# Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co.

copied from Jytdog talk page today by PraeceptorIP with my blessing Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 
Jytdog, what I was trying to do, first, was replace the pejorative term "loophole" with a more neutral way of putting it that did not suggest wrongdoing or bad intent by Bowman, as the prior writer did. Second, I think it is necessary to tell readers that crop soybeans are the same as seed, so that you can use the crop beans as seed to grow new crops. Otherwise it is unclear what is going on.
Instead of just reverting, why don't you come up with a way to do these things that you would find OK? 
I think that is an improper revert. Maybe my way of saying this (what's in the first para. above) is not best, but what would you suggest? I would welcome a helpful edit.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are making it read like an essay intead of an encyclopedia article. Please don't use footnotes with asides, and please don't include WP:OR like  "Thus far, there has been relatively little scholarly commentary on the case in law journals".  Also we don't use honorifics like "Professor Gholsh".  Just because he happened to write a blog (even if it was in patently-o) doesn't mean he is quotable. Jytdog (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, you edited out the subheads. You therefore have the three court decisions as part of the "Background." Court decisions do not belong in the Background section. 
You are not editing carefully. Some of your edits are improvements. But some make the article worse (like what I mention above in the first three sentences). You shouldn't revert just for the sake of reverting. That appears to be what you did here. For example, why did you delete the sentence following the statement that he had a contract--that the infringing seed plantings were not the ones under the3 contract, so it wasn't a breach of contract that he did it. Otherwise, the preceding sentence is misleading. It suggests that Bowman "replanted" in violation of his contract with Monsanto--untrue!
Maybe we could discuss in detail what you want to revert and why. Then we could come up with an improved article, with fewer of the mistakes now in it.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

you mean this dif perhaps, where I reverted a whole boatload  of OR that you added? Jytdog (talk) 01:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
please continue this at the article talk page so others who care can join in. thx. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. But before I switch Talk pages, that is *NOT* OR. I can provide cites. PraeceptorIP (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 what exactly is the content dispute at this time? [Not much! PIP] Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Most of your present edits are reasonable points. You edited with sufficient discrimination to make few things left as to which reasonable persons could not take either view. PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Great. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Praceptor you are giving a ton of WEIGHT to the Stern source. Stern is critical of the decisions of three courts in this case, and a whole history of case law around biotech in the US and abroad.  It is fine to use him but please do not give UNDUE weight to his POV. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. That's a fair comment. But history isn't uniformly on the side you say it is. In Canada, the Supreme Court said growing plants from saved seed is a "natural process" and therefore not infringing.
Why did you delete the statement that the "replanted" seeds were not subject to the Monsanto-Bowman contract? If you delete that you should also delete the preceding sentence that incorrectly suggests that Bowman breached a contract not to do what he did. That's incorrect, as the fn. attests. He contracted not to replant seeds he bought from Monsanto; he bought these seeds on the open market from a grain elevator. PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
One thing at a time, please.  The relevant case I am aware of in Canada is Monsanto Canada Inc v Schmeiser.  What case are you talking about? Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to research it because I read it a while ago and don'r remember the name right now. In the meantime, however, how about an answer to the second paragraph? And further, why do you object to saying "replant" is wrong because it is "plant"—not "replant"? Do you have a reason why you think it is correct to call it "replant"? (Never mind that one thing at a time dodge as a way to avoid answering.) Thx! PraeceptorIP (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
First, please discuss content, not contributors, on Talk pages. Thanks.  Next, please do come back with the results of your research - I like to learn and would be interested.  I am not aware of any major market jurisdiction where seeds are not patentable or  where exhaustion applies to the sale of seeds or other patentable life (e.g transgenic mice, which are not patentable in all jurisdictions).  Now that you've answered on the Canada thing, I'll respond to the other. Yes, it is good to say that the license agreement was not relevant. I've restored that content. My bad. Jytdog (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
So far, the most relevant thing I have come up with is C-18, a Canadian law that came into effect 27 Feb 2015. [back to left margin -->]
According to a Canadian Govt agency C-18 provides:
"The holder's rights do not extend to production, reproduction, conditioning, and storing/stocking of harvested material of the protected plant variety grown by a farmer on the farmer's holdings and used by the farmer on their own holdings for the purpose of propagation of the variety (e.g. farm-saved seed). Canadian farmers will be able to continue saving, cleaning, treating, storing and replanting seed of protected varieties on their own land." [But they must not sell the seed to other farmers.] 
This law appears to be a modification of what was formerly called the Farmer's Privilege, crossed with some dicta in the oncomouse case about no patent protections on natural processes. But the Schmeiser case says (5-4) that the patent protection is not on the canola plant but on the modified cells or genetic material contained inside the plant. By the way, for whatever it is worth, the Schmeiser  case was about use, not making, as was Bowman.
