148 thoughts on “Jon Stewart Show Takes on Biotech Patents

  1. I am not a farmer. The Daily Show had a chance to tell me about those tactics, but chose to present a one sided view of patents instead.

  2. Hmm, even my poor English skills note that as a substantive change Leopold – especially as the reference in the inital post was to NWPA being a farmer and not the poster AnotherExaminer.

    You need to brush up a bit there.

    Seriously.

    And where are my answers?

  3. NWPA is also clearly not a farmer who has seen first hand the tactics that Monsanto uses against farmers that try to grow non-Monsanto and non-GMO seed.

    If you are, then you’ve picked an odd pseudonym.

    Seriously, could you provide some examples of these tactics?

  4. NWPA is clearly someone who has never watched the daily show in his life and doesn’t realize it’s a comedy show.

    NWPA is also clearly not a farmer who has seen first hand the tactics that Monsanto uses against farmers that try to grow non-Monsanto and non-GMO seed.

  5. And by the way, did you notice that your head cheerleader actually proves my point with his attempted spin of my 12:18 post?

    Yet another person eager to prove my point for me.

  6. After all, all that you are asking for is “better examination” …

    Wrong yet again Malcolm.

    I am asking for better examination – that much is true. But I am also asking for something far simpler (at least in theory) and far more universal: intellectual honesty in posting.

    Eliminate the strawmen.
    Eliminate the canards.
    Eliminate the mischaracterizations of law.
    Eliminate the mischaracterizations of fact.
    Eliminate the mischaracterizations of what others post.

    In short: eliminate the spin that is merely philosophically driven.

    I have no trouble with ‘insults’ per se – I am a big boy and can dish those right back. It’s the vacuous and mindless posts that continue to ignore the valid points raised that I find contemptible.

    Ans yes, since you indicate, your posting style does earn you my contempt and insults.

    But you already know that. And you also know how to change that: post with intellectual honesty.

    Now actually doing that – that seems to be impossible for you.

  7. Malcolm’s conduct is far more egregious than mine

    Of course it is, Tr0 llb0y. After all, my “egregious conduct” is what “excuses” your own relatively minor transgressions. Isn’t that right?

    Why, but for me and my jokes about Ronald Reagan, you’d just be the most reasonable guy on the planet, perfectly happy to explain all your weird insults and innuendo to everbody, all day long. After all, all that you are asking for is “better examination” …

  8. If Monsanto cannot sue and win against the farmer who does not use Roundup

    You’re way out in left field, Ned. There’s a farmer who doesn’t use the herbicide but decides to grow a giant crop of genetically engineered beans anyway? Why? When? Where? And you’re suggesting that if this alleged famer tries to sell those patented beans to other farmers he “can’t be sued by Monsanto”? Huh?

    are they instead protecting the expired patent on Roundup

    If so, Monsanto is not doing a very good job of that. There’s lots of competing products on the market already. Go to Home Depot or some other store that sells gardening supplies and see for yourself.

  9. You on board with that?

    A full and hearty yes.

    But while we have that examination in our sights – let’s re-engineer it and avoid the fallacy of simply “more is better,” as I am sure that you will agree, more of bad examination is most definitely not better.

    hurts my client’s fee-fees”

    Maybe you should quit your sm@rt-@$$ comments while you were ahead. There is plenty of (mindless) QQ over any patent claim that finds its way on to these boards. There is no need for me to add to that. Or perhaps you simply don’t understand the plain English I used above (funny, you almost made it through a mature conversation without spin and being an @$$h@t).

    Little steps I guess.

  10. yes, Malcolm, I want smarter examiners.

    So do I. And more of them.

    Let’s join forces and encourage Congress to expand the PTO budget to improve training and hire more Examiners. We may have to increase the salaries, too, to ensure that the highest quality candidates are hired and retained.

    You on board with that?

    The problem is CRP rejections that when I discuss with my client what the rejection is, my client (rightfully) is apt to pursue their rights.

    Since you’ve never complained about any granted patent claim as one that should not have issued, it’s difficult to know where a “CRP rejection” ends and a “good rejection that hurts my client’s fee-fees” beings. Maybe you should work on that.

