According to our sources, the letters politely ordered them to turn over all of their files or preserve them for pending legal action in the U.S. court..... The recently formed Roundup [Multi-District Litigation] No. 2741 is presided by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria and the first trial in the Roundup litigation is set for June 18, 2018, in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco.
Oh no! A litigation hold letter! Something that could not possibly be routine U.S. practice because, unlike Europe, U.S. courts permit discovery of evidence held by both sides as well as any expert witnesses.
I receive, or more typically advise clients of, litigation hold obligations about a half dozen times a year. Because disposing of relevant files after you become aware of a likelihood of litigation is considered a big no no...
Monsanto/Bayer have a long record of legal intimidation
I totally believe you in view of your track record so far...
as well as strategically placing research funding in order to create dependency on the funding. Several notable agricultural research centres have been "taken over" by Monsanto/Bayer so that scientists working in them are afraid to pursue studies or publish results that might displease Monsanto/Bayer (I know some of them personally).
Again, I totally believe you in view of your track record so far... and the hollowing-out of government-sponsored basic research has absolutely nothing to do with your so-called "dependency."
presented 2 cases as evidence to support your claims;
claimed to have intimate knowledge of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmer cases;
claimed that the 2 cases you've presented as evidence are representative of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmer cases;
failed to present any further cases to support your claim that they're representative;
I'm left wondering if these 2 cases are the exceptions that do not reflect the nature of Monsanto/Bayer's litigious relationship with farmers.
If we're interested in establishing facts and getting to the truth of the situation, I think we need to look impartially at a broader range of evidence and more than just 2 cases, which is just under 1.4% of cases that Monsanto/Bayer has brought against farmers. Monsanto/Bayer has a successful prosecution rate against farmers of just 7.6%, i.e. the percentage of cases that Monsanto/Bayer initiates against farmers that actually end in a successful conviction.
Yay! You found a Wikipedia article all by yourself. Didn't cite it as you should have, but still a remarkable feat for you. Now take that "7.6%... actually end in a successful conviction" (judgment of infringement, thank you, these are not criminal cases brought by the U.S. government) and contrast that with the fact that on average 95% of Federal civil actions are settled prior to trial, and you suddenly lose the conclusion that "[t]his may be indicative of an overly aggressive legal policy designed to intimidate farmers."
...who are vulnerable to the legal expenses, time lost, and stress caused by being prosecuted by Monsanto/Bayer. In plain English, Monsanto/Bayer appear to bully farmers into compliance by threatening to bankrupt them and ruin their lives. It wouldn't matter if a farmer was in the right or not.;They simply can't win at this game.
Yes, yes, assume that all of the settlements were procured by financial duress because that is convenient for you, despite it being even more likely that those settling were caught with their hands in the cookie jar (hint: 35 USC 285 authorizes attorney fee shifting, i.e., English rules for fees, and these farmers are running multimillion dollar businesses).
Pointing at 2 of the 11 successful cases for Monsanto/Bayer, which are intended to paint Monsanto/Bayer in a favourable light (or conversely, the farmers in a negative light), AKA "cheery picking evidence," is intentionally misleading PR nonsense.
Omitting the fact that the 11 successful cases were all of the cases that went to trial, with no losses, is even more intentionally misleading.
Again, name an "innocent" farmer -- even one that you contend settled because "they simply can't win at this game."
"I learned it from you, Dad! I learned it from you!"
Shall I catalog the questions that I have answered versus the ones that you have not?
You claim to be a lawyer with intimate knowledge of Monsanto/Bayer cases and yet you cannot or will not support your assertion that the two cases you've mentioned are representative of Monsanto/Bayer vs. farmers cases in general.
I claimed nothing - you demanded disclosure. I contented myself with destroying your adopted position that Bowman was innocent. Then you lost your mind at the idea that someone might know something more in this area than you, yet not have been paid to thwart you.
