They had an opportunity to reject the notion that organisms are patentable
Did they really? My understanding is that they would only be able to do this if Mr Bowman had tried to challenge the validity of the patent on that grounds. While the link to the decision is broken, the article makes no mention of him arguing against the validity of the patent at all.
Right. And that's because the patentability of a seed or plant was decided by SCOTUS in 2001 in J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U. S. 124 (2001). People who keep hoping for a ruling from SCOTUS that organisms aren't patentable are living in the past.
The supreme court routinely reaches all kinds of weird decisions based on questionable legal precedent and theory. For them to be so careful to not overstep here is suspect.
I don't think this will change your thinking much but, for what it's worth: I am a lawyer, and I work day in and day out with other lawyers (including some federal judges) with no stake in this case. I've yet to speak to a person who disagrees with this opinion, at least as a legal matter. I for one think it's absolutely correct given the extrinsic legal landscape that exists today (i.e., congressional statutes, relevant precedent, etc.).
(Of course, the nature and existence of a distinction between a "legal matter" and a "moral matter" is a famously controversial issue ... but that's a different kettle of fish altogether.)
I'm going to assume that anyone who thinks a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court is "suspect" has a lifetime supply of tin foil hats in their bunker.
Cases related to intellectual property of genetic material and/or code (which has a dual nature and can be copyrightable or patentable in different situations) are notoriously difficult for judges and justices to sort out.
When judges do not have a personal interest in code (like Judge Alsop had, at least a little bit), and no personal interest in the nature of genetics and biology, it's simple for an Oracle or a Monsanto to make reasonable sounding (but completely wrong) arguments and for the court to accept them.
I don't think critical thinking is effective without at least a little personal investigation into the subject matter. Judges depend on reading opposing arguments and distilling the essence of the conflict from that, but in some subjects you can't get an understanding of the essence of the conflict without a neutral investigation of the subject itself.
Go right ahead. I have no bunker and no tinfoil hats. But don't let reality get in the way of a narrative you'd like to tell yourself.
If you don't want to believe that it's possible for a government to be corrupt, or perhaps our government in particular that's fine. I can't stop you. But it's silly to assume that I'm a crazy person simply because I find it plausible that corruption (which is a thing proven to exist in the real world we live in) could happen inside the government as well as outside it.
I certainly believe it's possible for government to be corrupt. I don't have any problem with people calling the motivations and actions of individual officials into question. But I think it's far-fetched to suggest that 9 judges with diverse backgrounds and with positions for life have all been corrupted on a given issue.
Did they really? My understanding is that they would only be able to do this if Mr Bowman had tried to challenge the validity of the patent on that grounds. While the link to the decision is broken, the article makes no mention of him arguing against the validity of the patent at all.