  11. Since using Roundup or an equivalent is the only way Monsanto can tell whether the patented seed is being used, we just might see a lot of moonshine Roundup on the farm in the future.

     
     
     

  12. Ned, if your question is whether Monsanto can make the purchase of Roundup a condition of a license agreement to the seeds, or whether Monsanto can condition the sale of Roundup on the purchase of licensed seeds, then the answer is no. Neither situation is at issue in the Monsanto case.

  13. Ned, I think you are on the wrong track. There are now other glyphosate herbicides – Is there anything in the Supreme Court’s decision to suggest that they would have come to a different conclusion if Bowman had been using one of these other products, instead of Roundup? Does the decision in the Bowman case have any effect on anyone’s right to continue producing glyphosate herbicides that formerly would have been covered by the Roundup patent? I think the answer to both questions is “no.”

  14. The expired patent on RoundUp pesticide means that (theoretically) the farmer himself could be making the (expired patent formulation open to the world) pesticide in his shed. Where does that leave you?

  15. Malcolm, there was no way to remove the patented seed from the unpatented seed once they are mixed together.

    As to his lawyer, I think he was advising his client to destroy the seeds because I think his lawyer believed that the Supreme Court of Canada let him off easy because the farmer did not violate any contract with Monsanto, the seeds having been blown onto his farm from passing trucks. But once having been sued, if the farmer continued to replant, his lawyer probably believe that Monsanto and the courts would come down heavily on him because he would be willfully infringing.

    Regarding the “special variety,” you might be right there was pure “BS.” But one never knows for sure.

  16. Malcolm, but the Supreme Court seems to agree with me in that they found infringement in the case of the American farmer who was using Roundup to create, after several years, a highly “pure” batch of seeds that he was replanting, year-in and year-out, while selling the excess. The Supreme Court placed heavy emphasis on the fact that the farmer was using Roundup. The Supreme Court seemed to be concerned with the fact that the purchasers of the pure seed could use the purchased seed for their own planting, essentially placing the farmer in competition with Monsanto in the sale of patented seeds.

    The Supreme Court also reserved the question of whether innocent infringement was infringement at all.

    So the bottom line appeared to be that the Supreme Court was protecting Monsanto only to the extent that the farmer actually used Roundup with knowledge that the seeds were a Roundup ready variety. If Monsanto cannot sue and win against the farmer who does not use Roundup, is the Supreme Court actually protecting the patent on the seeds, or are they instead protecting the expired patent on Roundup?

  17. No, Malcolm, er, um, Leopold, (by redirecting the emphasis, you engaged in spin. Do you really think that parsing is not a form of spin here?)

    Try again.

    In fact – I am the one asking for you to post answers.

    Where are they? You keep on disappearing when I ask you for answers. Why is that? You keep on disappearing when I point out that Malcolm’s conduct is far more egregious than mine. Why is that?

    Your silence is deafening.

  18. Lovely maturity there Leopold of spinning what I say.

    Actually, what I did is called “parsing.” You’re the one who said that you want to remove what others post.

  19. weird obsession

    LOL – Hey, I’m just trying to be helpful and have you direct your vapid insults to the right party.

  20. The not so subtle return of the fake patent lawyer who openly admits his greed…

    Y A W N

    Hey, didn’t I send you out to find just one modern advanced country that has seen your ‘light’ and abandoned all IP protection?

    Still haven’t seen that single example.

  21. You’ve almost caught on

    LOL – come 6 – pay attention. I have been leading the conversation on this topic.

    Wake up.

  22. My sarcasm meter is working just fine. But thanks for the concern.

    Captain, this is Ensign Redshirt from the away team. Sensors aren’t picking up anything. I’m sure they’re working just fine…

  23. Keep digging.

    Said as Malcolm is the one busy with the shovel…

    Accuse-others-of-that-which-he-does: Malcolm’s very special specialty.

  24. No, bja, I just used your post to point out some of the Supreme Court decisions rendered in English that our resident ‘expert’ in English as a first language still has trouble with.

    My sarcasm meter is working just fine. But thanks for the concern.