You claim that Monsanto sues "innocent" farmers yet you have yet to produce even one example yourself, and the sole example that you adopted from an AC didn't quite work out. Support your claim.
I'm not asking for a review of every case. Just a few more examples, i.e. links that you can find, with your intimate knowledge, and copy and paste easily.
I'm still asking for any example, which you have yet to provide. 2 >> 0. E.g. examples that you might find by Googling "Monsanto" "patent" and "farmer." Get to work.
In case you haven't figured this out, I'm not going to go away, and I'm not going to do anything more that you ask until you invest some effort in supporting your claim. You're not my audience. This is for the benefit of other readers, moderators, and metamoderators.
If you've read up on it, then why do you lie about the effective resolution?
What lie?
The array can be used for high resolution or high sensitivity.
48MP or 12MP wit/h high sensitivity. Yes.
The color resolution is lower than the 48MP number suggests, but that's also true for normal Bayer pattern sensors.
Bingo. Specs report the detector resolution, not an "effective color resolution" after discounting for Bayer patterning. So where's the lie? Did I say "effective" or "color resolution" anywhere but here?
However, thanks to some smart technology called a Quad Bayer array -- where neighboring pixels are intelligently combined -- Sony says the effective pixel size is 1.6 microns. The bigger the pixel size, the better the light capture and low-light performance
And yes, I did that:
You do realize that with the Quad Bayer array the camera's resolution drops to 12MP with ~1.6um sensor cells, right?
"[N]eighboring pixels are intelligently combined" and "drops to 12MP with [2x sensor dimensions]." This was not hidden from you. In either case.
Why not just use the quad bayer array with fewer pixels and give mobile phones an actual low light capability for once.
You do realize that with the Quad Bayer array the camera's resolution drops to 12MP with ~1.6um sensor cells, right?
If released now it would be competing against an iPhone 8 at 12MP with ~1.2um sensor cells.
So just how much additional resolution do you think that a consumer would be willing to sacrifice in order to obtain improved low light capability? Just how large do those sensor cells need to be? Not merely in your personal opinion -- but with mass commercial viability?
Are you saying that you don't know of any cases other than the two you've mentioned between Monsanto/Bayer and farmers regarding Roundup Ready?
If they are "very" representative, please tell us how/why.
You appear to be either very confused or very disingenuous. I'm betting upon the latter.
You stated that Monsanto sues "innocent" farmers. Support your assertion. The sole example for your case (Bowman), that you did not even provide yourself, was not so innocent.
I do not need to enumerate and discuss every Monsanto case, especially for someone who has not done one iota of their own research. I have discussed two. I will, at my whim, answer any other questions you may have after you demonstrate even a modicum of good faith by (1) providing evidence to support your assertion and (2) answering at least one of the questions that I asked.
Rebutting contrary evidence does not consist of "ask questions until the people raising inconvenient facts get annoyed and leave." Asking questions is short and easy. Answering them and providing support takes more time and effort. I've done the latter. You have not. Get to work.
Wasn't that already illegal? Yet the Chinese--people beyond US jurisdiction (and California's jurisdiction, despite what they seem to think)--did it anyway, yes?
However "did it anyway" is a an exercise in moving the goalposts. Kohath posted "Be a grownup and make grownup choices. Then you won't need a government mommy watching out for you..." You're implying that the problem would not be worse if there were not labeling + heath & safety laws. Yet perfection is neither obtainable nor required.
If someone eats a hamburger with asbestos sprinkled on it for flavor, then that's their fault, they should have scanned all their foodstuffs with asbestos detectors.
No such hamburger has ever existed. We already have all the protection we need against purely imaginary threats.
Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.
OK, so according to your intimate knowledge of Monsanto/Bayer's legal history:
How many prosecutions against farmers regarding seed licensing infringement for Roundup Ready and similar products (in the USA alone) have there been?
