3 ms·

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5195676 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5195676

by dchest 14y ago

mjn 14y ago
Thanks for the link. The first comment on that version of the discussion is informative, and gets to the heart of the case, which is somewhat more specific than a lot of the commentary (though other issues are clearly implicated). The core of it is whether the Supreme Court will read the patent-exhaustion doctrine narrowly or broadly. The traditional application of patent exhaustion allows you to combine a patented part with other standard equipment, if the patented part was purchased legally. So, for example, you can buy a CPU and then assemble it with other electronic components into a larger device, without getting a second patent license for the larger device. The farmer here is arguing that buying a seed and having it reproduce should fall under patent exhaustion, because growing seeds and having them produce more seeds is something that, in farming, happens routinely by just adding "standard equipment" such as soil, fertilizer, and water. Therefore no second license should be needed for continued routine use of the legitimately purchased initial product. Buying a license to the seed should imply, by patent exhaustion, the regular use of the seed for all things seeds are normally expected to do, including planting them and harvesting their offspring. The counter-argument is that in the CPU example the original purchased part is still enclosed in the larger device, whereas in the seed case the offspring seeds are not a superset of the original seed, so the result is actually a copy, more like duplicating the CPU (which would need a new license). The troublesome part with making the analogy work either way is that the seed duplicated itself as part of its normal functioning, which CPUs don't normally do. Viewed that way, the case has interesting implications for the future patent situation around self-replicating robots.
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Note that the first comment misses an important point that is clear in the briefs: He did not go out and deliberately buy 2nd generation roundup ready seeds. He went out and deliberately bought 2nd generation commodity seeds. Simply because of market penetration, most of the seeds ended up being roundup ready seeds. He discovered this because he sprayed them with Roundup. I can't think of a more clear case of patent exhaustion. They would have to remove patent exhaustion from self-replicating technologies to make this not a clear case. Note 2 things: 1. On average, the supreme court doesn't take cases to uphold them (there is no point in doing so). There were at least 4 votes of justices who thought it was worth hearing the case. 2. Monsanto has a very simple solution: contracts with farmers.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5195676 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5195676

by dchest 14y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5195676 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5195676

mjn 14y ago

Thanks for the link. The first comment on that version of the discussion is informative, and gets to the heart of the case, which is somewhat more specific than a lot of the commentary (though other issues are clearly implicated). The core of it is whether the Supreme Court will read the patent-exhaustion doctrine narrowly or broadly. The traditional application of patent exhaustion allows you to combine a patented part with other standard equipment, if the patented part was purchased legally. So, for example, you can buy a CPU and then assemble it with other electronic components into a larger device, without getting a second patent license for the larger device. The farmer here is arguing that buying a seed and having it reproduce should fall under patent exhaustion, because growing seeds and having them produce more seeds is something that, in farming, happens routinely by just adding "standard equipment" such as soil, fertilizer, and water. Therefore no second license should be needed for continued routine use of the legitimately purchased initial product. Buying a license to the seed should imply, by patent exhaustion, the regular use of the seed for all things seeds are normally expected to do, including planting them and harvesting their offspring. The counter-argument is that in the CPU example the original purchased part is still enclosed in the larger device, whereas in the seed case the offspring seeds are not a superset of the original seed, so the result is actually a copy, more like duplicating the CPU (which would need a new license). The troublesome part with making the analogy work either way is that the seed duplicated itself as part of its normal functioning, which CPUs don't normally do. Viewed that way, the case has interesting implications for the future patent situation around self-replicating robots.

DannyBee 14y ago
Note that the first comment misses an important point that is clear in the briefs: He did not go out and deliberately buy 2nd generation roundup ready seeds. He went out and deliberately bought 2nd generation commodity seeds. Simply because of market penetration, most of the seeds ended up being roundup ready seeds. He discovered this because he sprayed them with Roundup. I can't think of a more clear case of patent exhaustion. They would have to remove patent exhaustion from self-replicating technologies to make this not a clear case. Note 2 things: 1. On average, the supreme court doesn't take cases to uphold them (there is no point in doing so). There were at least 4 votes of justices who thought it was worth hearing the case. 2. Monsanto has a very simple solution: contracts with farmers.