Vernon Bowman, a 75-year-old farmer from rural Indiana, did something that got him sueD. He planted soybeans of those seeds. Have we really gotten to the point that planting a seed can lead to a high-stakes Supreme Court patent lawsuit? We have, and that case is Bowman vs. Monsanto, which is being argued on Tuesday. Monsanto's critics have attacked the company for its “merciless legal battles against small farmers," and they are hoping this will be the case that puts it in its placE. They are also hoping the court’s ruling will rein in patent law, which is increasingly being used to claim new life forms as private property. Monsanto and its supporters, not surprisingly, see the case very differently. They argue that when a company like Monsanto goes to great expense to create a valuable new genetically modified seed; it must be able to protect its property interests. If farmers like Bowman are able to use these seeds without paying the designated fee, it will remove the incentives for companies like Monsanto to innovatE. Monsanto accused Bowman of patent infringement and won an $ 84 456 damage awarD. Rather than pay up or work out a settlement. Bowman decided to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court. He said Monsanto should not be able, just because they've got billions of dollars to spend on legal fees, to try to terrify farmers into obeying their agreements by massive force and threats. The central issue in the case is whether patent rights to living things extend to the progeny of those things. Monsanto argues that its patents extend to later generations. But Bowman's supporters argue that Monsanto is trying to expand the scope of patents in ways that would enrich big corporations and hurt small farmers. They say that if Monsanto wins, the impact will extend far beyond agriculture-locking up property rights in an array of important areas. Knowledge Ecology International contends that the Supreme Court's ruling could have "profound effects" on other biotech industries. If this were a Hollywood movie, the courageous old Indiana farmer would beat the profit-minded corporation before the credits rolleD. But this is a real-life argument before a Supreme Court that has a well-earned reputation for looking out for the interests of large corporations. This case gives the court an opportunity to rein in the growing use of patents to protect genetically engineered crops and other life forms—but the court may well use it to give this trend a powerful new endorsement. 66. Why did Vernon Bowman get sued? A. He used genetically modified seeds to feed his cattlE. B. He planted soybeans without paying for the patent. C. He made a profit out of Monsanto’s commercial secrets. D. He obtained Monsanto's patented seeds by illegal means. 67. What are Monsanto’s critics hoping the Supreme Court will do? A. Allow small farmers to grow genetically modified soybeans. B. Punish Monsanto for infringing on small farmers' interests. C. Rule against Monsanto's excessive extension of its patent rights. D. Abolish the patent law concerning genetically engineered seeds. 68. What is the argument of Monsanto and its supporters? A. Patent rights should be protected to encourage innovation. B. Bowman cannot plant the seeds without Monsanto's consent. C. Monsanto has the right to recover the costs of its patented seeds. D. Patent law on genetically modified seeds should not be challengeD. 69. What is the key issue in the Bowman vs Monsanto case? A. Whether patent for seeds is harmful to agricultural production. B. Whether the biotech industry should take priority over agriculturE. C. Whether measures should be introduced to protect small farmers. D. Whether patent for living things applies to their later generations. 70. What do we learn from the last paragraph? A. Hollywood movies usually have an unexpected, dramatic impact on real-life arguments. B. The Supreme Court will try to change its reputation for supporting large corporations. C. The Supreme Court is likely to persuade the parties concerned to work out a settlement. D. The ruling would be in Bowman's favor if the case were argued in a Hollywood moviE.