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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
No, correct conclusion. | 545 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No, correct conclusion.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 05:29 PM EDT
You're not following the entire comment stream here

Title: That was for deliberate reproduction

Monsanto has stipulated and is now on the hook for not enforcing accidental/incidental reproduction (as from a contaminated field).

In the SC case, the farmer had actually taken "contaminated" seed, then self-selected for plants that had Monsanto's gene, and thereafter used that seed to plant.
Title: Yeah so?

Title: Yeah, so?

From what I understand, the farmer had a contract and the contract specified he could not do just what he did (deliberately screening seeds). So he was in breach of contract.

No word or decision about anything else.
This is the post you (I assume it was you) replied to (not my post...), I then replied to your post, you then replied to me (mistaking me for this anonymous but that's irrelevant). His reasoning for why that being deliberate reproduction mattered was wrong, but his conclusion that it mattered was correct.

[ 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 )