Since the early 1990s farmers have seen huge changes to their traditions. Some are good such as the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) into their seed supplies. These GMOs help to simplify farming tactics and reduce the environmental impact of the herbicides used. Other examples include improved farming equipment that increases the rate at which farmers can do their jobs and smart software that tells them optimal planting patterns. Unfortunately, these improvements do come with a cost to the farmer, and not just one of monetary value. 

Whether it is seeds or tractors, when a company makes an improvement to a product, they seek to protect that improvement, the intellectual property they possess. Traditionally, this is done through patenting an idea as patents serve to protect a company’s intellectual property from any attempt to replicate or reproduce the product. As patents have evolved, so too have the regulations regarding them, and in turn have been some of the major factors causing farmers issues. Thanks to changes in patent laws, farmers have been pushed toward less economically efficient methods of running their farms. Whether having to purchase seeds yearly or pay to have their tractors serviced, they have no choice but to comply if they would like to continue to use the improved farming methods. So how do the farmers speak up against the companies if they do not have the resources to fight them? Without an outside resistance, they stand no chance. If given free rein in determining the restrictions set for a product, the companies involved could cause a vast array of changes to how patents are enforced, allowing for stricter regulation and removal of ownership of the product in the event that the consumer breaches a contract. These types of issues currently plaguing farmers are indicators of a path that technology and innovation may take if allowed to continue where it is headed, changing the definition of ownership on a consumer level, and one that should be avoided at all costs. 

Notwithstanding the improvements that companies like Monsanto and John Deere bring to the field of farming, some harm comes with it and stems from the power that the companies hold over their products. This control, if left unchecked, may be seen as an example of an exemplary business model, influencing the decisions and tactics of other companies that try to replicate the model, thus limiting and affecting consumer goods. Despite the control the companies already possess, those who value the idea of ownership of a product should make every effort to protect those values. By doing so they will be assisting farmers and ensuring that the concept of ownership remains unchanged.

A patent on an idea or product brings security to the creator, ensuring that they control creative rights to their idea. Originally used to cover inorganic tools and machines, the rules have changed to allow for products like seeds and software to be covered. As new classifications of patents arise, the initial structure and practice of filing and protecting a patent have stayed fairly rigid while the need for a rework has grown. With the addition of these categories, the limits of what the patent covers are not initially set. Seeds, an organic organism, are now covered under United States Patents due to the introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms produced by companies like Monsanto. Since their inclusion, the laws that regulate the seeds have greatly changed, and are now at the point where farmers are not allowed to save seeds from the last harvest or purchase them from a neighbor. These laws allow the parent companies to conduct unapproved investigations of farmer’s farms, looking for the GMO seeds that blew in from neighboring farms. If the investigators find traces of the GMO seeds in the farmer’s crop and he cannot prove that he bought them, he must prepare for a legal battle most likely ending in a huge loss of capital. 

The extent of the damages done to farmers by GMOs does not only deal with the parent company but also the neighboring farms. The farms that use GMOs and are not cautious in their treatment of their crops, allowing the herbicide used for treatment to drift over to other fields. This overspray tends to settle on the developing crops of non-GMO farmers devastating and ravaging their fields. Although affected farmers seek settlements against Monsanto for their loss of crops, most end with nothing gained. The patent abuse does not stop with seeds, instead it extends over to a more digital world. 

With complex software comes complex rules, at least that is what some companies want people to believe. A result of software patenting, the company John Deere seeks to protect their software patent by claiming that their machines have become too complex to allow farmers to continue to repair tractors themselves. Rather than allowing the farmers to service the tractors they purchase, John Deere claims that all maintenance must be done by a certified technician. To further divide the issue, the company plans on removing ownership of the tractors from the farmers. Instead they are opting for a contracted payment stating that any maintenance done by the farmer forfeits the tractor to the parent company. Not currently in action, if allowed the way software patents function would change, causing changes in how ownership is processed for electronic devices. This would affect devices like cell phones, cars and even houses as more smart software is integrated into the construction. This is an important consideration when viewing how the patents have gotten to where they allow the abuse that the companies present to the farmers and how the issues can transfer to other industries. 

