By Dennis Crouch
Organic Seed Growers and Trade Ass’n v. Monsanto Company (Fed. Cir. 2013)
In 2011, Dan Ravicher at PubPat led a group of 23 plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Monsanto seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed patents. Although not directly related, the patents challenged here are the same as those that Monsanto has asserted against dozens of farmers for growing unlicensed versions of its Round-Up Ready Soybeans. See, e.g., Bowman v. Monsanto (2013). In the present case, however, none of the plaintiffs want to grow genetically modified crops. Instead, the case asserts that the organic and heritage seed growers are in fear of becoming liable for inadvertently growing patented seeds. In many ways, patent infringement can be considered a strict liability tort and, as such, the unknowing use of another’s patented invention still creates liability for patent infringement. Thus far, Monsanto has promised that it will not sue farmers who inadvertently grow its patented crops so long as the farmers do not take advantage of their glyphosate resistant properties and so long as the farmer’s do not intentionally re-plant GM progeny. However, Monsanto has not offered any clear covenant-not-to-sue for inadvertent growing. Recent news that Monsanto’s experimentally genetically modified and non-FDA approved wheat has inadvertently spread even though Monsanto had attempted to destroy all of the crops.
The district court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction – finding that there was “no justiciable case or controversy” as required under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. On appeal, the Federal Circuit has now affirmed — holding that “appellants have not alleged any circumstances placing them beyond the scope of [Monsanto’s] assurances.”
In dicta, the court spelled out the no-fair-use doctrine of patent law – writing that even trace amounts of infringing material can still constitute infringement. See SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 403 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and Embrex, Inc. v. Serv. Eng’g Corp., 216 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Rader, J., concurring). The court also recognized that it is “likely inevitable” that conventional crops are contaminated with genetically modified crops. However, the fact that someone is likely infringing does not create declaratory judgment jurisdiction. Rather, the patentee must have taken some additional step to create some threat of enforcement and here, Monsanto has only stated that it will not sue unless the farmers take advantage of the patented seeds unique properties. The plaintiffs case here fails because they “have not made any allegations that they fall outside Monsanto’s representations.”
In sum, Monsanto’s binding representations remove any risk of suit against the appellants as users or sellers of trace amounts (less than one percent) of modified seed. The appellants have alleged no concrete plans or activities to use or sell greater than trace amounts of modified seed, and accordingly fail to show any risk of suit on that basis. The appellants therefore lack an essential element of standing. The district court correctly concluded that it lacks Declaratory Judgment Act jurisdiction.
Dismissal Affirmed
Avoid GMO’s at all costs! Here’s how!
link to ultraculture.org
Sorry Les – haven’t watched the movie. Having way too much fun enjoying my gloatfest over Malcolm.
Maybe next weekend.
(ps – did you catch the double faceplant link at link to patentlyo.com ? – that was in your honor)
LOL
In light of Myriad and the archives.
LOL LOL LOL LOL
UOPX”C”
Based on the ruling and your discussions about the wind, would this then fall under 9.3.C. “Remedies” that they continue to violate federal law?
No need to sit through the noise and lens flares again.
43 second in:
link to youtube.com
Two important 101 cases in the last 24 hours (PTAB and S. Ct.), and Pat-O seems to be asleep at the switch . . .
Thanks Les – I did miss the Abrams (reboot) reference. I guess I will have to watch that movie again this weekend.
What I did not like was not the reference though – I did not like the seeds/inherent to making seeds miss that you engaged in – and evidently, still do.
As I mentioned, ‘seeds’ is merely a shortcut, and if you understand the issue, your humor simply is not that funny.
Maybe it will be funny when I watch the Abrams reboot. If so, I will be sure to give you kudos.
The Oz reference was in my very first post (the one you didn’t like.
The beauty (now lost if I have to explain it) of the reference, on which you now comment, is that it is a Star Trek (The first J.J. Abrams movie)/ Oz reference.
