Deere sues AGCO

[smstonypoint]

From Deere Legal Battle Highlights Race for $24 Billion Farm Tech Market - Bloomberg

This should be a gold mine for ag. engineers serving as expert witnesses.

Steve

 

[CADplans]

It is easier to buy a company for 190 million dollars as compared to defending a bunch of patents,,

The $190 million would have been cheap,,,

 

[plowhog]

What I read is that this was a legitimate competing product, and Deere corp recognized this as a legitimate competing product, made an effort to buy it, offering $190 million, which failed. But then when their competitor acquired it instead of them, they changed course to assert they owned the intellectual property rights all along. Even when they were trying to buy it.

Seems pretty easy to predict the outcome.

 

[npalen]

This should be a gold mine for ag. engineers serving as expert witnesses.

On the contrary, I would say its a pain in the rear for the ag. engineers and a gold mine for the attorneys. Just my personal feeling having worked as an ag engineer and having to answer a lot of really ignorant lawyer questions.

 

[smstonypoint]

This should be a gold mine for ag. engineers serving as expert witnesses.

On the contrary, I would say its a pain in the rear for the ag. engineers and a gold mine for the attorneys. Just my personal feeling having worked as an ag engineer and having to answer a lot of really ignorant lawyer questions.

I'm guessing that both sides would hire "outside" ag. engineers to provide "independent" testimony.

Steve

 

[John Fitzgerald]

Sound like a revenge lawsuit to me.

 

[RickB]

Jon Kinzenbaugh cleaned Mother Deere’s clock in court over very similar arrogance.

 

[Sawyer Rob]

Jon Kinzenbaugh cleaned Mother Deere痴 clock in court over very similar arrogance.

That he did and it's a pretty interesting read if you go through the whole thing...

Over the years, Deere has been the prince of thieves! lol

SR

 

[2LaneCruzer]

This should be a gold mine for ag. engineers serving as expert witnesses.

On the contrary, I would say its a pain in the rear for the ag. engineers and a gold mine for the attorneys. Just my personal feeling having worked as an ag engineer and having to answer a lot of really ignorant lawyer questions.

Engineers are like that. They often have to be reminded that having the correct key technically, will not open or unlock the legal doors. I have worked with Engineers, Physicians, Chemists, Nurses, other attorneys and some just plain nut cases. Engineers gave me the most problems; thank goodness I had the last say in the matter. In all fairness, the Engineers were pretty good in keeping us from blowing ourselves up or getting gassed.

 

[smstonypoint]

Engineers are like that. They often have to be reminded that having the correct key technically, will not open or unlock the legal doors. I have worked with Engineers, Physicians, Chemists, Nurses, other attorneys and some just plain nut cases. Engineers gave me the most problems; thank goodness I had the last say in the matter. In all fairness, the Engineers were pretty good in keeping us from blowing ourselves up or getting gassed.

You never experienced the joy of working with economists? How sad is that?

Steve

 

[Ford850]

Imagine what Deere could have invented or designed if they put all the legal fees they've wasted toward their own research. Green arrogance.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

You never experienced the joy of working with economists? How sad is that?

Steve

Being in state service, we really had no need for them... However, I could have used some help when we were trying to promulgate a rule requiring Major Sources to pay emission fees based on their tonnage of Criteria Pollutants. The premise wasn't so much a factor as was the dollar amount.

 

[smstonypoint]

Being in state service, we really had no need for them... However, I could have used some help when we were trying to promulgate a rule requiring Major Sources to pay emission fees based on their tonnage of Criteria Pollutants. The premise wasn't so much a factor as was the dollar amount.

Had you paid me a modest consulting fee, I would have pointed you to the literature on optimal Pigouvian taxes.

I'm surprised that you didn't contract with a qualified economist if your didn't have one on staff.

Steve

 

[k0ua]

Being in state service, we really had no need for them...

OMG, ain't that the truth!.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Had you paid me a modest consulting fee, I would have pointed you to the literature on optimal Pigouvian taxes.

I'm surprised that you didn't contract with a qualified economist if your didn't have one on staff.

Steve

Actually, out of the blue...the legislature decided that we needed a consultant to study the issue and come up with a recommendation...closely "monitored"...I had a feeling... by industry representatives. But in all fairness, it was done fairly and squarely and the agency had considerable input, because the criteria was connected to the amount of work required, and therefor the amount of money required. It actually benefited us in the long run because it enabled us to hire some needed personnel, including a legal secretary. Our relation with industry in this state has for the most part, always been good. A more cooperative industry I couldn't have asked for.

 

[Wagtail]

Imagine what Deere could have invented or designed if they put all the legal fees they've wasted toward their own research. Green arrogance.

Well, wasn't that a "fact filled" statement. :laughing:

Deere does do its own research and development... quite a lot of it if you'd taken the time to at least Google it. They've invested a large chunk to constantly update all of their products. Having invested this money & time, to have it 'liberated' or infringed upon by another manufacturer (thereby saving them money at Deere's expense) is not "Green arrogance".

 

[RickB]

Well, wasn't that a "fact filled" statement. :laughing:

Deere does do its own research and development... quite a lot of it if you'd taken the time to at least Google it. They've invested a large chunk to constantly update all of their products. Having invested this money & time, to have it 'liberated' or infringed upon by another manufacturer (thereby saving them money at Deere's expense) is not "Green arrogance".

But getting their butt handed to them in David vs. Goliath style infringement lawsuits can clearly be interpreted as just that.

 

[Wagtail]

But getting their butt handed to them in David vs. Goliath style infringement lawsuits can clearly be interpreted as just that.

Who's getting their "butt handed to them"? JD (who invested their money and research into the product) or the other company (who infringed on JD's investment)?

 

[smstonypoint]

But getting their butt handed to them in David vs. Goliath style infringement lawsuits can clearly be interpreted as just that.

Who's getting their "butt handed to them"? JD (who invested their money and research into the product) or the other company (who infringed on JD's investment)?

Objection!

The AGCO and Deere advocates are both assuming facts not in evidence in the matter now before the court.

We need to hear the testimony of the expert witnesses for the plaintiff and the defendant.

Steve

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Only thing worse than a lawyer is an economist lawyer.