As patent laws change to cover the expanse of new ideas, the methods used to control their use tend to become more obscure. Companies like Monsanto and John Deere are two leaders in this push for tighter control of patented products, aiming for what can be described as a complete removal of ownership. As Kyle Wiens wrote, “Because computer code snakes through the DNA of modern tractors, farmers receive an implied license for the life of the vehicle to operate the vehicle” (Wiens). What this means is there is no consumer ownership to a John Deere tractor, no ability to make personal repairs or modify the tractor the farmer pays for without the threat of having the tractor seized. The company can exert this level of control over their products for one reason, “as digitally transformed enterprises become software companies, they are wading into unknown waters” (Bloomberg).  Slightly different from patents, software integration for pre-existing technology is much less structured, possessing the possibility to cause major changes in how software in general is regulated, and these changes are what John Deere seeks. If the ability to remove ownership through software copyrights succeeds, the implications of the change will extend to other consumer devices that contain complex software. 

With John Deere’s software regulations, some good may come in the form of a data collection service offered by the company. Beginning in 2014, John Deere and Monsanto began offering competing collection services to assist farmers in optimizing their crop yields through real time data collection. This service allows for “the perfect prescription of seeds for their soil and weather because the company will have more data than any one farmer can collect or analyze” (Charles). Similar programs, although beneficial come at a major loss of privacy for the farmer. If the farmer agrees to the contract presented, he is submitting himself to constant surveillance which for some may not be a concern. This lack of privacy comes at a risk for those unconcerned as it opens a path for the companies to further strengthen their ability to restrict farmers. For some farmers using Monsanto GMO seeds also paired with their monitoring services, if the company’s rules are not strictly followed, the farmers run the risk of possible future issues with the company.

Although John Deere’s grasp at control only began recently, Monsanto has held a tight grip on their seed supply for over two decades and they have the legal might to back it. Whether it is farmers being accused of using illegally purchased seeds, or reusing seeds harvested from last year, Monsanto only allows the use of its seeds if they are directly purchased from the company. For those farmers unlucky enough to be caught in the crosshairs, “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay” (Barlett and Steele 320). Whether the farmers did what the company accuses them of or not, most end up paying what the company asks before making it to court. For those farmers that try to fight Monsanto who saved seeds from a previous crop, there is no question of which entity will win. Monsanto gained its control over the harvested seeds in the court case Monsanto Co. v. Mcfarling with the decision that “subsequent generations of seed fall within the scope of Monsanto’s patents…these rulings provide inventors of self-replicating the legal protection necessary to make a return on their cost of invention” (Savich 116). Due to these rulings, any company patenting any form of self-replicating technology as well as the reproduced copies are protected by the original patent, effectively protecting the wallets of the patentors. This change in ruling allows the company to go to whatever means it deems necessary to protect the seeds relying on “a shadowy army of private investigators ad agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country” (Barlett and Steele 320). With farmers in constant worry of visits from whom they call the seed mafia, it should come as no surprise that Monsanto is able to maintain their extreme level of control.

Even with Monsanto’s seeds protected through patents, the farming practices used on the GMO are causing massive losses to the farming industry, including those using GMO seeds. Monsanto seeds while growing are resistant to the herbicide RoundUp which the company also produces. Treatment of the crop dictates that the crop can be sprayed with the herbicide after it has begun growing. Although great for the farmers with the GMO seeds, the treatment technique has plenty of negative side effects. One of the more direct issues involves the overspray of herbicide to neighboring farms not using GMO seeds. “Over 2,200 other farmers growing soybeans, tomatoes, melons, grapes and other crops across 20 states have reported crop damage on more than three million acres, slashing harvests by a third or more” (Freese). A serious issue, farmers of all crops see a loss of profit due to GMO seeds, regardless of any direct involvement with Monsanto. Additionally, the wide use of the herbicides is causing resistant weeds to start to sprout. These weeds affect both farmers and the general population alike, as they are resistant to traditional methods of removal. A result of the weeds, farming techniques have suffered a set-back leading some farm experts to speculate that “such efforts could lead to higher food prices, lower crop yields, rising farm costs and more pollution of land and water” (Nueman and Pollack). If Monsanto will be held accountable for the issues is still unknown, but the practices have and will continue to affect countless others until they are.