I have not been able to find the case law I was looking for and I am beginning to suspect that it was somebody's (or somebodies') speculation based on extrapolating the language of the oncomouse case to crop plants. (Also, not taking into account the ploy about it's not protection on the plant, it's on the genes or cells inside it.) 
Now, as to another point made above: "not aware of any major market jurisdiction where seeds are not patentable or where exhaustion applies to the sale of seeds....
It isn't whether exhaustion applies to seeds (saved and used for new crops as done from the Neolithic Revolution). It doesn't! That is what Bowman clearly and correctly held. It's whether the challenged conduct (plant saved seeds to grow a crop) is making or something else within 35 USC 271(a) or its equivalent. It may be akin to exhaustion but it is not exhaustion.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

on the exhaustion thing, I meant patents covering seeds, sorry. The passage you quoted from Canadian law is about plant breeders rights which are a separate kind of IP that applies to plants. The patent law in Canada on this was settled by Schmeiser unless something new has come up.
I didn't respond on the "replant" thing.  Stern has an idiosyncratic reading which, as far as I know, is outside mainstream contract and case law, where "replanting", is well understood to be shorthand for "planting the harvested seed". I get his point that "replanting" serves great rhetorical purpose in baking in the continuity of the genetic material in subsequent generations of seed. But that terminology is "done" and WP is not a place to right great wrongs. If lots of people (and courts) pick up on Stern's meme and stop using "replanting" as shorthand for "planting the harvested seed" then it would make sense that WP would reflect that. Now it is a (very) minority voice that we do not give WEIGHT to. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
OK. What you say sounds reasonable. PraeceptorIP (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is beginning to look pretty reasonable. But on further reading, I think it is incorrect to say "rather than merely using a purchased article on which the patent rights had become exhausted" in characterizing the last commentator's remarks. That article doesn't take the position that Bowman used purchased seeds on which patent rights had become exhausted. The article does not argue with the Court's treatment of the exhaustion doctrine at all, and seems to agree that the doctrine just does not apply in this context. I therefore think the above quoted clause should be deleted.
What the article is saying is that Congress never addressed whether planting seeds to grow crops is a making. It also says Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary says that making refers to artificial processes, not natural ones. The conclusion drawn (at the very end) is that the Court should not have rushed in where Congress was silent. Instead (see the article's fn. quote from the Benson case), the Court should have declined to hold that a 12,000 year old practice was patent infringement unless and until Congress specifically said it was. It was for Congress to act here, not the Court. Something like that, if anything, should go where the clause now is that I suggest should be deleted.
PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should just remove that as Stern is way outside the mainstream here.  Doing that now. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
oh my please see your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the most recent comment of jytdog elsewhere, I propose adding a further reference/citation at the very end after the reference to U of Wisc Law School Professor Shubha Ghosh's comments. What is shown below in bold is how it reads now, and what I propose to add is in regular Roman.
A co-author of an amicus brief on behalf of Bowman filed by the American Antitrust Institute expressed relief that the loss was on a narrow basis rather than providing a broad affirmation of the lack of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.[18] Another academic commentator did not take issue with the Court's refusal to shelter Bowman's conduct under the exhaustion doctrine, but criticized the Court's classification of the act of planting seeds and growing crops from them as an act of "making" a new patented article for purposes of the US patent statute.

Unless there is a consensus against this addition to the very scanty set of references to commentary about this decision, I will incorporate it after a reasonable time.


### References
PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

already discussed above. This is UNDUE weight to a decidedly minority point of view. Please provide any other discussion that takes this perspective on "making" with regard to self-replicating inventions. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The only one who appears opposed is you. Looking at the addition from a legal standpoint, it is decidedly NOT a minority view. I have reinserted the material. If you intend to remove it, please get consensus (which means more than just you). GregJackP Boomer!  01:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Please note that Praceptor said his view is exactly counter to what SCOTUS did and said.   There is really just you and I here, as Praeceptor is conflicted out.  Especially as Stern is arguing with SCOTUS here and the stream of law it stands within, please show me the sources that show his view is mainstream and deserves WEIGHT in this encyclopedia article.  Thanks Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
What does being counter to what SCOTUS did have to do with his position? SCOTUS gets things wrong all the time, that's why later cases overrule previous cases. You know, like Brown v. Board of Education In any event, you, as one editor, do not get to determine consensus, and Praeceptor's position is much more sound than yours. It's clear that you don't understand the law from our previous discussions. Praeceptor is a clear-cut expert in the field. You are not. Give it a break and stop hounding him. In any event, see Tabetha Marie Peavey, Bowman v. Monsanto: Bowman, the Producer and the End User, 29 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 465, 473 (2014) ("Others, however believe that []cases recognizing a patentee's ability to contract around exhaustion using post-sale restrictions reflect a departure by the Federal Circuit from established Supreme Court jurisprudence.") and Daryl Lim, Self-Replicating Technologies and the Challenge for the Patent and Antitrust Laws, 32 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 196 (2013-2014) ("[P]atentees cannot use a license to cover up what was actually a sale.") (addressing the exhaustion doctrine). Both of these articles cite Stern. I can find plenty of others, this is far from a clear-cut issue. GregJackP Boomer!  02:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The cited material by Stern should stay in.  For further support of his position, the articles Greg referenced above should be added to the article.  It is pretty commonplace in SCOTUS articles to include negative and positive commentary about the decision. Minor4th 03:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason to exclude the opinion of an expert in the subject area. If there is a concern that this opinion is outside the mainstream, this can be dealt with in the article by providing examples of differing opinions. bd2412 T 03:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Jytdog, this is first and foremost, a legal article about a Supreme Court case. You have 3 lawyers (4 if you include Praeceptor, which I would) telling you that the material belongs in the article. On the other side is, well, you. I would invite you to drop this now, so we can move forward. GregJackP Boomer!  04:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
