If you're speaking of Bowman v. Monsanto, that is incorrect.
Bowman was about a second crop.
In case of a legitimate sale, the purchaser has the right to use the product sold for the purpose indicated: growing a crop for market sale. Any licenses from the seller which may be necessary to use it for the purpose indicated must be included with the sale.
Bowman had the right to plant the seeds he bought. That was not what he got sued over.
Bowman also had a second generation; what he planted the second time were seeds that, per the license, he had the right to sell--but not to plant.
Monsanto does sell licenses to grow seed for planting, but that comes with a royalty. If you use traits from Monsanto, you end up paying Monsanto for each generation you plant. It works the same way for seed companies.
(Note: I'm not arguing that the current laws are ideal. But they aren't nearly as bad as some people make them out to be.)