Talk:Monsanto Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co.
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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. 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
editShould Rohm and Haas be Rohm & Haas? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
svg and gif
editChange of structure diagram
editEdgar 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.