Talk:Monsanto Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co.

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

& vs. and[edit]

Should Rohm and Haas be Rohm & Haas? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

svg and gif[edit]

Change of structure diagram[edit]

Edgar in a good faith effort to improve the article substituted an svg file for the gif file previously used to illustrate the structure of the chemical compound involved in the lawsuit. There is nothing wrong in principle with substituting an svg for a gif, but in this case the svg is in a different style from the gif. It is not the drawing found in the patent or the one addressed by the court, and it is not what is discussed in the article.

The article explains which CH₂ group is deleted and how it fits in with what the court said. But the "more modern" and stylized svg version of the molecule's structure does not explicitly show C and H atoms (they are supposed to be inferred by knowledgeable viewers), so this legal point cannot readily be understood by readers, especially legal readers. What is readily understood by an organic chemist is confusing and perhaps incomprehensible to others,such as lawyers or laymen.

Moreover, the explanation in the article's text no longer makes sense; there is a disconnect between the text and the diagram that it discusses. This is a perhaps good idea that went astray. You need to show the CH₂ groups explicitly. Otherwise you cannot understand the text.

If you must substitute an svg, about which I am dubious but won't argue, then at least use the same diagram, not a different one. That means, convert the prior gif to an svg, and don't use something else when you make the conversion. Thank you.

PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]