I am not your research assistant. I do not work for you. Back up your assertions with your own facts. So far you have not identified one "innocent" farmer.
In the light of a broader selection of legal cases, how representative are the two cases that you've mentioned of the overall pattern of Monsanto/Bayer's legal activities regarding Roundup Ready and similar products?
Very.
BTW, Monsanto/Bayer also have a terrifying reputation and simply sending out legal letters to farmers, which implicitly threaten bankruptcy through legal fees, are more than enough to intimidate and threaten farmers into compliance and to prevent them from speaking out publicly against Monsanto/Bayer.
Excuse me? What letters? Prevent them from speaking out how? Reputation among who based upon what?
I can ask questions too. You don't and probably won't actually answer them, but you're the one that has to support your assertions. Bowman and Schmeiser won't help you.
The International Association of Athletics Federations, track's governing body, has rules about shoes, but they are vague: "Shoes must not be constructed so as to give athletes any unfair assistance or advantage." It does not specify what such an advantage might be.
4% faster?
Sure... because there's no difference between barefoot and a 1920s running shoe, and then a 1960s running shoe, and then a mid 70s running shoe, and then a turn-of-the-century running shoe.
TFA doesn't say that this is the only shoe that shows a performance difference, period. It says that this is the only shoe that shows a significant performance difference versus the prior generation of racing shoes.
TFA also explains that the "unfair" adjective is significant -- "The rules also state that shoes "must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics." Being available to all of the competitors sounds as if it goes a long way towards conformance to the rule.
He won't support his conclusions of wrongfulness and innocence... he'll just claim that you've been building a 10 year comment history in order to shill against him.
Seriously? And why not transcripts and the judge's middle name(s) and favourite colour, while you're asking?
Because that is the way that you identify a legal case so that someone can locate the decision and the reported facts.
Because I wanted to confirm my belief that he was referring to Schmeiser.
Schmeiser - the farmer who intentionally bombed the perimeter of his field with Roundup to select for the "wind-blown" contamination, intentionally grew the surviving Roundup-ready plants to maturity, intentionally harvested the Round-up ready seeds, and intentionally planted the Round-up ready seeds the following year as his entire crop.
This was not "my crop was contaminatined by a small percentage of Roundup-ready plants and Monsanto bullied me into paying royalties." This was "if I don't sign a contract with Monsanto I think that I'm home free to do whatever the hell I want, patent be damned." Which was not "wrongly" punished by Monsanto.
Instead he was referring to Bowman.
Bowman - the farmer who bought Roundup-ready seeds for his first crop under contract to Monsanto, harvested the first crop, then thought "nuts to this," intentionally bought soybeans designated for use as feed/foodstock and instead planted them as a crop without any contact/license.
This was also not "my crop was contaminatined by a small percentage of Roundup-ready plants and Monsanto bullied me into paying royalties." THis was "since Monsanto licensed one crop to me and others all future generations from those seeds are not protected by the patent and do not need to be licensed." Which was a theory, but not one "wrongly" punished by Monsanto.
Different types of "wrongly." Both WRONG uses of the term "wrongly" since the farmers both lost on the merits, but moderately less scummy than the first. And one day someone might identify a "wrongly" where the farmer won on the merits, which would be news to me.
Also note that a "multi-millenia track record" doesn't mean much in the face of new technology or supplies.
And my point was that "assume a spherical cow" is a terrible argument when discussing behavioral economics. Adding more spherical cows does not improve it.
If people got tired of the shiny, then the price would fall to a level that was driven by actual intrinsic value.
That's like saying if the Earth was made of cheese, then the price of food would fall to a level that was driven by actual intrinsic value.
A multi-millenia track record indicates that people aren't going to get tired of the shiny. Jewelry value isn't going to go away and leave only "industrial use" value.
Did you know that awards get paid after the case is entirely finished?
Why, yes, yes I did. Did you know that firms such as the one that I work in litigate on other than an hourly fee basis via mechanisms such as flat fees, tiered fees, risk sharing and success fees, etc?