As to the substance of your remark, I note that both Jr. and Sr. (and apparently the farmers addressed by Sr.) discuss SEEDS. There is no mention of pollen in any of this (until your comment of course).
One seriously misguided QQ from you 6.
As to the anthropomorphication spelling comments – look them up, they are archived, you know. Focus on the meaning (and you did not answer the direct question: do machines think? – hmmm, I wonder why?).
As to poor poor Malcolm, hey if he wants to pervert law “IN THE COMFORT OF HIS OWN HOME OR OFFICE,” that’s fine, I will let him be. But you do realize that posting in the comments section of a VERY PUBLIC INTERNETZ BLOG is most definitely broadcasting your poison beyond your comfy own home or office, right?
I have explained this many many many times. Malcolm has power to control my (very correct and righteous) posts. All he has to do is refrain from spewing his CRP in the first place. Most puppies learn this very quickly. So try (again? for the first time?) to understand my post at 7:22 – key in on the word ‘appreciation.’
“Do you know that I have commented many times on the preference and auto-correct of the spelling of anthropomorphication?”
No, what were your “comments” on your misspelling this word?
“And the ‘so what’ is the incorrect application of philosophy to law. That just so happens to be one big mother F of a deal – if you had any appreciation of the law, you would not even have to ask ‘so what.'”
You’re misunderstanding the question, as you do with most things in your miserable existence, the “so what” is in reference to MM doing even specifically what you say, for the sake of this argument, IN THE COMFORT OF HIS OWN HOME OR OFFICE. Why do you care what he does? Let him. Leave him be. FFS bro you don’t have to troll everyone all the time, especially MM, let him be.
D@mmit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a spellchecker.
(said in the best Dr. McCoy tones)
Do you know that I have commented many times on the preference and auto-correct of the spelling of anthropomorphication?
Pay attention son.
And the ‘so what’ is the incorrect application of philosophy to law. That just so happens to be one big mother F of a deal – if you had any appreciation of the law, you would not even have to ask ‘so what.’
You do know that the correct spelling is Anthropomorphization right ta rd?
link to thefreedictionary.com
And so what if he is anthropomophizing the CPU? So wut brother tro llface? Why can’t you just let him anthropomorphize in peace?
The problem we faced, and I represented a class in a class action case, was that Minnesota then had no tort for invasion of privacy. Minnesota was one of only 4 such states.
It appears that that is no longer the case based on a 1998 Supreme Court of Minnesota case.
link to nlgattorneys.com
What HB OH did, IMHO, was clearly illegal and a tort. If they try it again, I would hope the ACLU would join in in some fashion.
D@mmit Jim, I’m a doctor, not a lexicographer.
(said in the best Dr. McCoy tones)
Still waiting for that ONE example of a specific 1ie about you, Malcolm.
Seems we have ridden this merry-go-round many times. You accuse. I ask for a single example. You attempt some obfuscation and FAIL. I call you out on your FAIL. You run away.
Don’t you get tired of your CRP in your nose?
The sad thing is that the ACLU didn’t get it then. They do now.
6, the point is captured in one word:
ANTHROPOMORPHICATION
It will be repeated as necessary until the anti-software patent agenda treats the subject in an intellectually honest manner. You are better off asking why the anti-software people continue to post their blatant 1ies.
And since the war has been raging for what, fifty years or so, get used to seeing it.
The bonus is that it happens to be very cool word, so I will never tire of supplying it.
Jr. was merely being informal.
Let’s not be pedantic, OK?
(btw, nice Oz references)
“the wind actually doing it.”
That would not be a change in facts.
The wind still blows (as does your attempts at law).
But then again, we already knew that from your love of Calvinball face sp1kes.
3:19 response overruled: they belong to the same timeline.
Now if I had mixed in some of the reboot references…
Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t notice where you’d made that “point” previously. Or are you just now attempting to make it?
And so what if he does know exactly what he is saying and why he is saying it?
And if you know exactly what he is saying and why then why do you not presume that everyone else does and that you can spare us your drivel every single week that you repeat it?
