fair to all concerned.
There are economists who argue that intellectual property ought not be protected at all. While this is a minority position, there is no magic formula for the right period of patent protection. If the major players here can't quickly work out a fair and equitable agreement, we as a society may want to re-examine how long we provide patent protection. Shortening the period of patent protection might stifle innovation, but it also might lower the costs of medical care and biotechnology.