You have no idea whether this client would save money by artificially shortened litigation - especially since the only way that the litigation would be shortened in such an appeal is by this client losing his copyright claim.
You analysis is crap, so yes, that part has not changed in any meaningful way.
Given that would wipe out Irelands position as european tech darling ireland probably wouldn't allow it or would procrastinate long enough for google to withdraw the funds.
Because that totally happened when the EU made Apple repay 3x the quantity involved in the Google fine to Ireland to negate Ireland's illegal tax subsidy.
Wanting to control the photo is fine. The cunt part is that they sued innocent third parties instead of the site that had transmitted the unauthorized copies (which appears to be either instagram or twitter; I can't tell) nor the people who pirated the photo (the users of the web browsers).
A non-cunt would have sued whoever had committed the infringement, not the web sites that told people where they can find the photo.
I'm not buying that. The web sites designed the web pages that embed or in-line link the images: they selected the photo, they created the layout, they created a derivative work that combined their content with the embedded or in-line linked photo, and they directed the web browsers to download and display the photo. You want to focus on who owns the equipment that produced the copy, but 17 USC 106 does not merely limit the reproduction of the work. The copyright owner also has the exclusice right:
* to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; and
* in the case of... pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works... to display the copyrighted work publicly.
So given that those activities are infringments, "whoever had committed the infringement" is not necessarily limited to the site that transmitted the copies and the users of the web browsers.
"Nothingburger" is a Trumpisim that he uses for communicating to his rabid hordes of mentally challenged followers when he wants something to be seen as irrelevant. A way of taking any story, no matter how factual and painting it as a falsehood.
Trump appropriated it, and your definition is a bit off.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh no! A litigation hold letter! Something that could not possibly be routine U.S. practice because, unlike Europe, U.S. courts permit discovery of evidence held by both sides as well as any expert witnesses.
I receive, or more typically advise clients of, litigation hold obligations about a half dozen times a year. Because disposing of relevant files after you become aware of a likelihood of litigation is considered a big no no...
I totally believe you in view of your track record so far...
Again, I totally believe you in view of your track record so far... and the hollowing-out of government-sponsored basic research has absolutely nothing to do with your so-called "dependency."
Yay! You found a Wikipedia article all by yourself. Didn't cite it as you should have, but still a remarkable feat for you. Now take that "7.6%... actually end in a successful conviction" (judgment of infringement, thank you, these are not criminal cases brought by the U.S. government) and contrast that with the fact that on average 95% of Federal civil actions are settled prior to trial, and you suddenly lose the conclusion that "[t]his may be indicative of an overly aggressive legal policy designed to intimidate farmers."
Yes, yes, assume that all of the settlements were procured by financial duress because that is convenient for you, despite it being even more likely that those settling were caught with their hands in the cookie jar (hint: 35 USC 285 authorizes attorney fee shifting, i.e., English rules for fees, and these farmers are running multimillion dollar businesses).
Omitting the fact that the 11 successful cases were all of the cases that went to trial, with no losses, is even more intentionally misleading.
Again, name an "innocent" farmer -- even one that you contend settled because "they simply can't win at this game."
Memory problems? Or did your attempts to forget Helsinki merely work too well?
"I learned it from you, Dad! I learned it from you!"
Shall I catalog the questions that I have answered versus the ones that you have not?
I claimed nothing - you demanded disclosure. I contented myself with destroying your adopted position that Bowman was innocent. Then you lost your mind at the idea that someone might know something more in this area than you, yet not have been paid to thwart you.
You claim that Monsanto sues "innocent" farmers yet you have yet to produce even one example yourself, and the sole example that you adopted from an AC didn't quite work out. Support your claim.
I'm still asking for any example, which you have yet to provide. 2 >> 0. E.g. examples that you might find by Googling "Monsanto" "patent" and "farmer." Get to work.
