I have actually done some work for major seed companies. There is no danger of the crops being "100% genetically identical." The industry is very good at protecting their underlying crop lines, the licenses are only for the particular traits. The company which licenses the traits then incorporates it into their own plant lines. Most of the major plant companies have a wide variety (hundreds or thousands) of different plant lines from a wide variety of regions with a pretty complete breeding and growth history-they are very aware of the problems involved with monocultures and work very hard to avoid that. The plant company then picks the seed lines where they think the trait will have the most impact/greatest demand and then they incorporate the trait (and the trait only) into that line. The technical term for this is "introgressing" the trait and they have worked for a long time to develop techniques which are very specific for individual stretches of DNA.
Sometimes (and this is getting more frequent now) they will incorporate more than one trait in a particular plant line. This is a major issue for things like glyphosate tolerant plants. By incorporating multiple modes of herbicide tolerance into a single plant line, the farmer can use a mix of herbicides on the field to make sure that the weeds do not become tolerant to a specific type of herbicide. Similarly, extensive studies are done to make sure that insects do not become resistant to certain traits. One of the primary approaches for this is the use of "refuge" which consists of planting non-insect resistant crop with the insect resistant crop. By having the appropriate mix of the two, you can manage the tolerant insects to prevent losing the effectiveness of the trait. This is also important to the plant company because nobody will purchase the trait if it no longer works. The refuge requirements for a particular trait have a pretty good safety margin included as well to make sure that the trait will continue to be effective.
I respect individual decisions to eat modified crops or not, my family generally eats organic primarily to benefit local growers and give them a better margin in return for a product which is not mass-produced. We like meeting and knowing the farmers who grow our food. Whatever your opinion might be, disinformation and conspiracy theories is not the way to have an intelligent debate. The plant companies are well aware of the risks and it is in their best interest to mitigate them. Having worked with a number of employees from plant companies, all that I have met take their responsibility for feeding the world very seriously and want to do what they can to increase yields, decrease pesticide/herbicide use and protect the food supply.
The biggest problem that I could see would come from the recent decision based on the WOW Glider case. In that case, the court determined that encouraging a user to violate a EULA by selling products (in that case software, this case hardware) was a copyright issue. Given that, it seems that Apple might be able to reach Psystar through a contributory infringement or vicarious infringement approach.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a person can claim alternate inconsistent theories. The theory is that you put everything out there at the beginning and then whittle the complaints down as discovery goes on.
I have repeatedly read the speculation that EULA's are not enforceable so I decided to check case law on the subject. A quick search shows that they have been upheld (at least in FL). Specifically, Salco Distribs. LLC v. Icode, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9483 (D. Fla. 2006) enforced a forum selection clause in some business software made by a company in Virginia. In order to do this, the federal court in FL had to find that the EULA was a binding contract. This is not exactly what is being discussed in this thread b/c the contract was between two businesses and the software company had really covered everything.
On a more general level the court said "In Florida and the federal circuits, shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreements are valid and enforceable contracts." The court then cited several cases to make the point, with a major one being ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). This one dealt with academic software being used in a commercial setting. The terms restricting use to academia was included in the EULA printed on the shrinkwrap, and is much closer to purchasing the ipod and using the itunes software. In that case, the court determined that the EULA was a binding contract.
I could do more research to figure this out, however, I have a bunch of homework to do as well. Given that IANAL (merely a law student) you can and should take anything I say with a large grain of salt, however, I would not just dismiss EULAs out of hand. If enforcement of the EULA would be very painful or prohibitive, you probably want to really think about what you are doing. I am not saying it is good law or that this is the way that things should be, but I would not count of a defense of unenforceability on EULA contracts.
If you would read the summary, it says that they did have it posted. This means that it SHOULD be legal. They can charge you for anything, convicting requires an overzealous prosecutor and a judge that wants to get home early that day.
If you check out the post refering to Groklaw down the page, this is more complex than a simple "compare two assignments" problem. Although, IBM definitely has enough computer scientists and hardware to tackle the problem. Given that, it is not in their interest to do this. SCO brought the lawsuit and has the burden of proof. A defendent is not obligated to compare the code and notify the court (and SCO) or areas of possible infringement. That would effectively let SCO off the hook and potentially give SCO more ammunition in their lawsuit. If SCO wants to sue IBM for infringement, then SCO needs to provide evidence of that in court. Specifically they need something better than "it is somewhere in this mess".
Actually, both the pSeries and the iSeries use the PowerPC processor. Even the zSeries (essentially mainframes) use the PowerPC processors to control IO channels. If you are using an IBM server and you have anything other than the xServers (intel line) you have PowerPC in your rack.