  25. Yes and my beef is that Monsanto won’t even talk to the serious documentaries. So I asked NWPA what makes him think that they’d talk to the daily show when they won’t even say their piece for serious docs.

    Congratulations, you’ve almost caught on to the beginning of the conversation!

  26. that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.

    Was that before or after you suggesting using mailroom staff to screen registered letters addressed to patent attorneys and throw away the letters that were deemed by the mailroom staff to contain references to relevant prior art?

    Just curious.

  27. What if we remove [(1)] all the spin, [(2)] the misrepresentations of fact, [(3)] law, and [(4)] what others post? Oh wait – that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.

    Ah, so anon finally admits his true agenda. I think I like NWPA’s suggestion better.

    C’est la vie.

  28. What if to cut down on all this noise, we all agree to be intellectually honest and acknowledge and incorporate valid points made?

    What if we remove all the spin, the misrepresentations of fact, law, and what others post?

    Oh wait – that’s exactly what I suggested so long ago.

    C’est La Vie

  29. LOL right back at you – still have not heard amongst your 30,000 mewling QQ words why I was right.

    English skills seem to fail you here.

  30. Nice purposeful feigned ignorance Malcolm

    If you think that’s something, you should see his non-purposeful feigned ignorance. Or his calculated willful intentional acts. Or even his obfuscatory unilluminating non-explications.

  31. Sorry Malcolm, but your continual misperception that enforcing patent rights as the ‘Worst Thing Ever” screams so loud that I cannot hear what you are attempting to spin.

    btw, Jane says hello.

    • The serious documentaries try to explain the facts as best they can make them out.
      Yes 6, that is true. They also take facts into account that oppose any theory being advanced.

      But wait, that is exactly NWPA’s beef with certain people.

  32. Seeing as you have yet to post anything today that does not fit the description of a “Bl0gTr0ll”, it is clear that you are merely using your stale script of accuse-others-of-that-which-you-do.

    That is your ultimate specialty.

  33. I’ve seen plenty of the daily show where for serious people were successful at getting their tots serious point across while the daily show rep was trying to make fun of them. It can be done.

  34. Wherein Tr0 llb0y’s weird obsession with “Steve Moore” (and other alleged “myth debunkers”) is addressed:

    link to iptrolltracker2.wordpress.com

    it’s not a secret that the small-ish inventor in this country can have trouble monetizing their patent, especially in larger technological sectors. Patent licensing companies do serve an unfilled need in the economy and no one I don’t think would argue that they don’t so yeah, we get that. Likewise, we get that you don’t have to make a product to be considered a valid owner of a patent. Over on IP Watchdog, Steve Moore makes a big “to do” about this. Again, we get it. And in fact, that’s one reason that the term NPE is not the same as the term Patent Troll. All patent trolls are NPE’s, but not all NPE’s are patent trolls.

    What articles like this do though, is negate that there really is a problem with companies going after business for the sole purpose of extracting licensing fees over patents that are either old and worthless or that the targets are not infringing on. Those are the trolls we’re after, and they make up a significant portion of the increase in patent litigation in recent years. If you believe there’s been an increase, I mean.

    It’s fair to question statistics and the motives of those behind them. It’s fair to criticize people who only want legislative relief of the problem in the form of more laws from Congress because they (incorrectly, in my view) believe that that is the only way out of the problem, or even a good way out.

    But you can’t just throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that because a few statistics are misquoted or unfounded or skewed by the companies putting them out that there isn’t really a problem.

    Starting to understand, Tr0 llb0y? The issue of patent tr0lling isn’t going away until patent tr0lling goes away. And it’s not going to go away until it’s legislated out of existence (because, after all, what else will stop those tiny Texas cowboys from wrangling cash out of people by whatever means exist for doing so? Ethics? LOL — tell us about “ethics,” Tr0 llb0y).

  35. Or maybe you need some help in understanding the plain English used in the Myriad decision – you know, the decision that tracked perfectly my posts on the subject that you never seemed to ‘understand’?

  36. “Incidentally, how many Roundup Ready infringement suits has Monsanto lost?”

    How many have they declined to bring after leveling baseless accusations?

