Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

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:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

Read the ruling | 545 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

You are mistaken:Held : Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 04:32 PM EDT

Held
: Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce patented seeds through
planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s
permission. Pp. 4–10.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-796_c07d.pdf

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Mistaken, but the correct conclusion - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 07:17 PM EDT
- No, just mistaken. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 07:09 AM EDT
  - No, correct conclusion. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 05:29 PM EDT

Read the ruling

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 13 2013 @ 07:18 PM EDT

The Judges didn't decide on breach of contract!

If I - one who has never entered any contract/license with Monsanto - went to the grain thingy and purchased "seeds meant to consume" and used them for planting purposes - spraying with roundup (deliberately overdoing that? the case wasn't clear on this), re-harvesting from that crop and re-planting:

The ruling is crystal clear - I can expect to be found infringing the patent!

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Read the ruling - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 03:44 PM EDT
- What does patent exhaustion have to do with breach of contract? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Not as hard to prove as you think - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 12:48 PM EDT
  - So... spray weed killer, harvest = clear proof? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 16 2013 @ 12:34 AM EDT

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 )