We're talking about different things here. A more productive, disease-resistant strain of soybean (or maize, rice, sweet potato, etc.) is of obvious benefit to the whole of humanity, and could be the goal of any charitable organization, philanthropist, government, or corporation. (I imagine that the increased sales of Roundup herbicide would be at best a minor criterion in the reckoning of most such institutions.) Better diabetes treatment would allow fat old Westerners to keep stuffing their gobs in relative comfort for a few more decades. I agree that no other sort of funding mechanism would be likely to bring about that latter, more dubious benefit.

I have no quarrel with those who bring new airplanes, soybeans, or medicines to market. I do quarrel with those who want to undermine the rule of law in society to make those efforts more profitable. For millennia farmers have replanted seeds; the activity is the basis of agriculture. Monsanto didn't own the beans this farmer planted, nor did they own the plants that bore those beans nor the elevators that stored them. They might have sold him Roundup, but if they felt they should be better rewarded for that then they should have charged him more. The court system does not exist to salve the butthurt that Monsanto executives get when their schemes of control and coercion go awry. There's entirely too much control and coercion in modern agriculture in the USA already.

If as a result of these proceedings Monsanto were to find that it couldn't charge a premium for its bean varieties, it might very well decide to charge a premium for its Roundup herbicide. That would change incentives in modern agriculture for the better. Instead of committing every year to excessive sunk costs for the purchase of patented seeds, which later in the season induce additional purchase of Roundup to protect that investment, farmers would be more willing to "wait and see" and try different combinations of weed control methods. Roundup use wouldn't cease, but it would be seen more accurately as a more expensive option and so its use would probably decrease a bit. Monsanto would be welcome to bump prices even more if they thought that would help.

I don't support the government even having access to billions of dollars, let alone handing them out to anyone, and I struggle to see how my initial comment could have left such an impression. I do see the extant patent regime as a pillar of modern state capitalism, which tends to reinforce the power of state bureaucrats rather than undermining it.