Matta has identified a slight discrepancy in intellectual property law, which may, if given contemplative attention, may disqualify the ability for an individual or corporation to own the patent on a seed.
Monsanto uses an ability to own patents on seeds to wield power over neighboring farmers, and markets and consumers who are dependent on their food production.
Copyright law, in works of authorship, only extends to the completed work, and never to the idea alone.
Ideas are as naturally-occurring and freely-flowing as seeds. Ideas become works of art and invention, and seeds become produce and nutrients.
Monsanto, as they defend their actions, points out that their seeds do not occur in nature, and thus, are eligible for intellectual property protection. However, it can be seen that a seed can be carried from a Monsanto-owned-or-regulated field to a neighbor's field, as easily as an idea in the area of creative works can carry from one inventor to another.
Intellectual property law does not extend to protect an idea, in this case. It insists that the idea be fixed in a tangible medium, for there to be any legitimate basis for legal recourse, of the sort that Monsanto undertakes to usurp and maintain its monopolistic actions.
Intellectual property law, therefore, should extend to the protection of seeds in precisely the same parameters, which would, it can be seen, not be applicable to the seeds which evolve to become nutrients and produce in the same manner that creative ideas evolve to become celebrated, or protectable, works of art and authorship.