  37. You are misrepresenting NWPA’s view on this area of law by seeking to inject his view on the Church-Turing thesis, implying that he thinks that that thesis is the answer to every single patent question

    Or am I merely poking some fun at NWPA because he does, in fact, reflexively bring up the Church-Turing thesis (and the “failure” to discuss it) when he wishes to accuse critics of software patenting of being ignorant and/or baised?

    Gosh, it’s so difficult to sort this stuff out, isn’t it, Tr0 llb0y? If only we could all impute the conflation of the anthoromporification as easily as you can. But we simply can’t. It’s something you were born with. A real gift.

  38. He had a special variety he had developed for 50 years. Gone.

    I don’t understand why he would have to destroy any seeds that were not covered by Monsanto’s patents.

    Monsanto did that to him.

    Seems more likely that his lawyer let him down.

    Seems even more likely that he saved some of his “special variety” and the story you are relating is a b.s. sob story.

  39. You can still patent genes bja,

    Just not those that are merely effectively what is in the warehouse of nature.

    Right. And someday Tr0 llb0y will explain how you can tell when a claimed composition of matter is “merely effectively in the warehouse” and when that composition is not “merely effectively in the warehouse”. And then monkeys will fly out of our butts.

  40. MM, you might want to add that even though no money was awarded, the Canadian had to destroy his seeds that he had been replanting. He had a special variety he had developed for 50 years. Gone. Gone with the Wind.

    Monsanto did that to him. And, for what purpose. Malice?

  41. Round-Up herbicide was patented and that patent has lapsed and now cannot be the basis of patent infringement.

    Define “basis” in this context.

  42. if all they ever do is sue people who use RR, are they not illegally extending the RR patent?

    Uh … no. Do you need me to explain to you how infringement of a patent claim works, Ned?

  43. LOL – Round-Up herbicide was patented and that patent has lapsed and now cannot be the basis of patent infringement.

    Unless of course, you hoodwink the judiciary…

    That too is an important distinction.

  44. You can still patent genes bja,

    Just not those that are merely effectively what is in the warehouse of nature.

    You make a new gene, different in kind, and you can have your patent.

  45. You are misrepresenting NWPA’s view on this area of law by seeking to inject his view on the Church-Turing thesis, implying that he thinks that that thesis is the answer to every single patent question (and thus should not be held in any esteem whatsoever – even in the art area where it does apply).

    As I said, Malcolm,

    You.
    F001.
    No one.

  46. if we want examiners with some minimum level of intelligence

    You want smarter Examiners, Tr0 llb0y?

    Be careful what you wish for.

  47. like the ‘English” you used to attempt to save your buring ‘theory’ after tossing it into a bonfire of your own making on the Myriad thread?

    Here’s a serious question: when the aliens brought you here from Planet Bl0gTr0ll, did they say when they were coming back to pick you up?

  48. Unless you are saying that I am “admitting” that you are making an unethical twist of the quote with a baseless accusation against Chief Judge Rader…

    Is that what you are saying?

    LOL – either that or you are engaging again in attempting to twist what other people post.

    Just [shrug] and stand-by your decrepit ways, Malcolm.

    You.
    F001.
    No one.

  49. goes to the Daily Show quip about what farmers have been doing for millennia – spraying the crops with Round-Up, saving their own seed from the Round-Up resistant plants, and replanting that Round-up Resistant seed in the next year while continuing to spray the crops with Round-Up.

    Fixed for accuracy. Except for the “millenia” part, of course. Should be more like “couple decades”. LOL.

  50. LOL – like the ‘English” you used to attempt to save your buring ‘theory’ after tossing it into a bonfire of your own making on the Myriad thread?

    Like that?

    LOL

  51. NWPA Obama is going to be appointing the nut jobs.

    By the way, I’m shocked – SHOCKED! – that Obama didn’t ask Gene “Yes, I am a patent apologist” Quinn to advise the administration on patent trolling.

  52. Yeah – goes to the Daily Show quip about what farmers have been doing for millennia – saving their own seed and replanting that seed in the next year.

    Such criminals…

  53. Nice purposeful feigned ignorance Malcolm
    (a rather trite ploy from your book of scripts).

    You are misrepresenting by conflating.

