|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:02 PM EST |
I think you're correct on this.
Reading the tea leaves from SCOTUS oral arguments is a
dangerous business. Believing the press accounts from oral
arguments is more dangerous still.
There are very few oral arguments where the justices overtly
tip their hand. For an example, see Smith v. Cain, where
Justice Kagan asked the attorney, "Did your office ever
consider just confessing error in this case?" (Final result,
8-1, Thomas dissenting, murder conviction tossed for Brady
violation).
That said, the judges often play devil's advocate to both
sides, and cherrypicking exchanges won't give you a feel for
the proceedings. This went very badly Bowman. This doesn't
mean that the law is an ass, or that patents on genes is a
good idea; just that I don't see Monsanto losing. A better
question is why SCOTUS agreed to hear the case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 02:19 PM EST |
These beans have newly materialized on the crop. There has been no
authorized sale of them that has exhausted the patent rights in
them.
This is where I differ with you. These seeds are
self-replicating. This is unlike software, which will not replicate on its own.
I view the seed as a part of the original plant which was a result of a
licensed sale. Your argument would imply that the petals which come from a
flower are wholly different from the seed from which that very flower grows.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: macliam on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 05:44 PM EST |
I spotted this on a posting to the PatentlyO blog: Pollination of
Soybean (Glycine max L. Merril) by Honeybees (Apis Mellifera L.) (Chiari et
al.)
Soybeans can cross-pollinate, and indeed pollination by bees
results in increased seed production. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Hmmmm - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 20 2013 @ 07:20 PM EST
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, February 25 2013 @ 10:12 PM EST |
This is one of those cases where Bowman has to win. If the courts declare that
Monsanto wins, why then the courts have simply declared "We are not courts.
Please ignore us and disrespect our judgments. If we try to enforce them, we
are thugs, and should be killed."
Courts shouldn't do stuff like that (nobody should ever hang out a "PLEASE
SHOOT ME I AM EVIL" sign), but sometimes they do. If they do, the most
peaceful scenario is a Congressional override. The more likely scenario is
overthrow of the government -- the courts have been pulling this kind of crap in
*too many different areas* lately.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