I mean seriously, why continue posting about it every week?
The Farmer cannot say “The wind did it.”
Not unless there’s a slight change in the facts, e.g. the wind actually doing it. Infringement is a question of fact.
Then read this case – de minimis is still infringement,
I’m not saying it’s not an infringement to have one’s land cross-pollinated by an infringing crop from the next field. Please try to stay on topic.
actual use of the herbicide is not related to the act of making
Tell that to your Canadian farmer friend. Or anybody else who mysteriously winds up with a field of 100% Roundup-Ready crop and has no idea how it got there.
The Farmer’s efforts developing his own unique strain were destroyed.
Is this the same Canadian farmer who deliberately planted a thousand acres with Roundup-Ready seeds that he deliberately cultivated and saved for that purpose? Gosh, I feel so sorry for him.
Nevertheless, the growers were allegedly concerned about SEEDS blowing (according to Dennis Crouch, Jr.). In the case of corn, that would require kernels being blown off the cob, which in turn would first require the husk being blown off the cob
OR
would require blowing an entire cob into the next field and the husk eventually rotting away in the ground.
the infringement, my friend, would be blowing in a mighty strong wind, the infringement would be blowing in a might strong wind.
Buckle up Toto.
…but mixing TOS references with NG is not..
Les,
Read the simple link above. The pollen is inherent in growing the seeds.
Unless you have invented a new way of reproduction…
Fascinating.
6, the point is that MM knows EXACTLY what he is saying and why he is saying it.
And I know exactly what he is saying and why.
“Of course that farmer wouldn’t be liable. He hasn’t committed an act of infringement.”
Of course he has committed an act of infringment. He is responsible for the making of new patent covered units.
This was covered in a recent Supreme Court case, wherein the Court rejected a theory of ‘the seed did the making.’
The Farmer cannot say “The wind did it.”
Then read this case – de minimis is still infringement, and actual use of the herbicide is not related to the act of making (herbicide ki11s – it does not make).
As for a case – there is one I believe from Canada, but I don’t have the cite. The Farmer’s efforts developing his own unique strain were destroyed.
Star Trek humor is always permissable.
Engage!
Well je sus, I had to put something down for you ta rds, MM seems just content to constantly tell you without being specific that people are claiming a giant compoter brains! I just went ahead and googled you a ref to help you understand what he is talking about.
if pollen blew over and fertilized a crop they were all ready growing they are not liable.
Of course that farmer wouldn’t be liable. He hasn’t committed an act of infringement. The big challenge there is proving it. I suppose if you have a more than de minimis amount of infringing crop, but clearly not so much that it would be economical to wipe out the rest of your crop with herbicide, you might at least have an argument.
Funny that Monsanto manages to find defendants who claim the patented seeds/pollen blew onto their fields under cover of darkness or whatever, but seem to coincidentally have fields of 100% patented crop.
If they’re suing anybody with even a remotely plausible defense of involuntary pollination, someone please post the case cite.
Bones! Spock’s brain…..controls!
Did you hear that 6 and MM? Or do you wish to continue to refer to the computer “brain”? 6, apparently has told us that the “brain” is the CPU.
I would argue that the use of the words seeds here should be construed to mean seeds and if pollen blew over and fertilized a crop they were all ready growing they are not liable. In patent law generally words are/should be given very specific meanings. We are dealing with science here, where things are defined very specifically as compared to say accident reports.
As I mentioned, seeds is being used informally.
Words do have meanings: look up pedantic. You will likely find the right tree but in a completely wrong forest.
From the opening comment:
” Round-up resistant seeds have blown onto their land thereby inadvertently growing Monsanto seeds ”
From the article:
“In 2011, Dan Ravicher at PubPat led a group of 23 plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Monsanto seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Monsanto’s genetically modified seed patents…..In the present case, however, none of the plaintiffs want to grow genetically modified crops. Instead, the case asserts that the organic and heritage seed growers are in fear of becoming liable for inadvertently growing patented seeds. ”
Not one word about pollen. The pollen is in your head.