As complex as the issues seem for the farmers, companies like John Deere and Monsanto will have a major impact on the consumer industry if allowed to continue their practices. One example of a country acting against Monsanto comes from Argentina. In Argentina, since their introduction, Monsanto has struggled to control their seeds anywhere near the level of those in the United States. In the early 1990s Monsanto began seeking protection for their GMO seeds and applying for patents, in response “Argentine legislation allow rural producers to save seeds from their own fields for future cultivation…the Argentine Supreme Court denied Monsanto a patent on RR [RoundupReady] soybeans in 2000” (Filomeno 37). Not only does the country allow farmers to harvest and save seeds, they refuse to support Monsanto’s claims to intellectual property rights preventing Monsanto from keeping the farmers from re-harvesting their seeds. Although troublesome for the company, sales of seeds are still made, just not in as large of volume as the United States market. With the two markets at extremes from each other, an ideal balance can be found towards a more moderate approach. 

John Deere and Monsanto, acting in the same manner as most other companies, seek to ensure the protection of their respective intellectual property in what every way can greatly benefit them. With advances in fields of technology creating never before seen GMO seeds or complicated tractor software, these strides in innovation must be properly protected, while also not providing any sort of unfair change to how these ideas are controlled. Even with GMOs beginning their regulation nearly twenty years ago, there has not been a large effort to assist farmers in fighting the controlling companies to return the regulation to its previous rendition. Instead, as Monsanto wages and wins countless court cases against the American farmers, the control they have over their patent regulation strengthens, further supporting companies attempting similar tactics like John Deere.

John Deere’s side to this issue is a little more impactful, as it has not fully been enacted. If allowed, any device possessing complex software that John Deere produces would require the signing of an end-user licensing agreement (EULA) at the time of purchase. With EULA’s that deal with computer software being the basis for John Deere’s agreement, any tampering with the software would theoretically ‘break’ the EULA voiding the customers ownership. John Deere claims that any modifications made to repair the tractor without the proper diagnostic software would break the EULA, but the company fails to provide the equipment to the farmers forcing them to seek more expensive authorized sources of repairs. In the event of a breach of the EULA, once ownership is forfeited the tractor would be removed, leaving the farmer in debt with no tractor to continue his livelihood. This business structure that John Deere plans to build is one that should be avoided. The implications of its success compounded with the initial impact that Monsanto achieved with patenting self-replicating technology may have serious repercussions in the structure of future patent regulations to the consumer market.

As advances in technology are made, one thing is clear. Mankind is moving to a more technical side of innovation. Whether it’s the inclusion of sophisticated software into daily household items like ovens, dishwashers, and washing machines, or improvements in the medical field with replicating skin tissue and organs, these future consumer products could be greatly affected. Imagine having to forfeit a dish washer for using the wrong detergent, thus breaking the EULA. Picture receiving a kidney transplant that has been modified to regenerate itself when damaged, but due to its self-replicating nature the patent holder is able to charge the patient anytime the kidney repairs itself. This could be the future of technology, and is not an optimal one for the consumer. Instead, those that value true ownership of their products and those who believe that once a product is paid for, even if it replicates and the quantity increases, no further payment is due must bring recognition to this issue. Recognition of a topic brings a larger audience, and in turn bring resistance towards the issue, resistance that is beneficial to ensure that the consumers’ needs are protected. Resistance that puts limits on how far a company’s control can extend before it is halted. If companies are not met with resistance by consumers, the companies will push for stricter control over their product every time. Otherwise a bleak future for personal ownership is one that can be expected as time progresses.
