Frank wrote:

No, but I too don't like the idea of the seed market being taken over
like this.

Patented genomes are one thing in perennials, especially ones that don't
grow true like apples. The only way to get a Rome apple tree is to use
a shoot off of an existing Rome apple tree. As long as some variety of
apple remains in patent the initial grower gets to benefit from being
the sole source.

Patented genomes are a different thing when their contracts come with
unconscienable clauses. Farmers who have not purchased patented seeds
are getting sued because their own seed stock got contaminated by
patented pollen. That's ridiculous. Juries should refuse to find in
favor of the company and judges should disbar lawyers who put such cases
forward.

Patents, contract law, rules about unconscienable clauses. It's all
kept complex by the lawyers for the big seed companines. But is it
really complex? Maybe farmers who purchase patented seed and agreed to
purchase patented seed again next year are obligated to live by that
agreement. Maybe not. That depends on whether the pricing is abusive
and therefore unconscienable. But farmers who didn't should not be
held liable. Pollen gets out.