Words have meanings. If you’ve invented pollen, recite pollen in the claims, not seeds.
The discussion is about the genetic traits being transferred by wind – that would be the pollen. It is only informally being addressed as seeds.
Permission to poke fun denied.
Reminds me of the case where a company, lets call it HB OH, had a van that patrolled the streets with apparatus that could tune to and display what you were watching on your TV. If you were watching HP OH, but were not paying, they sued.
LOL – is that how you got busted, Ned?
Please stop calling it RR. I read that as RoundUp Ready. That’s a term applied to plants that are ready to be treated with RoundUp. The Monsanto calls the CHEMICAL RoundUp.
Anon,
The discussion is about seeds blowing, not pollen. May I poke fun now?
Les,
Before you make fun of someone else, do a little simple research.
“Maize (called corn in some parts of the world) is pollinated by wind.”
from: link to simple.wikipedia.org
6, there are lollipops in the lobby as you exit.
(I seem to remember an episode of WKRP in Cincinnati where electrons where described as the sharks and the protons and neutrons as the jets. Gee, I guess that is relevant to science, 6. Go suck on a lollipop.)
If a farmer is experiencing winds strong enough to blow an ear of GMO corn from his neighbors farm to hers AND plant it, I dare say she’s got bigger problems to deal with than having to pay Monsanto the royalties on the resulting bushel of corn…and her little dog too…
You know MM, you are part of this. You help people like this. Mark Lemley misrepresents facts and law in his articles that are published by law reviews.
Too bad that you don’t see how Lemley’s behavior and the behavior you are condemning are intertwined.
It is so odd that somehow or another our system has morphed into a system where there are no ethics. It is a new type of system. Sophisticated lies with a complicated regulatory structures that make it difficult for people to understand the lies.
Too bad, though, that you don’t get it. You don’t get that the key to unmasking and stopping the problems isn’t taking a side, but forcing the players to play fair–to make them accountable.
This article doesn’t surprise me. Some of the professors I had in law school were the lowest form of humans I’d ever met. And, it seemed the lower their morals the higher they rose.
I wonder if Lemley is getting a deal like this.
Next step 6: anthropomorphication
Do machines really think?
link to howstuffworks.com
“The computer brain is a microprocessor called the central processing unit (CPU)”
LOL – yes, of course, you “stand by this.”
Just [shrug] and imagine that your world is still alright and that you have achieved that ‘victory.’
What is curious is that I just busted you in a blatant 1ie, and all you can do is stand by.
Even puppies only need to have their noses rubbed in their CRP a few times to learn.
Still waiting.
There is a quintessential example, but it is not me.
One guess, the current f00l moniker begins and ends with M.
“Your incessant whining”
LOL – more accuse-others-of-what-you-do.
fyi, that “whining” is inresponse to your actual whining and/or misrepresentations.
The reason you see it so much is because I have so many marshmallows to toast on your flaming agenda – they are so yummy and the demand is so high.
“My camera is at least five years old and it “reconizes” faces.”
LOL – devi@nt shades of anthropomorphication.
Check out the three-prong premise that Dyk goes into. Note that Monsanto’s “I don’t see a course of action” wrecks this foundational premise.
Another vacuous post by Malcolm.
Attaboy.
“as a practical matter, how is this decision any different than a “clear” covenant not-to-sue farmers who sell seed with more than the recited trace amounts?”
Way to go Malcolm – do you consider this an answer too?
I posted earlier, asking why Monsanto simply did not make a clear covenant not to sue, and you ‘answer’ with a question.
The direct answer to your question is point-in-fact, the two simply are different.
A supporting element – and one I previously posted, is that the premise of the assertion from Monsanto is fatally flawed. That flaw is the foundation of “we see no action for patent infringement” (paraphrased), which Judge Dyk destroyed with his own writing on pages 12-13. The bidning promise has a critical flaw.
Try to actually read what I write and not be so possessed with tr011ing me.