wow you are personalizing things in a way that is really inappropriate; please stop doing that.   with regard to relative expertise in this field, I do recommend that you read the discussion above prior to your arrival. I am not the one citing law on breeders rights.  You also  have not  addressed the notion that is emphasized in the proposed content that you added  - namely Stern's issue with "making".  The article you cite above by Daryl Lim is not in line with Stern with regard to "making" - instead it explains how that term is generally used in biotech law and is not arguing with SCOTUS on that point.  You should read it. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment on content, not the contributor. Isn't that the line you are so fond of? I would suggest that you follow your own advice. Again, you have four lawyers telling you that the material belongs in an article on a legal case at the Supreme Court level. There is only one editor, a layman, opposed to the addition. If you want to remove the material, get consensus. BTW, I'm taking the blog reference that you are fond of to WP:RSN—if they say it's OK, so be it. Until then, I replaced the tag. GregJackP Boomer!  18:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
After you sir. I did leave the Stern article.  And please make sure that your edit notes reflect your actual edits.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Btw, if you are going to argue that Stern's concern about "making" is mainstream, please actually make an argument for that.  As I noted above, the sources you brought argue against you.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Please also note that above, i asked Praeceptor not to give so much weight to Stern as Stern's views on this case are not mainstream, and Praeceptor replied, "fair enough"."OK. That's a fair comment."  So you arguing against him, too.  As I noted, I am agreeing to leave it in since you are very dug in on this, but WEIGHT should be minimal.  Jytdog (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC) (correct quote. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC))
Please do not misquote other editors. He did not say "fair enough," he said that you had made a "fair comment," which does not imply that he is in agreement with you. As a matter of fact, if you look at the context, it is clear that PraeceptorIP is opposed to your position. You may want to read WP:1AM since you are the only one arguing for your position—everyone else is taking the opposite side. Look, I know that you are an advocate for GMOs, which I don't really care about one way or another. What I do care about is the law, and that legal articles represent what is really occurring in the law. Please do not let your predispositions color your editing here. GregJackP Boomer!  20:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
fixed the quote -thanks for pointing out the error.  Please stop discussing contributors.  I would be happy to discuss my editing on GMOs on my talk page, if you like. Please do discuss the "making" thing, if there is any disagreement left about that.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't lecture me on discussing contributors. Right now it seems pretty hypocritical of you, since you've taken every chance you could to denigrate my motives. That includes you falsely stating that I have a grudge against you, that I was canvassing, and so on. If you don't want contributors (i.e., you) to be discussed, I would suggest that you STFU about other contributors. How many times have you been drug to ANI over the way you communicate with others? You don't get to slam other editors and then expect them not to discuss your problems. So if you don't want your failings pointed out, I would suggest that you take your own advice. GregJackP ::::Boomer!  23:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The only content under discussion here is the issue of "making". Would you please discuss that?  If that is there is still any disagreement on content. I cannot tell. Please either confirm that the content is good enough, or discuss what you would like to change. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't need to lay out a case for changing anything, I have consensus. GregJackP Boomer!  02:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Great, so that content is settled. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
J-dog, Please allow Greg to improve the article, without reverts and talkpage bickering. Greg had started a good faith re-write, and it's silly to argue about the weight of different sources when the article is in the middle of a significant re-write. Minor4th 20:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how reverting a) my addition of content based on a source that he proposed, b) my reduction of UNDUE weight, c) removing POV language, and d) my removal of the tag, all under an edit note that said "restore tag" is a "good faith" anything. Do you?  And the discussion here about UNDUE for the "making" thing, is standard talk page discussion,  except for GregJackP's personal attacks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone inserted the sentence "However, the Court's use of "making" is consistent with past US cases, UK case law, and Canadian case law,[25]:171-175." The citation is to John Marshall Asst. Prof. Darryl Lim's 2015 article. I checked Lim's article at pp. 171-175, and was unable to find any citation to a US, UK, or Canadian case that addressed "making" in patent law. The only cited Canadian case addressed "using," not making; the Lim article pointed that out at the top of p. 175. There may be US or UK cases that address making and hold that planting and growing patented crop seeds is making the patented crop (or its seed), but I don't know of them. I do know that Bowman is the first US Sup Ct case to hold that planting and growing crop seeds is making the crop (or its seed).
