By Ryan Crawford
ABSTRACT:
Advances in genetic modification techniques enable the creation of crops with commercially desirable characteristics. Recombined gene sequences may be inserted into a crop’s genome to protect it against herbicides, insects, or rodents. In the United States, a variety of patent and trade secret protections are afforded the developers of such crops and other genetically modified organisms. The scope of these protections has been interpreted more broadly over the years by the courts. This broadening of legal protections has occurred as the relationship between the developers of seed, the government, and farmers has changed from one in which seed development was largely the work of the government and academia, especially public universities and land grant colleges, to one in which seed development is increasingly privatized, or accomplished through the alliance of private and public forces.
These changes have been influenced by Congressional legislation and its judicial construction. Chakrabarty and J.E.M. v. Pioneer are leading cases defining the protections available to the developers of seed. Both hold that broad, overlapping regimes of legal protection exist for the developers of seed. These cases paved the way for the development of the genetic modification of crops that have been marketed to, and adopted by, American farmers. These crops are commonly sold in bags with seedwrap licenses prohibiting, inter alia, the saving and replanting of the seed they contain. Seedwrap licenses protect seed companies’ investments by making farmers purchase new seed every year, rather than saving seed from the previous year’s planting. Recent lower court decisions have upheld the validity of seedwrap licenses. These most recent decisions may comport with constitutional imperatives but represent a continuing departure from prior agricultural seed-developing practices and a shift in legal protection from growers to developers.
CITE AS:
David Ray, Note, The Copyright Implications of Web Archiving and Caching, 14 SYRACUSE SCI. & TECH. L. REP. 1 (2006).
NOTE: Footnotes in this abstract were omitted.