I know it’s tough and that you have soome serious deep-seated psych issues, but try just a little.
Fascinating article here about NYU Law School professors and the massive grift factory they’ve set up for themselves, courtesy of the Wall Street lizards whose “work” they facilitate.
link to lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com
Just a taste:
There’s much, much more in the same vein, including Sexton’s own sweetheart deal, which includes a $1.5 million annual salary package, and which pay him a $2.5 milllion “length of service bonus” in two years. If you’re worried about whether Sexton’s social security payments will cover the co-op fees, don’t: he will also be paid $800,000 per year for life after he retires.
Plus there is this bonus at the end:
uber-Libertarian Richard Epstein (among other things he thinks most of the New Deal is unconstitutional) is now apparently triple-dipping in three federally tax-subsidized ponds: the University of Chicago, where he retains a faculty position, NYU Law School, where Revez paid Hayek only knows how much to reel in yet another prestigious hire, and the Hoover Institution, aka the Taj Mahal of well-heeled right-wing think tanks. No wonder he thinks everything’s just fine in Lawyerland.
Indeed. It must be very easy to make arguments that, e.g., paid sick leave is a bad idea or patents should cover more stuff and be easier for their wealthy owners to to assert, when the past few decades of one’s adult life have been spent gleefully choking down more money than 99.999% of Americans will ever see in their lives. In any case, Professor Epstein makes it look easy.
Note too, the accuse-others-of-what-he-does throw in of “just declare unilateral ‘victory’ over all your ‘enemies’”
LOL
Malcolm, you are simply the most dishonest person on this blog.
Ever.
From: link to patentlyo.com
The closest we have to Malcolm (but I do give answers winkwink) and the question of do machines think:
Starting on May 29, 2013 at 11:05 AM :
anon said in reply to MM…
“treatment of mental steps”
LOL – machines do not think – ANTHROPOMORPHICATION
MM said in reply to anon…
Trx11boy: ANTHROPOMORPHICATION
You should use italics, too, Trx11boy. And tons and tons of exclamation points. Then your “argument” will be even more “persuasive.” Or should I say “devastating”?
On the other hand, I suppose you could just declare unilateral “victory” over all your “enemies”. That worked pretty well for you in the past, didn’t it?
anon said in reply to MM…
What works really well is all the points and questions that you leave unanswered, Malcolm.
Or do you think that machines actually think?
MM said in reply to anon…
Trx11boy: do you think that machines actually think?
If by “think”, you mean “process information”, “determine stuff”, “compare stuff”, “remember stuff” or “sort stuff” then,
yes, some machines certainly do “think.”
You claim face recognition is old and known.
Maybe you can let everyone know what your definition of “face recognition” is. My camera is at least five years old and it “reconizes” faces. The inventors of that junk application admit that “face recognition” is old (they are just “enhancing” it) which is why the first step recites simply that the computer “selects a sample portion of an image that may depict a human face”.
See their background section: “facial-detection processing can determine whether an image depicts one or more faces.” From the Summary: “A facial detection system or application can provide an indication that a face is believed to be depicted in an image or a portion of an image. The present inventors recognized a need to assess the accuracy of a detection made by such a facial detection system.”
And the contribution of these inventors is to “automatically” look for “skin tone” colors in the detected “face”. If that isn’t a quintessential example of an insurmountabley obvious invention, then no such examples exist. We can quibble all day about every neuron that fires in a brain when it’s processing information (yes, brains do that) to determine whether a human face appears in an image, but I know that color is one of the considerations taken into account and weighed by my brain. I also know that billions of human beings, human-like creatures, (and other animals) have used the same criteria for millions of years.
You have simply not responded to my posts
Well, there you are. I hope it was as good for you as it was for me.
Slip Op p. 16: “Taken together, Monsanto’s representations unequivocally disclaim any intent to sue appellant growers, seed sellers, or organizations for inadvertently using or selling “trace amounts” of genetically modified seeds.”
