decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The purpose of patent marking | 108 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The purpose of patent marking
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 | # ]

They didn't invent the bean in the first place, so their tech, is OBVIOUS.
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )