Deere sues AGCO

[pmsmechanic]

This is starting to look interesting.

 

[smstonypoint]

Only thing worse than a lawyer is an economist lawyer.

Objection!

Answers a question that was not asked.

Steve

PS

I'm not a lawyer, so I have to look up possible objections.

 

[DIYjunkie]

So they're just mad because their acquisition of Percision was blocked, but AGCO was able to acquire it and they're suing them because they feel AGCO is infringing on their patents. John Deere needs some competition. If anything they should have sued the DOJ for blocking their acquisition of Precision.

I doubt Deere will win this lawsuit, seeing as this is just retaliation of not being able to buy out their competition. They are trying to have some sort of monopoly on this as they feel like having any competition is costing them billions.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Objection!

Answers a question that was not asked.

Steve

PS

I'm not a lawyer, so I have to look up possible objections.

Just lock him up, Judge. A week of fried bologna sandwiches will get him back on track!

 

[smstonypoint]

Just lock him up, Judge. A week of fried bologna sandwiches will get him back on track!

I'm glad you showed up.

What is the proper way to object to testimony based on an opinion from someone who has not been qualified as an "expert witness"?

Steve

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I'm glad you showed up.

What is the proper way to object to testimony based on an opinion from someone who has not been qualified as an "expert witness"?

Steve

You put them on your ignore list.

 

[RickB]

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)?

See my earlier post re: Jon Kinzenbaugh. Inform yourself. This is history repeating itself. You might also want to investigate just how much R&D Deere did to develop Precision Planting, who is (or was) an independent competitor of Deere.

 

[Wagtail]

I'm glad you showed up.

What is the proper way to object to testimony based on an opinion from someone who has not been qualified as an "expert witness"?

Steve

And that has been my entire line of questioning... no evidence has been presented; only conjecture and biased opinion presented.

I would say the same thing were the companies involved; for example, Kubota vs. Mahindra.

Edit: additional; This is about 12 patents. JD has the rights (in whole or in part) to those patents. AGCO now owns the company which developed those patents (in conjunction with JD, in whole or in part). So, keeping emotion ("David vs. Goliath", "Big Green", etc...) out of it, what is fair patent practice to the company who either developed the original patent or paid to have it developed.

 

[vvanders]

Well, in the standards space there's always FRAND[1]. However given that this is only two companies I don't know how if that still applies.

[1] Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing - Wikipedia

 

[Wagtail]

Well, in the standards space there's always FRAND[1]. However given that this is only two companies I don't know how if that still applies.

[1] Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing - Wikipedia

Sounds good to me and, keeping emotion out of it, it looks like JD developed these 12 patents with this company.

The company came up for sale and JD was refused by the USDOJ from acquiring it. AGCO has bought it but JD doesn't want to 'automatically, due to acquisition' give up its rights to those patents (in whole or in part) due to their investment (practical & financial) in those patents.

If the reverse was true, ie: AGCO developed the patents with the company for sale and JD bought that company, AGCO would be the one suing for their 'intellectual' rights.

 

[dstig1]

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

Steve

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.

He did mention Nut Cases, so economists should be covered:laughing:

 

[2LaneCruzer]

I'm glad you showed up.

What is the proper way to object to testimony based on an opinion from someone who has not been qualified as an "expert witness"?

Steve

I was, thankfully not a trial lawyer, but normally the presenting attorney goes through a lengthy voir dire, reciting the education, experience of the witness and ultimately making an oral motion to have the Court recognize the witness as an expert in his field. I would probably offer an objection something like the following: "Objection...the witness has not been qualified as an expert; I therefore move that the Court strike his testimony as irrelevant".

The one instance that I recall, our witness was an MD and former Director of the City/County Health Department. When we (the Asst. D.A.) attempted to qualify him, the opposing attorney very graciously said "Your Honor, we will stipulate up front that the witness is an expert in his field".

 

[2LaneCruzer]

He did mention Nut Cases, so economists should be covered:laughing:

That category consists mostly of "good ol' boy" who got their job through political pull or some other suck-up method. It gets difficult when they have some real authority and an ego to boot. I usually just told them that I just give them advice, they didn't have to take it.

 

[DIYjunkie]

What really doesn't make any sense in the whole thing is a comment made by a Deere representative, he says and I quote Let's suppose there was a cool little add-on that you could give your Toyota and make it feel and ride like a*Lexus, Lexus wouldn't want that to be on the market."

I don't know but maybe this guy isn't very knowledgeable about the auto world, but Toyota and Lexus are one in the same, Lexus is just a higher end Toyota and a lot of parts are interchangeable. So his arguement is pretty much pointless. On top of that, there's aftermarket and 3rd party support, where as, not much that I know exists in the agricultural world.

If what Precision was making was almost a complete carbon copy of what John Deere is making and actually infringes on patents, fine sue away. But if it's just retaliation for not being able to buy out competition, then I hope they either lose the suit, or it gets tossed out of court.

 

[vvanders]

Usually patents are to a lesser degree about shutting down a direct competitor and more broadly used as a chilling move for anyone considering similar action.

At least it's that way in the software world, the large companies carry a huge patent portfolio. It's a form of mutually assured destruction in which they can easily bring 5-6,000 patents to bear and make you defend against all of them if you don't have a similar portfolio.

Still it'll be interesting to see how all this plays out with Deere.

 

[smstonypoint]

Speaking of patents,I learned the 10 millionth US patent was issued this month. This article has some interesting trivia about our patent system.

It was news to me that Abraham Lincoln held a patent, the only POTUS to do so.

Steve

 

[om21braz]

What really doesn't make any sense in the whole thing is a comment made by a Deere representative, he says and I quote Let's suppose there was a cool little add-on that you could give your Toyota and make it feel and ride like a*Lexus, Lexus wouldn't want that to be on the market."

I don't know but maybe this guy isn't very knowledgeable about the auto world, but Toyota and Lexus are one in the same, Lexus is just a higher end Toyota and a lot of parts are interchangeable. So his arguement is pretty much pointless. On top of that, there's aftermarket and 3rd party support, where as, not much that I know exists in the agricultural world.

If what Precision was making was almost a complete carbon copy of what John Deere is making and actually infringes on patents, fine sue away. But if it's just retaliation for not being able to buy out competition, then I hope they either lose the suit, or it gets tossed out of court.

If Deere is using lawyers already on the payroll - I expect they figure they have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Correct me if this is a bad assumption?

 

[rox]

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

Steve

That was funny Steve.:laughing:

 

[Kyle_in_Tex]

Why would the DOJ deny the sale to Deere, and then turn around and let AGCO buy it???

 

[RickB]

Why would the DOJ deny the sale to Deere, and then turn around and let AGCO buy it???

Two words. Market Share.