8 ms·

Why the Climate Corporation sold itself to Monsanto

47 points by yapcguy 13y ago

NickSharp 13y ago
Because Monsanto gave them a Billion dollars. Next question.
yapcguy 13y ago
Given the bizarre letter, the CEO must have known that many of his employees considered Monsanto the enemy. So it looks like the CEO was a sell-out and took the easy money. Data scientists, programmers and agricultural experts were hired to help build systems and crunch numbers to help farmers make the best from their soil and weather. By contrast, Monsanto sell magic seeds, resistant to everything, guaranteed to improve yield and profits for farmers... who needs weather analysis when you have Monsanto? Does anybody know how the employees feel about it? Is the company struggling to retain employees? It seems they are aggressively hiring, but hard to know if this is actual expansion or replacement hires.
- cothomps 13y ago
  Good question - I was targeted by a CC recruiter and wondered the same thing.
- whbk 13y ago
  The two I talked to were towing the company line, and said they still had the autonomy to work on everything they were before the merger, and just had more resources at their disposal to do so. The whole team was also flown by private jet to meet employees at a Monsanto facility shortly after the acquisition, so..yeah. Didn't get into comp, but I'm guessing we'll see how everyone really feels once they hit their (presumed) bonus date.
  - estsauver 13y ago
    Climate Corp employee here, we flew on a charted airplane, not a private jet. You should be thinking "white label Delta economy" not "like a G6."
- cornellwright 13y ago
  "Magic seeds" only get you so far. Farming is a production optimization problem like anything else, it just takes place outside and is subject to many more variables than your garden variety manufacturing line. Currently the way farmers know what's happening in their fields is they send guys (called scouts) to go and check. This may seem like a good idea until you think about how long it would take to cover 1000 acres on a four wheeler (or even on foot). So yes, despite "magic seeds" farmers need more information to make better decisions. Evil or not, Monsanto's acquisition of Climate Corp absolutely makes business sense.
- cnorgate 13y ago
  I work with The Climate Corp as a product manager - there have been no problems retaining employees. In fact, from my point of view, morale is higher than before the acquisition. We are pretty passionate about our mission of helping farmers improve their yields. Our vision is to use data and analytics to help them do that in a more sustainable way. The acquisition has helped accelerate our vision by at least 3-5 years - which is why people are pretty excited... also why we are hiring aggressively. The Climate Corp is one of the best companies I've worked for - the combination of great (and smart) people, mission, vision and real world impact are hard come by. If you're interested in learning more, I'd be happy to chat anytime.
- fiatmoney 13y ago
  Even taking as a given that for any crop Monsanto has the best variety, you still have the issue of what exactly to plant, in what proportions, for your likely climate & soil conditions, equipment/water/fertilizer/labor & other input costs, and market prices. That analysis is exactly what Monsanto will provide you with now.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
zarriak 13y ago
I really dislike his attack on Google, yes they are occasionally evil, but they don't own the FCC like Monsanto owns the FDA.It doesn't matter how many people you have in office as long as the head of the government body established to regulate you is run by one of you former employees. Also, why would Monsanto want to sue their consumers, their policies allow for such small margins that the farmers are worth almost nothing.
civilian 13y ago
When commenting, be careful not to fall into Argumentum Ad Monsantum: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/16/argumentum-ad-monsantum-bill-maher-and-the-lure-of-a-liberal-logical-fallacy/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/...
throwaway5752 13y ago
Funny how the anti-Monsanto position is always caricatured as a liberal anti-GMO person. I think it is just as likely to be a libertarian person who finds their legal pursuit of farmers who have (frequently accidentally) had their crops cross pollinate with Monsanto patented breeds to be ethically distasteful.
- travisp 13y ago
  >who finds their legal pursuit of farmers who have (frequently accidentally) had their crops cross pollinate with Monsanto patented breeds This is mostly a myth. All of the lawsuits have been about people who have intentionally used Monsanto breeds (mostly just one court case about one farmer in particular). The rest of their lawsuits, which are a relatively small number, have been against people who broke their contracts with Monsanto, not people who have experienced accidental cross pollination. There are no cases of Monsanto going after farmers for inadvertent contamination and the company has even explicitly stated that it will not sue farmers for it. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff
- enoch_r 13y ago
  Citation needed for the "frequently accidentally" bit--I've found that this is essentially an urban legend. Dig a bit deeper and things probably weren't so "accidental." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Origin_of_the_patented_seed_in_Schmeiser.27s_fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
- rayiner 13y ago
  The way Monsanto's Round Up works is that the genetic modification is actually resistance to a particular potent pesticide. Just having your crops cross-pollinated isn't enough to help you, or to get Monsanto on your case. They sue farmers who also try to take advantage of the situation by using the special pesticide, which would kill non-cross pollinated plants. Also, while its hard to pin down libertarianism, there is a lot of conflation between libertarianism and anarchism online. There is nothing un-libertarian about what Monsanto does. Classic libertarians believe in property rights and contractual rights. Monsanto's legal actions largely rely on a web of contracts. There is nothing about classic libertarianism that is inconsistent with patents as property rights. Indeed, patents are a basically libertarian response to the neoclassical economic problem of free riding. The libertarian preference for addressing market failures is the creation of property rights. In this context, its more consistent with classical libertarianism for Monsanto to get property rights in its Round Up Ready seeds, and thus make the money that bankrolls their billions of dollars in annual research, than for say the government to spend that money to do basic research.
state 13y ago
Interesting to stand this up next to the Nest news from today. Is it the market size that makes Nest worth 3x more than the Climate Corporation?
Daishiman 13y ago
It seems odd to me that such an appeal to reason would have a prelude of several paragraphs of emotional rhetoric, with no references to the science that backs up his position. It also strikes me as amazingly, incredibly naive, the idea that a small, newly-acquired business unit would have any say in how the rest of the corporation operates. For so much rationality, the clear strawman of attacking anti-GMO positions as purely anti-science is also striking; there are very well-reasoned arguments that go beyond the genetic modifications, which instead talk about genetic IP, food sovereignty, the atrociously excessive use of pesticides that GMO seeds promote, and the destruction of traditional methods for preserving soil quality in place of monocultures that devastate topsoil to the point of complete dependence on Monsanto's products to keep the land productive.
- sampo 13y ago
  > the atrociously excessive use of pesticides that GMO seeds promote I would appreciate if you could provide a link or a reference for that claim?
  - omegaworks 13y ago
    It's their primary product: RoundupReady seeds are seeds that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to the Roundup pesticide. This allows farmers to plant the RoundupReady seeds, spray Roundup indiscriminately everywhere, and be certain that everything is dead except the crop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready_soybean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready_soybean
  - Daishiman 13y ago
    Soy monoculture in Argentina has destroyed soil quality, and gliphosate-resistant GMO seeds have motivated the large producers to spray indiscriminately to maximize returns. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18997297 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18997297 http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/10/21/photos-argentina-agrochemicals/6446/ http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/10/21/photos-argen...
    - 13y ago
jrochkind1 13y ago
He never got to saying what he liked about Monsanto, or why it is good, or why it's not evil. He mostly says lots of people call lots of companies evil, it's not just monstanto people call evil. Okay, sure. And then he says genetic engineering isn't new, we've been doing it for thousands of years (umm.... okay, I guess you can call that genetic engineering. But there wasn't any intellectual property ownership in it, for one difference in social context.) And Monsanto isn't as big a company as you might think, he says. Okay, I'm still waiting for him to tell me what he likes about Monsanto, other than that they are huge. But I guess that's it, why did they sell to monsanto? Because monsanto had the money to pay, and the money to support their continued work. Okay, fair enough, that's a pretty typical answer to "why did you sell your company." Am i supposed to be impressed?
- fit2rule 13y ago
  >He never got to saying what he liked about Monsanto, or why it is good, or why it's not evil. Money.