In case you haven't figured this out, I'm not going to go away, and I'm not going to do anything more that you ask until you invest some effort in supporting your claim. You're not my audience. This is for the benefit of other readers, moderators, and metamoderators.
What lie?
48MP or 12MP wit/h high sensitivity. Yes.
Bingo. Specs report the detector resolution, not an "effective color resolution" after discounting for Bayer patterning. So where's the lie? Did I say "effective" or "color resolution" anywhere but here?
The summary and TFA did that:
And yes, I did that:
"[N]eighboring pixels are intelligently combined" and "drops to 12MP with [2x sensor dimensions]." This was not hidden from you. In either case.
No, I've read up on it, and you're projecting your tendency to assume onto me.
You do realize that with the Quad Bayer array the camera's resolution drops to 12MP with ~1.6um sensor cells, right?
If released now it would be competing against an iPhone 8 at 12MP with ~1.2um sensor cells.
So just how much additional resolution do you think that a consumer would be willing to sacrifice in order to obtain improved low light capability? Just how large do those sensor cells need to be? Not merely in your personal opinion -- but with mass commercial viability?
You appear to be either very confused or very disingenuous. I'm betting upon the latter.
You stated that Monsanto sues "innocent" farmers. Support your assertion. The sole example for your case (Bowman), that you did not even provide yourself, was not so innocent.
I do not need to enumerate and discuss every Monsanto case, especially for someone who has not done one iota of their own research. I have discussed two. I will, at my whim, answer any other questions you may have after you demonstrate even a modicum of good faith by (1) providing evidence to support your assertion and (2) answering at least one of the questions that I asked.
Rebutting contrary evidence does not consist of "ask questions until the people raising inconvenient facts get annoyed and leave." Asking questions is short and easy. Answering them and providing support takes more time and effort. I've done the latter. You have not. Get to work.
Why yes. As a result, there were executions, lengthy prison terms, and various other punishments.
However "did it anyway" is a an exercise in moving the goalposts. Kohath posted "Be a grownup and make grownup choices. Then you won't need a government mommy watching out for you..." You're implying that the problem would not be worse if there were not labeling + heath & safety laws. Yet perfection is neither obtainable nor required.
As for jurisdiction... being "beyond" a jurisdiction isn't the safety net that you appear to think it is.
Cut-down powdered milk with melamine liberally added for artificially high apparent protein levels in order to meet contract standards.
Non-imaginary threat. Now discuss.
I am not your research assistant. I do not work for you. Back up your assertions with your own facts. So far you have not identified one "innocent" farmer.
Very.
Excuse me? What letters? Prevent them from speaking out how? Reputation among who based upon what?
I can ask questions too. You don't and probably won't actually answer them, but you're the one that has to support your assertions. Bowman and Schmeiser won't help you.
Sure... because there's no difference between barefoot and a 1920s running shoe, and then a 1960s running shoe, and then a mid 70s running shoe, and then a turn-of-the-century running shoe.
TFA doesn't say that this is the only shoe that shows a performance difference, period. It says that this is the only shoe that shows a significant performance difference versus the prior generation of racing shoes.
TFA also explains that the "unfair" adjective is significant -- "The rules also state that shoes "must be reasonably available to all in the spirit of the universality of athletics." Being available to all of the competitors sounds as if it goes a long way towards conformance to the rule.
He's not actually interested in those things, or verification.
If you know too much detail, you're suspect.
If you disagree with his assessment of innocence, you're a shill.
He won't support his conclusions of wrongfulness and innocence... he'll just claim that you've been building a 10 year comment history in order to shill against him.
Have you even bothered to look at the user bio? Yes. As if that would disqualify me. "He knows too much about the topic!"
No.
As if nobody would comment on a topic that they know intimately, on Slashdot, in their spare time.
Stop attempting to attack the messenger and debate the issue instead.
