[Aurornis]

Despite what everyone is assuming, this case doesn't depend on patents. The farmer entered into an agreement with another company and they're locked in a legal battle about that agreement.

> Fresno County Superior Court Judge Jon Skiles in May ruled that Giumarra’s breach of contract claim can go forward, saying that the agreement between Giumarra and Mora is valid whether there is a patent for the fruit or not.

> “The sublicense agreement does not expressly state that its validity is dependent on the existence or issuance of a patent for the fruit,” he wrote.

[shash]

What I don’t understand is, _how_ it doesn’t depend on a patent right. How do you license something that doesn’t depend on a licensable right?

If it isn’t a patent right, exactly _what_ is he purchasing a license to? If it’s purely an agreement of exclusivity to Giumarra, it can’t be called a “sub license” and the consequence is just a breach of contract (which is what it sounds like). But in that case I’m sure there are mutual termination agreements in the exclusivity contract.

Also, if it’s _not_ a patent, what exactly does the company bring to the table? For what consideration does the farmer give them an exclusive access to his trees?

[s1artibartfast]

it could be seeds, rootstalk, cash, loans a future purchase guarantee. There is basically an endless list of reasons the contract could have been initially attractive for the farmer.

As you say, it mostly comes down to what the parties agreed to about exiting the contract.

[shash]

But all of those things are an agreement with consideration; a "license" is a permission to use some property. If not a patent, what is the "thing" that the farmer is licensing from the company.

It's fine to say "there was an agreement that the farmer would grant exclusive rights to the produce of the trees, in exchange for seeds, rootstalk or cash", but that's not a license. I don't understand that aspect of this at all. The articles consistently talk about a "license", not other consideration such as the aforementioned seeds or a guaranteed purchase.

The only "property" that could conceivably be licensed in such a manner is a patent - other forms of IP such as copyright or trademark wouldn't enter into it. And any other property doesn't make sense because... well... the only property here is the farm and the trees, which are the undisputed property of the farmer.

It just feels like a very loose usage of the word "license".

[jwsteigerwalt]

Correct, many people get worked up over the idea of the patents that could be in play here; plenty of good reason when that is a consideration. The court has already decided that the existence of a patent or licensing agreement is not relevant; It’s a contract dispute.

[efitz]

I’d still make the same argument- the remedy should be monetary damages, not enjoinder. Produce had a short shelf life; enjoinder has the same effect on the farmer as a loss in court, only before the trial. The other party to the contract can be made whole later, if victorious, via monetary damages.

[devilbunny]

This is how legal reasoning should work.

[nobodyandproud]

The heart of the matter is that any licensing and exclusivity rights to our food supply is counter to our interests.

For farmers, the right to grow breeds of crops unencumbered by enforceable contracts is what the public expects.

The exception will be when government forbids certain crops; or encourages certain varieties with incentives.