I think you missed the point here that these are GM seeds. Given how little is actually known about genetic processes and their environmental impacts, the release of GM seeds is, at the very least, a grave violation of the precautionary principle. This is a case of experimental technology having outrun scientific knowledge. But, of course, having invested large sums in the development of GM technology, large corporations are going to attempt to force governments to implement their use rather than accept the loss on their bad investment. When one adds in the requirement of patent enforcement to sustain the profitability of the technology, which has not just added costs, but renders farmers entirely dependent on corporations for their seed-stock, at once restricting the economic options of farmers and dangerously restricting the genetic diversity of seed-stock, then it is questionable whether GM technology is economic at all.

Another reason why patented seed saving isn't equivalent to convention theft:
One result of seed saving - as farmers have been doing since the beginning of agricuture - is genetic selection - intentional, unconscious, or just plain ol' natural - resulting in a diverse multitude of varieties adapted, however imperfectly to local conditions, cultural uses and preferences, etc.

( *This picture has changed greatly in the developed world over the last century - read "The Green Revolution and geopolitics," it's fun - but many things have stayed the same)

Ironically, the GE industry and its supporters have explicitly portrayed genetic engineering as really just a slight variation on this process (if also an incredible and revolutionary new thing)

But anyway, in other words, people replanting patented seeds are, over the years, changing the nature of the 'product.' Whether or not this is a good thing, it makes the Times' filesharing' analogy inaccurate. A better comparison would be companies suing over unofficial fansites, fanfics, re-edited movies, or by extension any use of copyrighted ideas in popular culture - satire (ie, 'The Wind Done Gone,' 'Fair and Balanced,' general assimilation (terms like 'Soup Nazi,' the compex interplay of oral/folk and written traditions in song and story), etc, etc. And, as has been pointed out, over all of this is the fact that we are talking about life, and food. Music may be the food of love, but crops are food plain and simple.

I'm a very cautious supporter of agricultural biotech - too many _Nature Biotechnology_ articles with bits like "And then half the cauliflowers just turned purple for reasons we do not understand " will do a lot to dampen one's enthusiasm - and agree that we need some kind of trade-off that promotes innovation without creating a dangerous and stupid situation.

Perhaps, in an ideal world, Monsanto should give up on the patent bit -ha- and try to recoup investments by going for ease, efficiency, and various value added things and services. Leaving things to the nonprofit and.or governmental sector might work out better than expected, but maybe not.

As far as I can see, the only truly efficient option is to eliminate the concept of intellectual property altogether and find alternative means to fund the development of new ideas, technologies, stories, etc. For example, unlimited free music downloads for everyone, with the artists paid from taxes based on how many people download the music (preferably capped at a reasonable amount to compensate for the work put in to create the music). That would maximise the public benefit from the music, and eliminate the massive waste of resources that is corporate promotion of particular artists to maximise profits, allowing people to make up their own minds about what they want to listen to. Similar benefits apply to doing the same with medicine, GE, etc. And with no profits to be made, the decision whether or not to actually use new potentially dangerous technology such as GE can be made based on a genuine assessment of risks and benefits.