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

& vs. and
Should Rohm and Haas be Rohm & Haas? PraeceptorIP (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Change of structure diagram
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)