the tentacles of Bain/R$ have been spirited quietly into the white house... we're screwed as far as having real food and the freedom to grow our own. Mark my words.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1912120

I mean, I'm all for going against people who unfairly play the market, but I have yet to read a scrap of actual evidence against Montsanto.

Without going into the irony of you using DuPont as a source***, market share alone does not make an antitrust argument. You've failed to identify monopoly/market power. Without it, there's no antitrust claim.

The paper you cited--did you read it? I suggest you do for some answers to the DOJ's decision.





***
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/dupont-fraud-in-monsanto-seed-case-unsealed-by-judge

Both the paper and the article identified all that for you, already.

You're probably the only one here incapable of actually comprehending that the article and the paper both make a strong argument that Monsanto does indeed have monopoly/market power and has abused it.

but you have to point to price manipulation. How is Monsanto doing that, taking into account their licensure agreements and patent issues?

You may not be aware of this, but one of the side effects of the Robert's Court is an amazing amount of jurisprudence in antitrust over the last 5 years. Keeping the most recent SCOTUS cases in mind, how you propose the DOJ pursue this? What is the violation?

I don't think your posts here arguing on their behalf are persuasive enough for you to get the gig.

as it pertains to the case at hand. What constitutes evidence of antitrust activity on Monsanto's part?

I've long thought Microsoft had a monopoly. If yu have a business, yu pretty much have to be running Microsoft software, to interact with others. In some industries, though, you have to have Mac.

That sounds like antitrust to me.

Also, in my city, there are just a few cable providers. In my house, I have no choice in cable provider or landline provider. To have a choice, I have to leave cable and landlines behind.

Antitrust is complicated. I think the U S has made a decision that antitrust is okay, since we are now run by big corporations. (The insurance industry IMO is in violation of antitrust statutes. Is there really a competitive market out there? Doesn't look like it.)

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 06:33 PM - Edit history (1)

that have changed the nature of antitrust prosecutions and civil claims. Of course, these decisions have hamstrung the DOJ--there's plenty of stuff going on that would have been prosecuted 10 years ago, but now, woudl be fruitless to pursue. And it's not as if this Congress is going to fix those decisions through legislation.

Monsanto has a permissive licensing regime, and patents that are about to expire, which makes this a very different case than Microsoft/Apple. There may be something nefarious going on--but you need evidence of it.

for ending the investigation. As the article says, that's unusual.

It's like that old justice statement about pornography: I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.

This Monsanto thing, coinciding as it does with Monsanto being chosen to head the FDA?, stinks to high heaven. I don't know how to define corruption for every type of instance, but I know it when I see it.

Yep. That's what has happened here.

entirely possible the DOJ does not wish to wade into further controversy regarding Roundup, since the unsealing of the documents indicates DuPont was playing dirty pool---


http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-30/dupont-fraud-in-monsanto-seed-case-unsealed-by-judge


Corruption? You think President Obama is corrupt for appointing a person who used to work for the FDA to the FDA? Granted, he last worked for Monsanto a decade ago, but that, in and of itself, is evidence of nothing.

the Roberts court decisions have "hamstrung" the DOJ in regard to antitrust investigations, and especially in regard to investigating Monsanto.

If you need time to fabricate some B.S., please take as much time as you feel you need.

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

a very important issue in Washington culture---

You have lots and lots of people who bounce from government positions to the private sector, and then back again. Arguably, they have experience that is good and necessary, but how do you balance that with potential conflicts of interest?


***As Brentspeak notes, it was the FDA that Mr. Taylor worked for, before Monsanto, not the USDA.

Michael Taylor timeline

1) Monsanto attorney
2) FDA "advisor"; later, a USDA administrator
3) Back to Monsanto, this time as VP and chief lobbyist
4) Returns to the FDA, again as an "advisor", and now, today, as "food safety czar"

Last edited Sun Dec 2, 2012, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

line seems incorrect, however.

between Monsanto and the U.S. government to help open up the GM and agrochemical market in Africa. Also, his role as Monsanto's point-man in industry-funded think tanks.

Over ten years ago. In the interim he worked for Resources for the Future (a non-profit environmental group), the University of Maryland and George Washington University. Odd how none of the articles or posts point this out.

from Monsanto!!! The rest of the world is outlawing what Monsanto does one country at a time. Obama put the fox in charge of the hen house? again? After this election, and what it was supposed to mean?

(not ranting at you, msanthrope.)

tobacco, let's not forget--both his personal, family wealth, and campaign contributions.

