The unfairness lies not only in the pretence that the discovery of genes is an invention and thus patentable, but even more in the denial of the innovation of indigenous and local communities, who produce the varieties and protect their genes in the first place, as worthy of legal protection. It is true that the communities select from naturally occurring mutations and they thus do not, in the strict sense, create the varieties. But neither do the genetic engineers, who shuffle genes around without the use of naturally occurring biomolecular reactions. It should also be underlined that it is only genes that occur naturally that they shuffle around. In any case, claims for the recognition of the achievements of local and indigenous communities are being made now only as a reaction to the less plausible claims to invention by genetic engineers.
Sharing is itself an achievement in the values of local and indigenous communities.
But if sharing leads to being subverted, obviously a reassessment of old values is called for. It also allows, but does not force, them to patent animals. An 'invention' in this sense is not necessarily a product of modern biotechnology. The use of Neem, an Indian tree traditionally used as a pesticide, has, for example, been patented in the USA, Germany and Japan without any use of modern biotechnology. So has Endod from Ethiopia, while teff, taken from Ethiopia and grown in the USA only for one season in order to describe its morphology, has been given a breeders' right protection as the property of the 'Teff Corporation of America'.