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
What does patent exhaustion have to do with breach of contract? | 545 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What does patent exhaustion have to do with breach of contract?
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 14 2013 @ 07:03 PM EDT

Caveat: IANAL

Although that may have been an argument presented by the farmer.... I seriously doubt patent exhaustion allows you to breach your contract. As a result that does not make sense.

Now the individual may have also been in breach of contract - but that's not the finding. From the ruling:

In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article. Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct.
The Supremes were quite clear. Bowman was found infringing the patent. He was not found in breach of contract.

Searching the ruling - there is absolutely no mention of the word "Contract" ... not even as applied to Contract Law.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not as hard to prove as you think
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 15 2013 @ 12:48 PM EDT
In response to (1).
The patent covers seeds with a certain gene which Monsanto inserted (copied from an unrelated species, crown gall/Agrobacterium tumefaciens); an independent insertion would be infringing on the patent. Before the lawsuit Monsanto tested the soybeans in question for this gene, so it's known that he either used Monsanto's seeds or had access to an unauthorized duplicate; in the latter case, he would have no claim to a right to use the patent. His defense was based on the premise that he used Monsanto's seeds.
Besides that, he was aware that the vast majority of soybeans were grown from Roundup-Ready seeds-a fact which he showed his knowledge of by using Roundup on them.

In response to RAS, any glyphosate on a non-"Roundup Ready" crop is too much; it kills non-glyphosate-tolerant plants, period. If you spray it in the course of normal farming activities, you either want to kill everything or expect that you have glyphosate tolerant plants.
Since he harvested the seeds rather than tilling it all under, it shows that his infringement was willful.

[ 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 )