4 ms·

The most interesting part about this was that it was 9-0.

• ajross 13y ago
  If I'm reading it (the article, not the decision; IANAL, etc...) correctly, it was decided pretty much as a straightforward contract issue. He had a signed contract with Monsanto not to plant that breed via anything but purchased-from-Monsanto seeds. He tried to get around it by buying and planting bulk soybeans bought from the market. The court said no, that's not OK. Nowhere did there seem to be a serious issue about the reach of patent law or the breadth of Monsanto's IP.
  • pdabbadabba 13y ago
    I don't believe you're reading it correctly. (IAAL). Yes, he had a license that allowed him to grow the crop, but that does not change the fact that Monsanto was suing him for patent infringement, not breach of contract. Typically when you exceed the scope of your license, the appropriate cause of action if for infringement, not breach of contract. The idea is that all the license does is to grant permission to do x where it would otherwise be prohibited by law. X here is to grow a crop but not replant the seeds harvested from it. There is no need to go farther in the contract and prohibit replanting because the premise of the license agreement is that everything not covered by the agreement is already illegal ex ante.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]