  54. Something about the “Monsanto sued farmer for growing seeds that blew off a truck” story didn’t smell right. Here’s the facts:

    link to npr.org

    Back in 1999, Monsanto sued a Canadian canola farmer, Percy Schmeiser, for growing the company’s Roundup-tolerant canola without paying any royalty or “technology fee.” Schmeiser had never bought seeds from Monsanto, so those canola plants clearly came from somewhere else. But where?

    Canola pollen can move for miles, carried by insects or the wind. Schmeiser testified that this must have been the cause, or GMO canola might have blown into his field from a passing truck. Monsanto said that this was implausible, because their tests showed that about 95 percent of Schmeiser’s canola contained Monsanto’s Roundup resistance gene, and it’s impossible to get such high levels through stray pollen or scattered seeds…

    Schmeiser had an explanation. As an experiment, he’d actually sprayed Roundup on about three acres of the field that was closest to a neighbor’s Roundup Ready canola. Many plants survived the spraying, showing that they contained Monsanto’s resistance gene — and when Schmeiser’s hired hand harvested the field, months later, he kept seed from that part of the field and used it for planting the next year.

    This convinced the judge that Schmeiser intentionally planted Roundup Ready canola. Schmeiser appealed. The Canadian Supreme Court that Schmeiser had violated Monsanto’s patent, but had obtained no benefit by doing so, so he didn’t owe Monsanto any money.

    Kind of an important distinction.

  55. Chief Judge Rader likes patents too much…?

    Nice to see that you admit it.

    Fun game, Tr0 llb0y. You’ll start the next round, as usual?

  56. LOL – now talk about spinning someone’s quote…

    Trying to turn that quote into an accusation that Chief Judge Rader likes patents too much…?

    Wow – talk about your lack of ethics.

  57. You sure can try to impute some attempt at irony, Leopold.

    But most like all of the rest of your posts to the red cape of ‘anon said,’ you will fail.

    Where are my answers?

  58. I stand by the portion quoted, as the meaning has not been twisted

    That’s nice, Tr0 llb0y. Of course, anyone who would accept your word on such a matter would likely be inclined to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from you as well.

    Here’s the post and the quote:

    link to patentlyo.com

    if a plaintiff claims that it should have gotten a broader patent, but did not because of negligence, chances are no federal jurisdiction.

    I watched the oral argument in Gunn, and the Court (a) does not like or undertand patents; and (b) realized how far astray the CAFC’s jurisprudence on subject matter jurisdiction had gone. That’s a bad combination.

    The Court certainly understands patents better than Judge Rader (and Hricick should know that better than anyone now) but it certainly does not like patents as much as Rader does (that’s a rather teeny club, thankfully).

  59. Your conflation of Jon Stewart, NWPA and the Church-Turing thesis – obviously, Malcolm.

    LOL – you do so love the WHATEVER approach, do you not?

  60. Funny, in my school the social studies teachers taught social studies, not comedy.

    They apparently didn’t teach anything about irony, either.

  61. Please let everyone know exactly what I’m “misrepresenting”, Tr0 llb0y. Not that anyone cares except for you and your li’l crew of button licking syncophants.

  62. but won’t be attacked because shutting down the mills was never the goal.

    Monsanto’s entire business could have been circumvented if the court allowed it.

  63. An “ethical” person would probably reproduce the entire quote rather than a portion of it

    That is d@mm funny coming from the master of misrepresenting what others have posted.

    The word for you (still) Malcolm: hypocrite

    And I stand by the portion quoted, as the meaning has not been twisted.

  64. Answer: It depends on what the prior art i, and exactly how the machine is accomplishing the task.

    But it is a machine, so I guess it fails 101, right?

  65. oh to be young, naive, and unaware of the ways of the world again, LOL.

    The more you post, the more obvious it becomes that you should protect that examiner job with everything you’re worth, because you’re already way above your capability level. Hard to get there again once lost.

  66. LOL – still haven’t brought yourself up to speed, huh Malcolm?

    You haven’t thrown any expletives out there against Mr. Moore yet – that’s a surprise.

    Well, there are at least two lemmings still marching up the ‘Troll’ cliff.