This sentence is unsupported by the citation given, and I believe factually incorrect as well. It may be the product of the feverish imagination of an overenthusiastic advocate of GMO, or a person without legal education who is not familiar with legal support sourcing; I wouldn't know. But in any case, as an unsupported opinion statement (as well as one with an incorrect citation to a source that does not say what it is cited for), it would appear to have no place in a WP legal article. I therefore propose to delete it in a reasonable time unless the WP consensus (preferably of informed persons) says otherwise. (I very diffidently and tentatively offer that it might be better if persons without any legal background recognized their limitations and refrained from making substantive legal pronouncements in WP law articles. That may be particularly relevant in difficult specialties like patents and copyright.)
PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I removed the sentence in question. I also looked at the source and did not find support for the sentence. I agree with your comment about making legal pronouncements and would note that patent/copyright/IP law in general is very specialized. It is often difficult for those with legal training to get the law right, much less those who have no legal training or background. We don't want to put erroneous information in Wikipedia. GregJackP Boomer!  19:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Please discuss content, not contributor.  I will tell you this (others should already know) - per the WP:TPG and WP:NPA we discuss content, not contributor on article talk pages.  We each have no way to know who each other is in the real world (except for those who both disclose their RW identity and use WP's system to validate their identity, which neither you nor I have done).  And besides, even those who claim to be "experts" can make mistakes - like you claims above about Canadian patent and plant breeders law. It happens - no one is perfect.  So please just discuss content and sourcing. Thanks.
Responding to substance:
UK piece: Lim discusses the UK case  Schütz v. Werit starting on page 170 (i just corrected the page # ref) and ends that discussion on p 171 noting that for the UK court, to determine if "making" has occurred..." the court should look at 'how those products should be characterized.' In doing so, the court found it 'both legitimate and helpful' to look at the relative life expectancies of the patented and unpatented portions of the article."  Lim picks up on that line of reasoning again on p 173 where he discusses how progeny would directly compete with 1st generation products - the UK 'duration' theme is directly brought into play.
US law  - the content doesn't say anything about SCOTUS rulings - it just mentions US law.  Lim starts with a discussion of Adams on p 171, cites Websters for a plain meaning of "making" as “to plant and raise (a crop).” and goes on to dissect Rodkey's analysis as making "onsense of the careful calibrationQuanta.
Canadian law - Schmeiser case is mentioned 174-175 and Lim writes "While less clearly articulated in the Canadian case, in both instances, it is the making rather than the pairing of the herbicide and seed that constitutes the offensive conduct."
So yes, Lim does show how the decision is consistent with UK, US, and Canadian law. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to go there on contributors, we can, although neither PraeceptorIP nor I have attacked you. Although you self-reverted, you deleted another editor's comments, a clear-cut violation of WP:TPG. Second, no one has personally attacked you. Please review WP:NPA and strike your false allegations of personal attacks, it is getting tiring. Third, your use of several different sections which use different terms do not support the sentence that was removed, and using the reference in that way is both WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Fourth, no one has said that you have to identify yourself, but WP:AGF I believe that Praeceptor is who he says he is (and if he isn't, why are you concerned about WP:COI on his part?) and it is easy to find out my identity, I was outed years ago. Please, calm down and work in a collaborative manner. GregJackP Boomer!  20:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Jdog, please stop reverting in material that is not supported by the cite you've provided.  You do not have consensus to continue to reinsert this faulty info. Minor4th 20:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

The content says that Lim shows how the SCOTUS ruling is consistent with UK, UK< and Canadian law,  I cited the exact parts of Lim that support that. Please address the substance, both of you.  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't say that. Minor4th 20:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I said it above, you are combining statements on using and making - that's OR and SYNTH. You can't do that. Plus, there is clear consensus to leave the material out. GregJackP Boomer!  20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Your argument makes no sense - all three parts of the statement are directly supported and Minor4H is not making reasoned arguments either. But this dramah is not worth the effort. I will let this go. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
May I add to the comments by GregJackP and Minor4th. This is regarding the Lim article/citation and its erroneous use here. (Apology: I seem to have taken so long in writing this out that several generations more of comment by others occurred.)
Jyt said: 

US law - the content doesn't say anything about SCOTUS rulings - it just mentions US law. Lim starts with a discussion of Adams on p 171, cites Websters [Dictionary] for a plain meaning of "making" as “to plant and raise (a crop).” and goes on to dissect Rodkey's analysis as making "nonsense of the careful calibration Quanta.
