But patent law exists largely to balance the needs of the innovators with the needs of the public to create better generics over time. This is far more the cas

But patent law exists largely to balance the needs of the innovators with the needs of the public to create better generics over time. This is far more the case, regarding the creation of better generic products, there than with copyright, but copyright serves the same balance as well. An additional aspect includes the rights of the consumer and balancing these as well. The problem I have here is that the patents are being used in a way here which serves only the innovator, and precludes better generic products over time. This fundamentally unbalanced by corporations which are greedy for both power and money, and in an area where the rights of the consumer are particularly important, namely food supply. So it isn't enough to say: > If the creation of this sort of tech is desirable -- and I'd argue that the market really, really wants this stuff -- then there's nothing weird about creating legal mechanisms that support it. I think one also has to add, "provided that the rights and interests of other parties are respected and supported as well." That's what's wrong with Monsanto in this case (as well as Prometheus in their failed case last year, and the breast cancer gene patents, etc).