Re: Monsanto wins a patent ruling again, archive 8310
- To: Rick Roush <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Monsanto wins a patent ruling again, archive 8310
- From: MichaelP <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 07:24:20 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: email@example.com, GMO-L@cornell.edu, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, recipient list not shown: ;
- Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- Resent-From: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Rick Roush wrote:
This is a very interesting report. Not only has Monsanto won the
injunction, but why does the grower want the crop?
"McFarling's lawyer wasn't immediately available for comment."
He's probably running for malpractice cover.
The full decision/opinion downloads from
You'll learn that the immediate issue is that the farmer buys the GM seed
in the state where he lives and farms, and that he's is brought to court
in a state where he does NOT live and farm.
The issue that will most likely go to the U$ Supreme Court is the one of
procedure. Where in a take-it-or-leave-it arrangement ( an adhesion
contract) where the billing/invoice contain Monsanto's declaration that
all litigation will be brought in another named state how under the
U$ constitution did/could the first court get jurisdiction of the farmer?
Nothing much in the opinion about the "real" issues of patentability.