The Adams case, as all patent lawyers know and those who bothered to read the WP article on it will recall that it explains, concerns a patented coffin lid that was bought in Boston and moved elsewhere. The patentee sought to keep the buyer from using itin his undertaker business and the SCt said "nothing doing." That case does not shed the remotest light on whether planting a patented seed and growing a patented crop from it constitutes a making. So the discussion of Adams is beside the point.
Lim's citation of a 1954 Webster's dictionary is ill informed. As Justice Scalia has pointed out many times, you  must use a dictionary from the time when the statute was enacted to understand what Congress meant by the words it used in the statute. Anything else leads to error. This statute was passed in 1791 and remained substantially unchanged to the present. In the 18th century "making" referred to an artificial rather than natural process. There is a discussion of this point with citations at Monsanto v Bowman], p. 258, referring to Dr Johnson's 1755 dictionary.
Dissecting Rodkey's analysis is not support for the proposition that US law recognized planting a seed and growing a crop as a making within the meaning of sec. 271(a).
As for the UK, which really is not as important here as US law, since we are critiquing a US case, the Schutz case does not say anything directly about growing xrops from patented seeds. Its relevance is therefore unclear. It does say, "In weighing this interest [monopoly vs competition], customary expectations are relevant." Since farmers have been saving seed since the Neolithic Revolution 12,000 years ago, the quoted statement would seem to cut the opposite way from the aspirations of GMO enthusiasts. As for Canadian law, I believe most readers would consider it a distortion of what Schmeiser holds to say that it is legal support for "using" being "making" in the seed saving context.
In sum, the authority for the stated proposition--that (lower court) prior US law supported holding "replanting" saved seeds is a "making"--is totally unsupported by what has been cited so far. One would think that if there had been any such authority the US Supreme Court would have cited it in the Bowman opinion instead of citing cases that said seed patents are valid (J.E.M.) and patents on unicellular organisms are valid (Chakrabarty). As you may know, validity does not imply infringement. And one kind of infringement (selling in the J.E.M. case) does not imply another (making in the Bowman case).
PraeceptorIP (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My position is what he just said. GregJackP Boomer!  21:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I am not arguing to keep the content and will not be responding further on this issue, since there is no further content dispute with regard to the content on Lim. Jytdog (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I recently removed the image of Kagan is it's pretty tangential to this topic and generally unencyclopedic to have uninformative pictures taking up space. If someone was extremely interested in what a particular justice looks like, there's already a wikilink to her page. What purpose is the image serving otherwise? It doesn't seem to be adding information to the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of Kagan's photo from the article. All of the SCOTUS FAs use a picture of the justice who wrote the opinion, and 67% of the GAs do. Please familiarize yourself with the style used for legal and SCOTUS articles. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer!  04:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
That other articles do something generally isn't a valid reason on it's own. What's included in an article is decided at each page. Could you answer my previous question? That's the heart of deciding whether it stays or goes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to answer your question. Why does Emerald Ash Borer have three pictures of the same bug? Isn't one enough? When 100% of featured articles have the photo of the justice who wrote the opinion, and two-thirds of the good articles, that tells one that it is useful information. Why don't you find consensus to remove it? I can tell you right now that I know a lot more about content creation on legal articles - I have as many featured articles on law as you have total articles created. You can start with an RfC if you want to remove it, but I can tell you how it will end. I don't tell you how to write articles about bugs, don't presume that you know enough about SCOTUS articles to tell me how to write them or what belongs in the article. GregJackP Boomer!  04:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please don't resort to personal attacks on article talk pages (especially in edit summaries since you can't redact them easily). Stick to content and contributor. Getting back to the meat of the question (which is consensus seeking), this is an issue of WP:WEIGHT. For the example of EAB, different pictures are provided for different characteristics. Each one provides unique information that cannot be summarized with concise text. What unique information is being provided here for this article that warrants a picture when we have the link to Kagan's page? It's a straightforward weight question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Get consensus if you want it removed. BTW, there have been no personal attacks. You may want to re-read that section. GregJackP Boomer!  05:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I've been doing that all along by following through based on policy. We haven't established weight for the picture to be included, (keeping in mind that weight policy), while you haven't addressed the relevant policy at all yet. If you don't want to discuss weight, it would seem we have consensus to remove it then. Given your opposition to removing it though, there must be some reason why you think it is relevant for inclusion in this article? I'm having difficulty seeing why you aren't answering the question if you think the image is providing unique information that requires a picture for this specific article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Because it is chickenshit to start a dispute on an article while it has a GA nomination pending. It causes a "fast fail" and I don't like it when editors who don't know WTF they are doing on legal articles come in and F-up the nomination. You could have asked about it on the talk page, you could have asked me about it since I was the one that added the photo, or done any number of things. Instead, based on my experience, you've killed the nomination. So if you have difficulty understanding, ask yourself this - how would you feel if someone started screwing with the article that you have nominated for GA? When it is someone that hasn't edited bug articles, but starts a dispute over the three photos of the same bug? I'm not going to do that, because I'm not an asshole, but I'm not going to look favorably on answering BS questions about a photo of a SCOTUS justice in an article on a SCOTUS case. GregJackP Boomer!  05:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally when one assumes an edit will be mundane, they follow WP:BRD. That is what I did here, and it became apparent you had an issue with the removal. Now there's a shitstorm when I tried to discuss this civilly as we're supposed to. If you were concerned about the GA process (it played no role in my decision to edit), you only needed to civilly answer my question, the discussion would have ended, and there would be no concern from a GA reviewer for a minor set of edits and discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally when one has never edited an article, they don't screw with it while it is under GA nom. Also, I don't need you to tell me about GAs. Second, you don't get to demand answers, nor does your sole opinion form a consensus. But I think that you are right, we need to look at all picture in GA nominated articles to see if they are redundant or unneeded. GregJackP Boomer!  06:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Pictures of Justices are commonplace in SCOTUS articles. Pictures benefit the article in several ways: (1) it provides a quick visual reference for readers to know which justices contributed to the opinion, (2) it advances Wikipedia's goal of having at least one image on article pages, (3) they improve the aesthetic quality of articles by providing variety in a sea of text, and (4) they familiarize readers with the visual appearance of the justices who contributed to the opinion. I certainly don't think we are short on space, nor is the the article cluttered with other images. I cannot think of a good reason for deleting the picture. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
What Notecardforfree said. GregJackP Boomer!  05:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
While we want images in all articles, this seems more like a filler image to me. We already have the wikilink in the very first words of the Opinion of the Court section, so if someone wants a visual reference for Kagan (which this article is not about) they know where to go. Going from this version  to this version, are we really gaining anything? It's great if we can get more images really related to this case to provide unique information, but this image doesn't really seem to be doing that. I'm open to being convinced otherwise as I tried to do above, but I'm looking for something useful here that a picture provides that we can't do with brief text. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
What do you accomplish by deleting the image? If anything, you are simply detracting from the viewer's experience. Wikipedia's image policy states, in relevant part: "Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals." (Quoted from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images) (emphasis added). Here, the image of the Justice who wrote the opinion is directly relevant to the article. Please see my remarks above for six other good reasons to include the image. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Removing extraneous information is the accomplishment I'm looking for. I see unneeded images as a distraction in the reading experience. I could technically grab many somewhat mundane words in this article and add pictures for them. Instead of that, I've been framing this question from a weight perspective to sort out what should make its way in. Generally, that means we establish the weight for inclusion first rather than the other way around. Does that approach make sense at least? When I'm following that framework, the things you mentioned don't quite pass muster in terms of weight for me. Either way, I'm going to let this be for tonight at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 06:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
You never edited the article before, but you show up now, while it is a GA nom, right after Jytdog is making a lone stand against non-existent OR and Synth. You showed up with a harassing warning once before right after Jytdog had an issue on making a lone stand on a talk page. You showed up to argue with Praeceptor right after Jytdog had an issue with him. Why is that? GregJackP Boomer!  06:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I've had this page on my watchlist for well over a year now, and that's how I first became tangentially involved with the set of interactions you mention. Again, please follow WP:TPG and focus on content rather than take this course. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Kingofaces43, I think you are misinterpreting the purpose of WP:WEIGHT. The purpose of the WEIGHT is to not give undue attention to viewpoints that are neither mainstream nor widely accepted in academia. If the inclusion of a picture somehow contributed to a non-neutral POV, then we would have a WEIGHT issue, but that is not the case here. The inclusion of the an image of the Justice that authored the unanimous opinion does not violate NPOV policies in any way. Additionally, please see the image policies I linked above that favor inclusion of images, rather than deletion.
In addition to the Wikipedia policy I cited above, I provided six arguments for why the inclusion of images is a good idea. Your response that "the things you mentioned don't quite pass muster in terms of weight for me" doesn't respond to the merits of the arguments I made in favor of inclusion, and instead sounds more like confirmation bias. Furthermore, your claim that the image is extraneous or distracting directly conflicts with policies that recommend "[f]inish[ing] the article with a good relevant image or graphic." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't speaking in terms of viewpoints, but weight in terms of whether something should be included in the article or not. Those are similar concepts that both get treated under NPOV. Some people call that noteworthiness (not to be confused with WP:NOTABLE) or scope instead, but others refer to it as weight as well. I don't see where you're coming form with confirmation bias though. I simply said those don't seem like strong reasons for inclusion is all. I'm going to end this for now though. It seems my continued involvement on this talk is leading to further harassment outside this page, so I'm ducking out for now. While I may not entirely agree with them, thank you for actually providing reasons for inclusion to consider. Kingofaces43 (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
To facilitate determining what the consensus is, count me as favoring the existing policy of putting a picture of the justice who is author of the opinion on the case page. People rightly expect to see that. PraeceptorIP (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we already established that no changes were being made to the picture at this time. There however isn't Wikipedia policy (if that's what you intended by policy) saying such a picture should be there.