Slashdot Mirror
I have actually done some work for major seed companies. There is no danger of the crops being "100% genetically identical." The industry is very good at protecting their underlying crop lines, the licenses are only for the particular traits. The company which licenses the traits then incorporates it into their own plant lines. Most of the major plant companies have a wide variety (hundreds or thousands) of different plant lines from a wide variety of regions with a pretty complete breeding and growth history-they are very aware of the problems involved with monocultures and work very hard to avoid that. The plant company then picks the seed lines where they think the trait will have the most impact/greatest demand and then they incorporate the trait (and the trait only) into that line. The technical term for this is "introgressing" the trait and they have worked for a long time to develop techniques which are very specific for individual stretches of DNA.
Sometimes (and this is getting more frequent now) they will incorporate more than one trait in a particular plant line. This is a major issue for things like glyphosate tolerant plants. By incorporating multiple modes of herbicide tolerance into a single plant line, the farmer can use a mix of herbicides on the field to make sure that the weeds do not become tolerant to a specific type of herbicide. Similarly, extensive studies are done to make sure that insects do not become resistant to certain traits. One of the primary approaches for this is the use of "refuge" which consists of planting non-insect resistant crop with the insect resistant crop. By having the appropriate mix of the two, you can manage the tolerant insects to prevent losing the effectiveness of the trait. This is also important to the plant company because nobody will purchase the trait if it no longer works. The refuge requirements for a particular trait have a pretty good safety margin included as well to make sure that the trait will continue to be effective.
I respect individual decisions to eat modified crops or not, my family generally eats organic primarily to benefit local growers and give them a better margin in return for a product which is not mass-produced. We like meeting and knowing the farmers who grow our food. Whatever your opinion might be, disinformation and conspiracy theories is not the way to have an intelligent debate. The plant companies are well aware of the risks and it is in their best interest to mitigate them. Having worked with a number of employees from plant companies, all that I have met take their responsibility for feeding the world very seriously and want to do what they can to increase yields, decrease pesticide/herbicide use and protect the food supply.
The biggest problem that I could see would come from the recent decision based on the WOW Glider case. In that case, the court determined that encouraging a user to violate a EULA by selling products (in that case software, this case hardware) was a copyright issue. Given that, it seems that Apple might be able to reach Psystar through a contributory infringement or vicarious infringement approach.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a person can claim alternate inconsistent theories. The theory is that you put everything out there at the beginning and then whittle the complaints down as discovery goes on.
I have repeatedly read the speculation that EULA's are not enforceable so I decided to check case law on the subject. A quick search shows that they have been upheld (at least in FL). Specifically, Salco Distribs. LLC v. Icode, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9483 (D. Fla. 2006) enforced a forum selection clause in some business software made by a company in Virginia. In order to do this, the federal court in FL had to find that the EULA was a binding contract. This is not exactly what is being discussed in this thread b/c the contract was between two businesses and the software company had really covered everything.
On a more general level the court said "In Florida and the federal circuits, shrinkwrap and clickwrap agreements are valid and enforceable contracts." The court then cited several cases to make the point, with a major one being ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996). This one dealt with academic software being used in a commercial setting. The terms restricting use to academia was included in the EULA printed on the shrinkwrap, and is much closer to purchasing the ipod and using the itunes software. In that case, the court determined that the EULA was a binding contract.
I could do more research to figure this out, however, I have a bunch of homework to do as well. Given that IANAL (merely a law student) you can and should take anything I say with a large grain of salt, however, I would not just dismiss EULAs out of hand. If enforcement of the EULA would be very painful or prohibitive, you probably want to really think about what you are doing. I am not saying it is good law or that this is the way that things should be, but I would not count of a defense of unenforceability on EULA contracts.
If you would read the summary, it says that they did have it posted. This means that it SHOULD be legal. They can charge you for anything, convicting requires an overzealous prosecutor and a judge that wants to get home early that day.
If you check out the post refering to Groklaw down the page, this is more complex than a simple "compare two assignments" problem. Although, IBM definitely has enough computer scientists and hardware to tackle the problem. Given that, it is not in their interest to do this. SCO brought the lawsuit and has the burden of proof. A defendent is not obligated to compare the code and notify the court (and SCO) or areas of possible infringement. That would effectively let SCO off the hook and potentially give SCO more ammunition in their lawsuit. If SCO wants to sue IBM for infringement, then SCO needs to provide evidence of that in court. Specifically they need something better than "it is somewhere in this mess".
Actually, both the pSeries and the iSeries use the PowerPC processor. Even the zSeries (essentially mainframes) use the PowerPC processors to control IO channels. If you are using an IBM server and you have anything other than the xServers (intel line) you have PowerPC in your rack.