In this case, it wasn't the patents themselves that were so bad, it was Monsanto's enforcement practices.

Plants naturally cross-pollinate in a variety of ways (bees, wind-blown seen or pollen, etc) that do not respect fences or property lines. Every time one farmer planed a Monsanto GM crop, there was a good chance that these mechanisms would spread the proprietary Monsanto genes to neighboring farmers' crops.

Monsanto knew this, and they went out of their way to find crops that were inadvertent recipients of Monsanto's proprietary genes. When they found such, they would sue the farmers for patent infringement.

This is about as fair as it would be if my butcher sued my neighbors for "stealing" his products because they could smell the aroma of steaks he sold being cooked on my backyard grill.

It is Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF warf.org),

not Association.

Take patenting a gene, for example. Merely discovering a gene has been sufficient for patent rights in the past two decades. It seems rather like patenting the liver, if you ask me. Sure, if you have a technique that will fix disease in the liver, patent that. But patenting basic science discoveries? These can only slow down progress in the field.

The other issue is the hassle of it all. I have a technique that I developed that is commercially useless (but very useful in the hands of basic scientists). Nonetheless, the major medical school where I work has made it very difficult for me to share this tool with other universities. Many of the investigators who have requested this tool have given up, simply because the paperwork is too onerous. And for what? I and my institution will never see a dime for this invention. But we are "protecting the school's intellectual property portfolio" --- whatever that means.

"...But we are "protecting the school's intellectual property portfolio" --- whatever that means."

It means that our descendants will sit around naked picking fleas out of each other's hair while the Chinese build hotels on the moon.

I'm prepared to believe that the US patent system has more and more been gamed. However, this column's linking of the Monsanto case to the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation case is dubious, at best. True, the Public Patent Foundation scored a (you overlooked this vital adjective) preliminary win when a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examiner ruled against three major WARF stem cell patent claims.

But most such cases end up in favor of the original patent or a somewhat modified version of the patent and do not result in the patent's complete dismissal.

And then there's this revelation from a recent article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

> Two of the scientists questioning the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation's key embryonic stem cell patents tried to patent similar discoveries themselves, the foundation said Wednesday.

> Their patent applications were made after the foundation filed patent applications on the work of James Thomson, the first person to isolate human embryonic stem cells.

> Neither of the scientists disclosed their patent applications when they filed declarations in April in support of two foundations on the coasts that are trying to have the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office overturn WARF's patents, the Madison-based foundation said.

> The two scientists told the patent office that the discoveries covered by WARF's patents were obvious to anyone familiar with the field. WARF is questioning why, then, the scientists filed for similar patents on embryonic stem cells.

> Also, one of the scientists failed to tell the patent office her nine stem cell lines listed on the National Institutes of Health Stem Cell Registry in 2001 never developed into stem cell lines, the documents say.

So, it's not okay to file for someone to file for patents, unless it's YOU whose filing? Is that about it?

I could better understand the founation's effort if it were claiming that the WARF patents have stifled further independent stem cell research (you know, the way President Bush has). But, the Patent Baristas web site says that WARF has made free licenses and cells available to more than 300 academic research groups. It does charge companies $75,000 to $400,000, depending on their size and the terms of the license. WARF also claims royalties from products produced using the patents.

I read last week that all the top brass in Monsanto were selling their shares. I wonder if it is any coincidence that their patents have been rejected and that they have lost a number of recent court cases around food safety and environmental contamination. see "GM Giants latest Whitewash Plans" posted today on the Farmers Legal Action News Blog. www.flag-sa.org/blog/rallyround.html

As complicated and necessary as the patent process may be, I don't see it benefiting consumers when corporate scientists and universities scramble to jump the gun on each other (one of the pitfalls of private funding for scientific research). At any rate, if Monsanto's viability is solely based on their use of "proprietary" technology to alter our food supply, they do not have my sympathy. Consumers are constantly kept out of the loop when it comes to dubious new technology. I hope that the Public Patent Office's actions send a message to Monsanto and other mega-corporations. The common man will only stand for so much.