I do have a few ideas for improvements to the article, but I'm going to stay away from here while things cool down for at least awhile to avoid drama like we had here or actions that would even remotely make room for bad-faith accusations that I'm trying to upend the GA review process. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Wikipedia policy favors the inclusion of images in articles, rather than deletion. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that efforts should "be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions in articles rather than favoring their removal, especially on pages that have few visuals." (Quoted from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images) (emphasis added). Additionally, Wikipedia's image policy favors including at least one image in all articles. Likewise, Wikipedia's guide to creating articles recommends that authors "[f]inish the article with a good relevant image or graphic." -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The Lead mentions that there was concern about "the involvement of Justice Clarence Thomas, who previously served as a lawyer for Monsanto". If there was concern over a conflict of interest, this should probably be covered in the body of the article. What sources claimed that Thomas could still have loyalty to the company? Dimadick (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It is covered in the body of the article, and sourced to a reliable source. GregJackP Boomer!  22:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bowman v. Monsanto Co./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Delldot (talk · contribs) 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd be interested in doing this review. @GregJackP:, I see your userpage says you're retired. Is there anyone willing to implement suggested changes? If not I'm afraid I'll have to take this down in a week (unless it turns out to be promotable as is). delldot ∇. 23:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi delldot -- thanks so much for taking on this GA review! I am willing to implement any changes that are necessary as part of the GA review process.  I am familiar with this case, and I have a lot of experience editing legal articles, so please let me know if you have any questions. I also helped complete the GA review for Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, which is another article Greg nominated before his retirement. I look forward to working with you! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic, thanks for taking this on!  I'll work on these a bit tonight and more tomorrow. delldot ∇. 06:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is my first round of comments.  As with Glik, I'm recommending a fair amount of expansion, so take your time addressing these. I know you're also working on Glik at the same time so no pressure. 

I think the first para of the lead should have some background before the sentence "The decision held that Bowman's conduct infringed the patent rights..." Otherwise how does the reader know what Bowman's conduct was?
I re-wrote the lead to include more background information. Let me know if this requires further clarification. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
In background, maybe one more sentence about what a roundup ready crop is and why a farmer would want one? e.g. here, "Monsanto Company’s Roundup Ready soybeans are a patented, genetically modified seed stock that allows a farmer to spray crops with the glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, to kill competing plants and avoid damage to the patented soybean plants." There's some other good info in that source too.
I added a sentence from the source you recommended. Nice find! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think the Other issues section should be named Controversy or something, and each item fleshed out a bit. Anything to add about the Thomas COI? Why was the  Farmer Assurance Provision called Monsanto Protection Act? What did it do?
I re-named this section and made substantial edits to clarify the issues you addressed. I also moved this to the "Supreme Court" subsection. Let me know if you think anything needs further clarification. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't make sense without context: "Another concern was how the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies will be viewed by the court." Who held this concern? What about how it would be viewed? Why was this concerning? What was said by whom?
I re-wrote the paragraph in which this appeared (see my comment above), but let me know if this requires further clarification. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
The Commentary section is full of short paragraphs, which I think are discouraged.  Could it be organized into generally people who are happy and unhappy about the decision? Or made to flow more logically some other way?
I re-wrote the section to try to get rid of short paragraphs and I tried to make the text flow logically. Let me know if you think anything needs to be changed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Could any info be added about the Organic Seed Growers & Trade Ass'n v. Monsanto Co. case? So Monsanto sait it would not sue innocent infringers? I thought there were a few cases where it already has, am I mistaken? Where someone's corn gets pollinated with transgenic pollen, and they get sued? Actually, what exactly does 'innocent infringers' mean? Anyway, can there be an update to this section? Are there any other effects or aftermath of this case?
I added more information about the case, and I also added info about the fact that Monsanto's patent for the glyphosate-resistant soybeans expired in 2014, and that they are no longer enforcing licenses associated with the patented soybeans. Let me know if you think anything else needs clarification in this section. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a note delldot that it's actually common myth that Monsanto goes after inadvertent infringers, so there won't be examples. It's one of the public perception problems in this topic.[1] Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, good to know, thanks. delldot ∇. 01:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
In general, short paragraphs (under, say, 3 sentences) are discouraged.  This is not a deal breaker for me but it could be a sign of poor organization or of an area that needs to be expanded. So it's worth keeping in mind as you go through and edit.