  67. An “ethical” person would probably reproduce the entire quote rather than a portion of it as it is not clear from the excerpt exactly what Prof. Hricick is trying to say.

    But then again we are talking about Tr0 llb0y here. Tr0 llb0y thinks it’s “ethical” to use mailroom staff to throw out registered letters addressed to attorneys, without the attorneys ever seeing the contents of the letters. Go figure.

  68. LOL – it’s an even better argument to get Malcolm to actually address substantive points and watch him throw his agendas on a bonfire with such beauties of volunteered admissions against interest as knowing the controlling law in regards to the exceptions to the printed matter doctrine and acknowledging that ‘configured to’ is structural language.

    His words – not mine.

  69. a fact that people are being accused weather they infringe or not.

    That’s actually what we call an “opinion”, and not even a particularly bad thing.

    Unless you mean to say “whether Monsanto reasonably believes they infringe or not”.

    Incidentally, how many Roundup Ready infringement suits has Monsanto lost?

  70. While ‘comedic’ may be an adjective used by those who understand the law (but used in a morbidly dark manner), what is happening to patent jurisprudence is hardly a laughing matter.

    Just ask Alice.

  71. That clip was funny. Maybe they’ll do one on software patents next and that guy can move his funky finger around on a touchpad to forward a screen grab from a game of Angry Chickens to his grandma. That’s surely a patentable method. Right, Mr. McBride?

  72. LOL,

    You are pretty dense, aren’t you 6. If Jon Daily ever gives you a ring, just remember your stand that you take here.

  73. your social studies teacher told you comedy was like

    Funny, in my school the social studies teachers taught social studies, not comedy.

    No wonder you have this addiction to Calvinball face sp1kes…

  74. Then you should love Prof. Hricik’s comment over on the Ethics portion of Patently-O (especially seeing as Prof. Hricik just gained a year of insider experience clerking for Chief Judge Rader):

      the Court (a) does not like or undertand patents; and (b) realized how far astray the CAFC’s jurisprudence on subject matter jurisdiction had gone. That’s a bad combination
  75. Well let’s be clear, that was their opportunity to make themselves out the hero instead of the villain. Up to them if they want to click or not.

  76. Because Monsanto doesn’t want to go on record doesn’t mean you leave off the undisputed facts of the case nor that you highlight the disputed facts.

    “Before I get to the first joke of my half-hour show, here’s a complete history of all the known or disputed facts about Monsanto.

    Sorry we didn’t have time for a joke tonight, tune in tomorrow for more hilarity.”

    Is that really what your social studies teacher told you comedy was like?

  77. Um, it’s a comedy piece, they’re not there to make a legal case NWPA. Or to do serious documentary work. The serious documentaries try to explain the facts as best they can make them out.

  78. The farmer did note at least some facts about one case. And he did state a fact that people are being accused weather they infringe or not.

  79. Because Monsanto doesn’t want to go on record doesn’t mean you leave off the undisputed facts of the case nor that you highlight the disputed facts.

  80. Imagine the surprise when the lemming call switched cliffs and abandoned the call of the ‘Troll’ hysteria.

    “Imagine the suprise when Tr0 llb0y stopped beating his wife!”

    Meanwhile, there’s more reporting on patent trolls and their activities now than ever before: link to google.com

    the reason why Prof. Chien was so heavily panned in her guest post here

    Oh, right. As I recall, you totally “devastated” her in your own mind! Yes, that was reaaally impressive. So impressive, in fact, that the President of the United States is asking her to advise his administration. Well done! Keep up the great work, Tr0 llb0y.

  81. “That’s fine. Anon. I do forget the exact facts, but was the person who sold him the seeds have a licensing contract?”

    The grain elevator? No, they didn’t have a licensing contract. And the person that sold the seeds to the grain elevator didn’t have any provisions in their contract to not sell the beans to a grain elevator.

  82. NWPA,

    No. The granaries operate without any license restrictions at all. They were (and still are) a third party to the past (and so far any current) suit(s).