Using "astro-turfer" is easier than acknowledging that someone could honestly hold a different opinion than you and engaging them on the merits.
Because that is the way that you identify a legal case so that someone can locate the decision and the reported facts.
Because I wanted to confirm my belief that he was referring to Schmeiser.
Schmeiser - the farmer who intentionally bombed the perimeter of his field with Roundup to select for the "wind-blown" contamination, intentionally grew the surviving Roundup-ready plants to maturity, intentionally harvested the Round-up ready seeds, and intentionally planted the Round-up ready seeds the following year as his entire crop.
This was not "my crop was contaminatined by a small percentage of Roundup-ready plants and Monsanto bullied me into paying royalties." This was "if I don't sign a contract with Monsanto I think that I'm home free to do whatever the hell I want, patent be damned." Which was not "wrongly" punished by Monsanto.
Instead he was referring to Bowman.
Bowman - the farmer who bought Roundup-ready seeds for his first crop under contract to Monsanto, harvested the first crop, then thought "nuts to this," intentionally bought soybeans designated for use as feed/foodstock and instead planted them as a crop without any contact/license.
This was also not "my crop was contaminatined by a small percentage of Roundup-ready plants and Monsanto bullied me into paying royalties." THis was "since Monsanto licensed one crop to me and others all future generations from those seeds are not protected by the patent and do not need to be licensed." Which was a theory, but not one "wrongly" punished by Monsanto.
Different types of "wrongly." Both WRONG uses of the term "wrongly" since the farmers both lost on the merits, but moderately less scummy than the first. And one day someone might identify a "wrongly" where the farmer won on the merits, which would be news to me.
That mechanism is called Tickets. The "souls" pay money for them, and they offset the costs of the landing fees.
And gasoline! No passengers in your car? 10x the cost. Surely you're willing to employ that sort of rule in your own life...
Define "wongly" and, more pointedly, name one. Include the court and case number if you have it.
Also note that a "multi-millenia track record" doesn't mean much in the face of new technology or supplies.
And my point was that "assume a spherical cow" is a terrible argument when discussing behavioral economics. Adding more spherical cows does not improve it.
That's like saying if the Earth was made of cheese, then the price of food would fall to a level that was driven by actual intrinsic value.
A multi-millenia track record indicates that people aren't going to get tired of the shiny. Jewelry value isn't going to go away and leave only "industrial use" value.
Why, yes, yes I did. Did you know that firms such as the one that I work in litigate on other than an hourly fee basis via mechanisms such as flat fees, tiered fees, risk sharing and success fees, etc?
You have no idea whether this client would save money by artificially shortened litigation - especially since the only way that the litigation would be shortened in such an appeal is by this client losing his copyright claim.
You analysis is crap, so yes, that part has not changed in any meaningful way.
Given that would wipe out Irelands position as european tech darling ireland probably wouldn't allow it or would procrastinate long enough for google to withdraw the funds.
Because that totally happened when the EU made Apple repay 3x the quantity involved in the Google fine to Ireland to negate Ireland's illegal tax subsidy.
Try again?
I'm not buying that. The web sites designed the web pages that embed or in-line link the images: they selected the photo, they created the layout, they created a derivative work that combined their content with the embedded or in-line linked photo, and they directed the web browsers to download and display the photo. You want to focus on who owns the equipment that produced the copy, but 17 USC 106 does not merely limit the reproduction of the work. The copyright owner also has the exclusice right:
* to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; and
* in the case of... pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works... to display the copyrighted work publicly.
So given that those activities are infringments, "whoever had committed the infringement" is not necessarily limited to the site that transmitted the copies and the users of the web browsers.
Trump appropriated it, and your definition is a bit off.
"[T]he term has evolved to describe highly publicized non-events, particularly stories of political intrigue without proof or consequence."
It was super appropriate because the term originated in Hollywood gossip rags, and TFA is a column from the Hollywood Reporter.