I did my best to consolidate paragraphs and to avoid paragraphs under three sentences. Let me know if you think anything else needs to be changed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The antitrust issue is brought up a bit in the article but can this be explained more thoroughly?
I didn't see a discussion about antitrust in the article. Can you point me to where you saw this? I know that there are general antitrust concerns associated with patents for self-replicating technologies, but I didn't see any discussion of that here.  Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
There's an article in Nature that should definitely be included.  I can email it to you if you can't get it. Especially look at Table 2.
I added info from that article to the section about arguments before the Court and the section about commentary and analysis. Nice find! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
That's it for now! I'm excited to see what you add. delldot ∇. 07:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the thorough review! I'm excited to work on this. I am going to focus on responding to your suggestions for Gilk first, though I may jump back and forth a bit. As a general note, I agree that short paragraphs are not ideal (see WP:PARAGRAPHS), and I'll do my best to consolidate shorter paragraphs together. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Fantastic, just ping me whenever you want me to take a closer look. delldot ∇. 01:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
@Delldot: my apologies for taking so long to complete this review -- life/work have been crazy busy these last few weeks. I think I have addressed everything above, but let me know if there is anything else that needs to done. Thanks again for your fantastic review! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Very cool, no rush of course.  I'll read it again and come back with any last comments. delldot ∇. 01:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Reread, made another series of minor copy edits. I just have two very minor questions, and one odd finding that I think might be a false positive:

Can you think of any explanation for this hit in the cv detector? Is it possible that this article is using ours, or might an earlier editor have copied the text? Our version predates July 2014, which is the only version I see on the archive.org. If you're not sure we can do more digging to find out which existed first.
This is very interesting. I always take potential copyvio concerns very seriously, but after reviewing the evidence, I have come to the conclusion that Manzoor Elahi Laskar copied text from this Wikipedia article. I think the best evidence is that the text that appears in Mr. Laskar's article was actually cobbled together by at least three different editors over at least three days in May 2013. See, for example:
This May 14, 2013 edit by ChrisGualtieri adding the holding to the intro ("Patent exhaustion does not permit a farmer to reproduce ..."), which was copied in Mr. Laskar's essay.
This May 15, 2013 edit by Jytdog adding the clause "many of which were transgenic" to the "Background" section, and
This May 16, 2013 edit by Cool Hand Luke that rearranged the same sentence to the form that was copied in Mr. Laskar's essay.
Mr. Laskar's article does not include a date of publication, but the cover page says he wrote the article in the 2nd year of his LLM program; if you look at the CV at his academia.edu profile, it says he was in the second and third year of his LLM program in 2013. However, much of the same copied material also appears in this article Mr. Laskar posted to SSRN on March 18, 2014 (the article is dated August 24, 2013). Can you think of another way to verify the age of Mr. Laskar's article? I know the internet archive often has large gaps, but I don't know of any other ways to check on its age. In any event, I think it is much more likely that Mr. Laskar copied the text developed by the editors above than it is that those three editors took text from Mr. Laskar's article. Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention though. Nice work! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This is excellent, I'm totally convinced.  Clever thinking looking up his year in school. The fact that it's by 3 different established editors clinches it for me.  Add to that the fact that his homework assignment looks just like the lead to a Wikipedia article! Thanks for doing this digging.
I'm confused by the chronology of the Petition to the Supreme Court section.  Were there two instances of  certiorari, or did the arguments precede the decision mentioned in the first sentence in the section? If this what I think it is, I'd reword the first sentence  to something like "Bowman sought review in the United States Supreme Court, asking it to grant certiorari" and end the section with "the Court granted certiorari" or some such.
I re-arranged the order of this section per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Weird to use 2 different kinds of 'opinion' in one sentence: "After the Court published its opinion, analysts offered a range of opinions about the impact of the Court's ruling." Might be better to say something like 'took a range of stances' or 'positions'?
I changed the sentence to say "After the Court published its decision, analysts offered a range of opinions about the impact of the Court's ruling" per your suggestion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This is super close, as soon as we figure out the cv question it's ready to pass regardless of the other two. Thanks again for all your amazing work so far! delldot ∇. 04:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Delldot: thanks again for taking another look at this. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for everything you've put into this, it's really great work.  Images check out. broad yet focused, neutral, stable, well referenced, well written, no copyright problems.  delldot ∇. 07:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

The period "." in the article's title/link is problematic for services such as Facebook, where users have no control over what is linked. For example, Facebook takes the URL of "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co." and makes it instead "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowman_v._Monsanto_Co" which is not the correct link. 
The article should be renamed without the trailing period "." to properly format the URL. 
UPDATE: Even mediawiki has a problem with the period, as the auto-links created in my first paragraph illustrate: the first link should include the punctuation but it doesn't and instead creates a broken link.
--Michael.C.Wright (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a redrect?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Done--MiguelMadeira (talk) 13:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130313033656/http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1068.pdf to http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/10-1068.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)