People are complex, you know.

was detrimental to public health.

suspect Monsanto hardly touches it.

Monsanto is not. Are you even counting the suicides all over the 3rd world, once Monsanto gets ahold of their agriculture?

quit that argument....

Look, Al Gore's Chief of Staff went to work for Monsanto. Shall we just drop this line of inquiry?

k and r

2012 will look exactly like 2008 did for appointments, a sad disappointing thing.

Google: "Tom Vilsack & Monsanto"
Tom Vilsack was appointed to head the US Department of Agriculture in 2009.

Michael Taylor, former Vice-President and Lawyer for Monsanto
appointed to head of FDA. (mentioned above)

...and that is only the tip of the iceberg.

White House refuses to reveal ties with Monsanto
http://rt.com/usa/news/white-house-monsanto-peer-991/


4 of Obama's Worst Food and Ag Wimp-Outs
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/07/4-egregious-recent-obama-administration-wimpouts

grow our food by creating patentable versions, is taking privatization too far.

Especially when Monsanto has tried to sue farmers whose crops were polluted by GMOs they did not want to use.

According to NPR:
"This is the idea that I see most often. A group of organic farmers, in fact, recently sued Monsanto, asserting that GMOs might contaminate their crops and then Monsanto might accuse them of patent infringement. The farmers couldn't cite a single instance in which this had happened, though, and the judge dismissed the case"

[link:http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/18/163034053/top-five-myths-of-genetically-modified-seeds-busted|

This has been a problem since he appointed Vilsack, imo.

...from the Monsanto GM Corn Monocrop Capital of the World was a slap in the face to Environmental Groups and the Organic, Sustainable, and Healthy foods advocates.
I know of no one from these groups appointed to the Dept of Ag to counterbalance the Man from Monsanto.

here, a constellation of capitalists behind the throne.

you better believe it.

.. have the White House support and approval to spread their poisons and their privatized, patented Global Corporatized Genetically Modified seeds across not just the United States, but the World,
than we have ALL lost.

I sometimes wish I were blind & ignorant enough to be comforted by
the bliss that accompanies the blind faith, simplistic belief that if the BLUE Team WINS, then it must ALL be good!

"Where never is heard
a discouraging word,
and the skies are not cloudy all day!"

So the insult falls flat.

For DUer's reference, this is the most useful post to refer to when confronted with above poster.

Personally I think it is immoral for a company or individual to have a patent on a plant or a human gene. Patents in the USA is all about money and protection a very select few. The whole concept of hybrid plants is also immoral - having a plant that you cannot plant the seeds and have a usable crop next year. Some day somewhere there wont be more seeds from Monsanto available and it will have disastrous consequences. In California there was a ballot initiative just to say yes or no this can contains GM corn (or other plant). Monsanto implied in commercials it was going to cost each and every consumers $400.00 per year to have it on the label. The truth is they were afraid that someone might not buy their product if they knew. We need to wake up as a society and learn about renewable, sustainable, and ecologically friendly crops and growing practices.
-Airplane

the level of illegality? I don't know, and I'd love to see some evidence that suggests that the DOJ has a case.

and your insiders enforce them, isn't?

When you you cannot accept that the game is (or in some cases believe it cannot be) significantly rigged then there can be no evidence that convinces that observation of outcomes and cash flow misses.

And not shrug a law that protect the rich or the few jut because it isn't illegal. There are so many examples of unfair laws protecting the few. Did you see the movie FOOD INC. They talk about how Monsanto Lawyers put soybean farmers out of business not because they violate their copyright but because the wind blows and some of the Monsanto seeds land on the farmers property and germinate. Well guess what the court system backs Monsanto and puts the independent farmer out of business. Well this was legal right? Do we really want the powerful Monsanto to get its way because they are big and have a monopoly. I am sure they have enough laws on their side and enough money to get whatever they want. Its up to groups like the one that is pushing for GM labeling (by the way the group is optimistic it will make progress regardless of the California loss - FDA lawsuit is coming up) and us voters to wake up and insist on some fair regulation that will put an end to a company like Monsanto.
-Airplane

I think that's why it's important to change the composition of SCOTUS, and get a Congress in 2014 that will pass laws that help the consumer.

What I don't find particularly helpful are OPs that kneejerk blame the Executive branch for failing to act by fiat.

I'm sure you have Issa's number on speed dial, better relay this info.

a law firm that represented them and so far as i can tell, he's been working for them ever since, regardless of what position he held in the public or private sector -- it was always connected to monsanto's interests.