3 ms·

There are several documentaries, and several hundred articles I've read as to the anti-trust behaviours that Monsanto participates in. Because this article doe

by rymith 14y ago

There are several documentaries, and several hundred articles I've read as to the anti-trust behaviours that Monsanto participates in. Because this article doesn't explicitly lay them out for you, doesn't mean they aren't guilty. These guys make Microsoft and Apple look like choir boys in comparison for their belligerent abuses of the patent and legal system.

DannyBee 14y ago
Great 1. What are the antitrust behaviors you believe they participate in that are illegal? 2. Can you please point to the actual evidence that those documentaries/etc are supported by? Not news articles, or but actual "things that would be admissible in court". Because that's what the DOJ needs to sue them. If there is stuff there and the DOJ is ignoring it, i'm happy to admit I was wrong and yell and scream with everyone else. Again, I have no doubt in the world that Monsanto's behavior is generally reprehensible, etc. I'm aware of their general behavior, and i would like nothing more than to see them put out of business. I'm aware of them suing farmers for seeds blowing onto their property, and winning. Honestly, I suspect that's the real problem. The things that should be illegal aren't anymore. The supreme court has eviscerated almost all per-se antitrust violations over the past 30 years. This makes pushing cases a lot harder. The patent related cases Monsanto should have lost (seeds blowing onto property being patent infringement), they didn't, and the federal circuit has also taken an "interesting" (crazy) view on patent tying and misuse. In general, "rent-seeking" (ie patent trolling) is not considered an antitrust violation, because the whole purpose of patents is to be able to stop someone else from doing the patented thing. Again I disagree strongly with most of these decisions, but that is the legal world we are in right now. In any case, the DOJ can't solve these, as they are now legislative problems. They are a fairly conservative enforcer. In most cases, they are only going to sue if they believe they can win. So either provide evidence that shows they could have won and chose not to sue anyway, or you are falling into the same trap as this article: Monsanto is a large and shitty-for-the-world company, and therefore the DOJ should sue them.

by rymith 14y ago

DannyBee 14y ago

Great 1. What are the antitrust behaviors you believe they participate in that are illegal? 2. Can you please point to the actual evidence that those documentaries/etc are supported by? Not news articles, or but actual "things that would be admissible in court". Because that's what the DOJ needs to sue them. If there is stuff there and the DOJ is ignoring it, i'm happy to admit I was wrong and yell and scream with everyone else. Again, I have no doubt in the world that Monsanto's behavior is generally reprehensible, etc. I'm aware of their general behavior, and i would like nothing more than to see them put out of business. I'm aware of them suing farmers for seeds blowing onto their property, and winning. Honestly, I suspect that's the real problem. The things that should be illegal aren't anymore. The supreme court has eviscerated almost all per-se antitrust violations over the past 30 years. This makes pushing cases a lot harder. The patent related cases Monsanto should have lost (seeds blowing onto property being patent infringement), they didn't, and the federal circuit has also taken an "interesting" (crazy) view on patent tying and misuse. In general, "rent-seeking" (ie patent trolling) is not considered an antitrust violation, because the whole purpose of patents is to be able to stop someone else from doing the patented thing. Again I disagree strongly with most of these decisions, but that is the legal world we are in right now. In any case, the DOJ can't solve these, as they are now legislative problems. They are a fairly conservative enforcer. In most cases, they are only going to sue if they believe they can win. So either provide evidence that shows they could have won and chose not to sue anyway, or you are falling into the same trap as this article: Monsanto is a large and shitty-for-the-world company, and therefore the DOJ should sue them.