47 points by yapcguy 13y ago

Because Monsanto gave them a Billion dollars. Next question.

Given the bizarre letter, the CEO must have known that many of his employees considered Monsanto the enemy. So it looks like the CEO was a sell-out and took the easy money. Data scientists, programmers and agricultural experts were hired to help build systems and crunch numbers to help farmers make the best from their soil and weather. By contrast, Monsanto sell magic seeds, resistant to everything, guaranteed to improve yield and profits for farmers... who needs weather analysis when you have Monsanto? Does anybody know how the employees feel about it? Is the company struggling to retain employees? It seems they are aggressively hiring, but hard to know if this is actual expansion or replacement hires.

cothomps 13y ago
Good question - I was targeted by a CC recruiter and wondered the same thing.
whbk 13y ago
The two I talked to were towing the company line, and said they still had the autonomy to work on everything they were before the merger, and just had more resources at their disposal to do so. The whole team was also flown by private jet to meet employees at a Monsanto facility shortly after the acquisition, so..yeah. Didn't get into comp, but I'm guessing we'll see how everyone really feels once they hit their (presumed) bonus date.
- estsauver 13y ago
  Climate Corp employee here, we flew on a charted airplane, not a private jet. You should be thinking "white label Delta economy" not "like a G6."
cornellwright 13y ago
"Magic seeds" only get you so far. Farming is a production optimization problem like anything else, it just takes place outside and is subject to many more variables than your garden variety manufacturing line. Currently the way farmers know what's happening in their fields is they send guys (called scouts) to go and check. This may seem like a good idea until you think about how long it would take to cover 1000 acres on a four wheeler (or even on foot). So yes, despite "magic seeds" farmers need more information to make better decisions. Evil or not, Monsanto's acquisition of Climate Corp absolutely makes business sense.
cnorgate 13y ago
I work with The Climate Corp as a product manager - there have been no problems retaining employees. In fact, from my point of view, morale is higher than before the acquisition. We are pretty passionate about our mission of helping farmers improve their yields. Our vision is to use data and analytics to help them do that in a more sustainable way. The acquisition has helped accelerate our vision by at least 3-5 years - which is why people are pretty excited... also why we are hiring aggressively. The Climate Corp is one of the best companies I've worked for - the combination of great (and smart) people, mission, vision and real world impact are hard come by. If you're interested in learning more, I'd be happy to chat anytime.
fiatmoney 13y ago
Even taking as a given that for any crop Monsanto has the best variety, you still have the issue of what exactly to plant, in what proportions, for your likely climate & soil conditions, equipment/water/fertilizer/labor & other input costs, and market prices. That analysis is exactly what Monsanto will provide you with now.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

zarriak 13y ago

I really dislike his attack on Google, yes they are occasionally evil, but they don't own the FCC like Monsanto owns the FDA.It doesn't matter how many people you have in office as long as the head of the government body established to regulate you is run by one of you former employees. Also, why would Monsanto want to sue their consumers, their policies allow for such small margins that the farmers are worth almost nothing.

civilian 13y ago

When commenting, be careful not to fall into Argumentum Ad Monsantum: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/16/argumentum-ad-monsantum-bill-maher-and-the-lure-of-a-liberal-logical-fallacy/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/but-not-simpler/2013/10/...

throwaway5752 13y ago

Funny how the anti-Monsanto position is always caricatured as a liberal anti-GMO person. I think it is just as likely to be a libertarian person who finds their legal pursuit of farmers who have (frequently accidentally) had their crops cross pollinate with Monsanto patented breeds to be ethically distasteful.