Monsanto would be insane to go back on their representations, but regardless the CAFC has held they have disclaimed the intent to sue and so (at least as I read it) CAN NO LONGER sue on this basis.
Your ridicule of an application for face recognition may be justified for a particular application but not for all applications for face recognition.
So what do you think, NWPA – is the ridicule justified for the particular application that MM identified? Are those guys likely to get the Nobel Prize?
You know MM, you claim that you respond to people’s posts fairly, but you have not responded to my post.
We had a dispute. You claim face recognition is old and known. I pointed out that it is not old because it has never been solved adequately. That new applications should be reviewed using 102 and 103 with TSM.
I have given you some type of indication of the level of how important face recognition is to neuroscience as well as cognitive science and computer science.
You have simply ignored me. Your ridicule of an application for face recognition may be justified for a particular application but not for all applications for face recognition.
You have simply not responded to my posts and your clown IANAE has harassed me.
you should be eating a lot of crow.
Is that what you’re eating? Because I think it’s causing you to hallucinate.
You should be able to address the substance of his arguments regardless of whether or not he is anonymous.
Andrew did address the substance of Dumpty’s arguments. Dumpty chose to pretend that didn’t happen, just like Dumpty pretends that whether or not I have a spam filter on my email is relevant to anything.
This happens every day with Dumpty. That’s because Dumpty is a l-ying s0ci0path.
You have fully earned the trash I throw at you.
I don’t doubt that you believe this. Many s0ci0paths and path0logical liars are convinced of their righteousness and it’s impossible to persuade them otherwise. You’re a quintessential example, Dumpty.
Do you need me to hold your hand and explain why?
Dumpty does “explanations” now? LOL.
If you answered my question, Oregonian, I missed it. I’m not terribly interested in the complete history of “federal regulation of genetically engineered crops.” I am interested in your statement:
federal regulators and legislators have relied on patent law to de facto regulate GE crops
How exactly did these regulators and legislators “rely on patent law” to “regulate” GE crops? Based on what you wrote above, it seems to me that they “relied on patent law” for “regulation” in the same way that they “relied on copyright law” for “regulation”. Let me know if I’m mistaken about that.
if an organic farmer finds his crop to be contaminated above the 1% threshold and then sells it as conventional, is he then suddenly not covered by the court’s estoppel decree?
I don’t think it matters whether he sells it as “conventional” or not. At least part of what matters from the point of the estoppel is the amount of contamination.
The issues you are bringing up do not sound like they would be unique to Monsanto’s product and perhaps you and “your field” should work with your Congresspeople in these farm districts to come up with some reasonable laws about crop contamination. One “organic” farmer could be growing his own patented plant on a field next to another “organic” farmer. When should that second farmer be entitled to grow and sell a patented plant that somehow “grew” on his farm (without being intentionally planted there by anyone), without ever having purchased it or taken a license? There’s probably an equitable answer. You’re a lawyer, aren’t you? Tell us what you think the answer is, given that you’ve thought about it so much. What lines should be drawn, and why?
MM wrote: I assume you’re not suggesting that the feds/legs were relying on the Supreme Court to ban recombinant plant patents … or were you?
Actually, the exact opposite — I think at the point (1986) the Coordinated Framework was drafted, those involved with its drafting weren’t even considering SCOTUS involvement. They just wanted genetic engineering to be an unregulated as possible to benefit private industry – it was the middle of Reagan Era, after all.
To understand federal regulation of genetically engineered crops, you have to be familiar with the fact that the Congress and the Executive decided in 1986 that no new laws or regulations were necessary to oversee the testing, release and regulation of genetically engineered plants and organisms. Instead, they developed the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, which shoehorned GE plants and organisms to fit under current laws overseen by current agencies. Yeah, it’s Wikipedia, but it’s gets the basic points right: link to en.wikipedia.org. I can explain more later, but have to actually do some work today, head cold or no.
IANAE you following me around and soiling my posts is so unpleasant. IANAE: “LOL”. Do you know anything about face recognition as a problem by neurologist? Your ignorance never ceases to amaze and disgust me.
