I agree with your sentiment, I do see some nuance here though. This phenotype is very valuable in how it could reduce inputs across industrial agriculture--and industrial agriculture is an extremely competitive and well-developed market. Entrenched interests are change-averse (unless they themselves are exploiting the change), so the very powerful industry will either squash this plant if it threatens their dominance, or squeeze every last penny out of it through patents. The net benefit will be best for everyone involved if the Nitrogen-fixing phenotype is hybridized into every corn cultivar around, which is only likely to happen if big-ag can exploit it for profit. That being the case, can we find a way to reward the farmers who genetically engineered this plant by selecting for the strongest individuals for the last several thousands years? Perhaps we can compensate them proportionately to the western seed companies who will close the last-mile gap getting this valuable trait to market.

A simple upvote is not enough of a show of agreement for this perspective. Genetics should not be own-able.

So question based on this, is this a reason to be for non-GMOs? I would imagine that a lot of GMO crops have such patents, and as such, by purchasing them, you are supporting the patent holders. On the other hand, non-GMO craps would not have such patents, so you are not supporting them.

I imagine there could be a flaw in this logic, but I welcome thoughts to it.