    However, the Monsanto-Bowman case has the unforeseen(?) consequence that any granary selling newly made (as in second season, or otherwise) grain is directly violating Monsanto’s patents (offering to sell a patented item). There is no exhaustion from the sale of the farmer to the granary, since Monsanto did not get a cut of the profit from the newly made article that they hold the patent on.

    Since this offering for sale is a strict liability tort, the granary’s entire business model is now ripe for attack.

  83. I suppose you are comparing the responsibilities of a federal circuit judge to a comedian?

    You were the one who said he was irresponsible for being one-sided. I’m simply reminding you that “irresponsible” and “one-sided” are what comedians do for a living. You take Jon Stewart way more seriously than he takes himself.

    If only your side had a sense of humor, you could have your own comedians making hilarious jokes about how much Monsanto invested to improve crop yields by how much, and then everything would be fair. Provided they cite Jon Stewart’s opposing view, of course.

  84. “I suppose you are comparing the responsibilities of a federal circuit judge to a comedian?”

    Those roles very closely resemble one another in a monsanto trial. I get lulz from both.

  85. “Pretty irresponsible segment. Maybe they should have tried to be fair and present Monsanto’s side to the story and not have made an emotional plea.”

    They probably did and Monsanto probably declined as they do for all the documentaries trying to “present their views also”.

  86. If passed off directly in court, would you have a problem with the story, IANAE?

    If written knowing that the story would be used directly in court (since the writer was an attorney who knows his work is cited in court), would you have a problem?

    Your joke here simply works against you IANAE. What is sad is that you either fail to see the ethical failure, or you think there is no ethical failure. Attorneys are bound by ethical rules – even when not in court. If you were in practice, you would know this.

  87. Dude, you are so obviously not a lawyer and so obviously flunked social studies.

    I suppose you are comparing the responsibilities of a federal circuit judge to a comedian?

  88. When you bought the seeds that they were licensed to you for just one year?

    Sorry NWPA – not true in the Bowman case, as the seeds he lost the case with were ones he did not buy from Monsanto, nor did he sign any licensing contract for.

  89. didn’t like what they saw

    There may be more truth to that than first meets the eye.

    After all the GAO used tainted data from Lemley’s Lex Machina and RPX – two entities with a known bias against patents, and still came out with the conclusion that the ‘Troll’ hysteria was overblown.

    Imagine the surprise when the lemming call switched cliffs and abandoned the call of the ‘Troll’ hysteria.

    Perhaps the White House is attempting to salvage that front of the war against patents. After all, part of the reason why Prof. Chien was so heavily panned in her guest post here was the blind eye she used to look at (and rubber stamp a condemnation against) ‘Trolls.’

    This link might help her:

    Yes, the same Steve Moore who championed the Taffas case.

  90. Maybe they should have tried to be fair and present Monsanto’s side to the story and not have made an emotional plea.

    I suppose Jon should be fired for not citing the opposing views of other comedians?

  91. Pretty irresponsible segment. Maybe they should have tried to be fair and present Monsanto’s side to the story and not have made an emotional plea.

    1) So, did you know when you bought the seeds that they were licensed to you for just one year? Why did you buy the seeds then?

    2) How much money did Monsanto spend on the development of the seeds?

    3) How have the new seeds improved crop yield?

    Appeals to the mob just like in Rome. The sad part is there are so many outrages in this country right now. The fed. making money free to the top .1 percent and making the rest of us pay 4-30 percent interest for it. The fed. gov. backing up derivitives (still!).

    Etc….

  92. This is sort of like when your techdirt buddies say, “They patented all computers everywhere.”

    It’s just not worthy of a response. Because even when you do explain things to people like you or MM or these over emotional crazed activist farmers, you’re going to disregard the facts. SO why bother?

  93. Great. Now a bunch MORE out of work Gen Y’ers are going to head to law school because they think there’s good paying work out here.

  94. So yeah I thought everyone was saying that Monsanto wasn’t going to sue people who just had seeds blown onto their property.

  95. Law360, New York (September 13, 2013, 7:12 PM ET) — A Santa Clara University School of Law professor noted for her research into nonpracticing entity litigation has been tapped to advise the Obama administration on intellectual property issues, the school announced Friday.

    What did I tell you? Obama is going to be appointing the nut jobs.

Comments are closed.