travisp 13y ago
>who finds their legal pursuit of farmers who have (frequently accidentally) had their crops cross pollinate with Monsanto patented breeds This is mostly a myth. All of the lawsuits have been about people who have intentionally used Monsanto breeds (mostly just one court case about one farmer in particular). The rest of their lawsuits, which are a relatively small number, have been against people who broke their contracts with Monsanto, not people who have experienced accidental cross pollination. There are no cases of Monsanto going after farmers for inadvertent contamination and the company has even explicitly stated that it will not sue farmers for it. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff
enoch_r 13y ago
Citation needed for the "frequently accidentally" bit--I've found that this is essentially an urban legend. Dig a bit deeper and things probably weren't so "accidental." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Origin_of_the_patented_seed_in_Schmeiser.27s_fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
rayiner 13y ago
The way Monsanto's Round Up works is that the genetic modification is actually resistance to a particular potent pesticide. Just having your crops cross-pollinated isn't enough to help you, or to get Monsanto on your case. They sue farmers who also try to take advantage of the situation by using the special pesticide, which would kill non-cross pollinated plants. Also, while its hard to pin down libertarianism, there is a lot of conflation between libertarianism and anarchism online. There is nothing un-libertarian about what Monsanto does. Classic libertarians believe in property rights and contractual rights. Monsanto's legal actions largely rely on a web of contracts. There is nothing about classic libertarianism that is inconsistent with patents as property rights. Indeed, patents are a basically libertarian response to the neoclassical economic problem of free riding. The libertarian preference for addressing market failures is the creation of property rights. In this context, its more consistent with classical libertarianism for Monsanto to get property rights in its Round Up Ready seeds, and thus make the money that bankrolls their billions of dollars in annual research, than for say the government to spend that money to do basic research.

state 13y ago

Interesting to stand this up next to the Nest news from today. Is it the market size that makes Nest worth 3x more than the Climate Corporation?

Daishiman 13y ago

It seems odd to me that such an appeal to reason would have a prelude of several paragraphs of emotional rhetoric, with no references to the science that backs up his position. It also strikes me as amazingly, incredibly naive, the idea that a small, newly-acquired business unit would have any say in how the rest of the corporation operates. For so much rationality, the clear strawman of attacking anti-GMO positions as purely anti-science is also striking; there are very well-reasoned arguments that go beyond the genetic modifications, which instead talk about genetic IP, food sovereignty, the atrociously excessive use of pesticides that GMO seeds promote, and the destruction of traditional methods for preserving soil quality in place of monocultures that devastate topsoil to the point of complete dependence on Monsanto's products to keep the land productive.

sampo 13y ago
> the atrociously excessive use of pesticides that GMO seeds promote I would appreciate if you could provide a link or a reference for that claim?
- omegaworks 13y ago
  It's their primary product: RoundupReady seeds are seeds that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to the Roundup pesticide. This allows farmers to plant the RoundupReady seeds, spray Roundup indiscriminately everywhere, and be certain that everything is dead except the crop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready_soybean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready_soybean
- Daishiman 13y ago
  Soy monoculture in Argentina has destroyed soil quality, and gliphosate-resistant GMO seeds have motivated the large producers to spray indiscriminately to maximize returns. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18997297 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18997297 http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/10/21/photos-argentina-agrochemicals/6446/ http://blogs.denverpost.com/captured/2013/10/21/photos-argen...
  - 13y ago

jrochkind1 13y ago

He never got to saying what he liked about Monsanto, or why it is good, or why it's not evil. He mostly says lots of people call lots of companies evil, it's not just monstanto people call evil. Okay, sure. And then he says genetic engineering isn't new, we've been doing it for thousands of years (umm.... okay, I guess you can call that genetic engineering. But there wasn't any intellectual property ownership in it, for one difference in social context.) And Monsanto isn't as big a company as you might think, he says. Okay, I'm still waiting for him to tell me what he likes about Monsanto, other than that they are huge. But I guess that's it, why did they sell to monsanto? Because monsanto had the money to pay, and the money to support their continued work. Okay, fair enough, that's a pretty typical answer to "why did you sell your company." Am i supposed to be impressed?

fit2rule 13y ago
>He never got to saying what he liked about Monsanto, or why it is good, or why it's not evil. Money.