But look at the flip side where the court ruled the farmer cannot be liable for a plant naturally spreading into his field (and the farmer upon learning this using the specific herbicide meant for that specific plant strain). You now have precedent that if the plant "accidentally" (wink wink) spreads to your field you are not liable for the cost of the plant
To be totally honest, I am fine with the situation you just described. The only argument in favour of IP is "but what about the economics of the seeds?" i.e. "but how will corporations get rich without it?" and my answer is: they will have to find some other way to contribute to humanity than placing a stranglehold on the freedoms of the poor.
Edit for those whose rebuttal is all too predictable: I know this affects the incentive structure for developing new science. But I don't think it's at all clear that the current incentives are actually a good thing in the long run. Alternatives for income could be one of the following: providing a service, producing and selling the seeds, working with local farmers to help them maximise yield from the seeds you developed, securing donations from those who stand to benefit from your research... etc.
Your logic would apply to all seeds, right? If you have any plant on your property and you can't provide a receipt for its seed or conclusively prove that a bird dropped the seed, you should be convicted of theft.