The first time I worked on the problem of face recognition was in the early 1980’s with one of the top neurologist in the field.
And your qualifications are that you like to provoke your betters.
Malcolm is having trouble reading this part of my posts…
Right, because your writing stinks and because your point (if it could be understood) is either so banal and trite that it’s difficult to imagine anyone bothering to write it, or too bizarre to assimilate.
You seem to be suggesting that Judge Dyk has “effectively removed” some “premise” (?) that previously existed. What previously existed and which still exists and what the CAFC made “expressly” clear is Monsanto’s “binding promise” not to sue farmers for selling seeds with trace amounts of Monsanto’s patented seeds. This gets back to Andrew’s original comment.
When you tell the CAFC that you made a binding promise, and the CAFC agrees with you and expressly bases its decision on that binding promise, on what planet do you successfully get away with breaking that binding promise and filing suit anyway? I don’t think it’s the same planet that the CAFC lives on (i.e., Earth) because the CAFC would have written its decision differently if that were the case.
Put another way, as a practical matter, how is this decision any different than a “clear” covenant not-to-sue farmers who sell seed with more than the recited trace amounts?
I am willing to go as far to say that there will be a Nobel Prize awarded to the researchers that figure out how our brain represents and recognizes faces.
LOL
And if there isn’t, I suppose we can look forward to some allegations of corruption in the Nobel Committee. Most notably, for not having a Prize in the field of “information processing”.
I will cop to having written extensively about this case from the week after the complaint was filed, and I speculated back then that it would end up messy. And yes, this is due in part to the strict liability framework patent law adopts; there are no innocent infringers, and patent law looks to human agency only, not that things can actually “copy” themselves. The Fed Circuit could have gotten around all this by giving the pollen/plants agency, but then you end up with farmers as bon fide owners, and how to deal with exhaustion per Kagan’s potential “exceptions” dicta. Dyk makes it pretty clear that he doesn’t agree with Kagan. And frankly, I think that Monsanto chose not to agree to the covenant was that it too cannot concede that its seeds/pollen/traits have agency; that would open up all kinds of cans of worms.
So, without degrees of innocence, Dyk would have to look to degree of infringement. Where the court failed was that these are constantly moving goalposts – as I mentioned previously, how do you set an acceptable measurement for infringement if you’re measuring apples and oranges. Monsanto only tests fields and harvested seeds/crops for evidence of their patented traits — they’re not quantifying. Organic and identity preserved growers are the ones who care about quantity, and even those amounts are not set in stone, but are determined by each country and market. As I mentioned yesterday, I’ve got a head cold from hell, and probably need a much clearer head to understand precisely what Dyk is trying to do; he doesn’t seem to get the larger picture – such as, if an organic farmer finds his crop to be contaminated above the 1% threshold and then sells it as conventional, is he then suddenly not covered by the court’s estoppel decree? And does this give Monsanto some right to test every crop for potential infringement, not just its licensees? I have to print the decision out and go through it with a highlighter, sans head cold, to make any more definitive assertions. But after talking to briefly to others who work in the same field, we all are left shaking our head at the decision.
I’d still like to know which part of the computer is its “brain.”
And, MM, I’d like you to respond to my posts regarding face recognition. I am willing to go as far to say that there will be a Nobel Prize awarded to the researchers that figure out how our brain represents and recognizes faces. (which is information processing.)
So, you should be eating a lot of crow.
disregard controlling law
Your incessant whining about “controlling law”, Tr-llboy, is something you bring up whenever a discussion about failures/flaws in the “controlling law” is brought up. Many times (and the KSR, Bilski, Nutjen and Prometheus decisions are classic examples) those discussions anticipate forthcoming changes in the “controlling law” which you disapprove of.
As a result of your willful ignorance, some pathological inability to understand the topic that is being discused, or a simple desire to be your d-ckhead self, you often confuse “disagreeing with controlling law” with “disregarding controlling law.”
