|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, February 21 2013 @ 10:49 PM EST |
My not-a-lawyer understanding is that patent marking only has to do with what is
the date that the infringer first learned about the patent, which has to do with
how damages are calculated. If the item is marked, then the infringer is deemed
to have knowledge of the patent at the time they acquired the product. If it is
not marked then damages are calculated based on the date that plaintiff gave
notice of infringement. If my understanding is correct all that matters is
whether the packaging of the soy beans mentioned the patent, not whether the
beans in the resulting crop has any kind of marker.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 22 2013 @ 06:56 AM EST |
All they did, was take pre-existing prior art, that was
invented by nature itself, and add something that everyone
was considering in the first place.
Why is that not OBVIOUS?
Just like the Gas peddle case in the Supreme Court, where
the patent was denied? Just putting two things together
does not grant protection for the idea. AND, really what is
the value of a "roundup" aware seed anyway? All it does is
focus on using "roundup", it is not a seed that does not
need roundup (that, indeed would be superior, and in fact
might even exist somewhere in nature, where you add that
genetics to the bean, and get a combination... but, still,
not an invention).
Seed growers have been developing "varients" for years, what
makes Monsanto so special now that they can have a patent
for so many years. Through out history, many seed growers
have spent a ton of time developing a variety of different
crops... THAT is not either a new METHOD, or a new CONCEPT.
I think that the lawyer in that bean case, for the
defendant, was not doing a good job at getting that thru to
the court.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|