All this has been explained to you before, of course, before and after your infamous Suckpuppetry Days.
I busted your lame post
Mr. Dumpty has spoken. Bend your knees, everyone.
Oregonian: federal regulators and legislators have relied on patent law to de facto regulate GE crops when they didn’t want to develop an effective regulatory scheme.
I’ve never heard this assertion made before. Can you give an example? I assume you’re not suggesting that the feds/legs were relying on the Supreme Court to ban recombinant plant patents … or were you?
end italics
Oregonian: From a patent infringing viewpoint, since the glowing plant is probably covered under Alexander Krichevsky’s (BioGlow) 2010 patent application, who does he sue when his patent is issued? The glowing plant project is not a company, but a Kickstarter project.
If he has a patent on all glowing plants (and not just an “application”), he can certainly sue the individuals who are making the plant and offering it to “investors” in exchange for the money.
how dangerous can their plants with their untested gene sequences be, especially when their chosen plant is a brassica, and related to two or three dozen wild and domesticated species grown here in Oregon alone?
Again, without more facts, the answer is “no more or less dangerous” than any other plant with a different sequence of nucleotides in its chromosomes, where that plant can mate with pre-existing plants. And as you surely know, such new plants come into existence, naturally, every day, on farms throughout the globe. Indeed, such new plants may be selected for, or bred, and those new plants can be as “dangerous” or more dangerous than the “synthetic” plants being created in labs. Certainly they seem to draw less regulatory attention, particularly from consumer advocacy types.
I would think that growers of the (presumably improved) “domesticated” species would be much more concerned about the “contaminating” effects of the (presumably less desirable) wild species. I would also think that there are far more “mysterious” (and therefore potentially “dangerous”!) genetic differences between the domestic and wild species of brassica than between the domestic brassica and the recombinant glowing brassica.
And just to be clear: I’m all for strict regulation and oversight of recombinant plants. I have no interest in a recombinant glowing plant and could care less if it was regulated or sued out of existence. My molecular biology friends made some of the first recombinant glowing organisms. That was a long time ago. It’s pretty boring, frankly.
Oregonian: From a patent infringing viewpoint, since the glowing plant is probably covered under Alexander Krichevsky’s (BioGlow) 2010 patent application, who does he sue when his patent is issued? The glowing plant project is not a company, but a Kickstarter project.>
If he has a patent on all glowing plants (and not just an “application”), he can certainly sue the individuals who are making the plant and offering it to “investors” in exchange for the money.
how dangerous can their plants with their untested gene sequences be, especially when their chosen plant is a brassica, and related to two or three dozen wild and domesticated species grown here in Oregon alone?
Again, without more facts, the answer is “no more or less dangerous” than any other plant with a different sequence of nucleotides in its chromosomes, where that plant can mate with pre-existing plants. And as you surely know, such new plants come into existence, naturally, every day, on farms throughout the globe. Indeed, such new plants may be selected for, or bred, and those new plants can be as “dangerous” or more dangerous than the “synthetic” plants being created in labs. Certainly they seem to draw less regulatory attention, particularly from consumer advocacy types.
I would think that growers of the (presumably improved) “domesticated” species would be much more concerned about the “contaminating” effects of the (presumably less desirable) wild species. I would also think that there are far more “mysterious” (and therefore potentially “dangerous”!) genetic differences between the domestic and wild species of brassica than between the domestic brassica and the recombinant glowing brassica.
And just to be clear: I’m all for strict regulation and oversight of recombinant plants. I have no interest in a recombinant glowing plant and could care less if it was regulated or sued out of existence. My molecular biology friends made some of the first recombinant glowing organisms. That was a long time ago. It’s pretty boring, frankly.
LOL NWPA, remember, Malcolm thinks that computers really do think.
Yes, this to is arhived.
LOL – like you haven’t tried to not only disregard controlling law (that you admitted to knowing), you have actively proletized that the law was something else entirely.
Blatant 1iar!
Still MM, I’d like to know which part of the computer is its “brain”?