Resale Price Maintenance After Monsanto: A Doctrine Still at War With Itself

In this article, two enforcement officials at the Federal Trade Commission reexamine resale price maintenance in light of the Supreme Court\u27s recent decision in Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Service Corp. Commissioner Calvani and Mr. Berg consider both antitrust law and economic policy in their review of the history of resale price maintenance; they point out the chronic inconsistencies to which this antitrust regime has been subject, and identify these same inconsistencies at work in Monsanto. The authors set forth three theses with respect to Monsanto: first, that the Court intimated a willingness to reconsider at some future time the per se standard of illegality for resale price maintenance; second, that the Court recognized the continuing vitality of the Colgate doctrine, which had been seriously questioned in recent years; and, third, that the Monsanto Court unsuccessfully attempted to delineate a workable evidentiary standard applicable to communications between sellers and resellers when it is alleged that such communications constitute an illegal contract, combination, or conspiracy under section one of the Sherman Act. The authors suggest that, taken together, these elements in Monsanto display a doctrine at war with itself. The authors conclude by examining the possible implications of the Monsanto decision for the future direction of the law of resale price maintenance

Where the Wild Wind Blows: Genetically Altered Seed and Neighboring Farmers

In March 2001, agro-business giant Monsanto won a victory in Canadian Federal Court over Saskatchewan farmer Percy Schmeiser. This case sets international precedent for appropriated seed cases and illustrates the primary concerns American courts must face as they consider Monsanto\u27s prosecution of 22 cases against American farmers

Stock price responses on the German suspension of genetically modified maize

This note investigates the effect of the German governments' decision to suspend the cultivation of genetically modified maize on the stock returns of involved companies. Moreover, the first announcement to investigate a ban as well as a court decision rejecting Monsanto's lawsuit against the suspension are considered. This study is motivated by the expectation that these decisions have consequences beyond the small German market for genetically modified maize. An event study is used to evaluate the economic impacts on stock returns of Monsanto, Bayer and BASF. We find slight evidence that stock prices of Monsanto and BASF responded negatively to the German suspension of genetically modified maize.Event study, Bt maize, Monsanto, Bayer, BASF, GM crops

COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES OF BIOTECHNOLOGY FIRMS: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. AGRICULTURE

The agricultural biotechnology industry has evolved from a focus on outstanding science to a more mature phase where firms focus on near-term products and building businesses. Understanding complex relationships and distribution channels and a global perspective are crucial to commercialization. Yet, leading-edge technology and early identification of key traits will be critical to developing superior products that ensure competitiveness in the marketplace. Monsanto is organizing around a life sciences model where seed, crop chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and food ingredient businesses will exploit mutual synergies driven by basic science and discovery.Biotechnology, Monsanto, Strategies, Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

An Independent Review of the E.U. Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated Regulations

Illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing refers to fishing activities that do not comply with national, regional, or international fisheries conservation or management legislation or measures . IUU fishing is complex and affects many stakeholders from the individual artisanal fisher in national waters, to fishing fleets in Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) and the High Seas, to fish processor and fisheries managers in developed and developing countries. Illegal fishing occurs in every ocean in the world, resulting in the loss of individual jobs and income, depletion of existing fish stocks, damage to the marine environment, and loss of state revenue . It affects activities both at sea and onshore, such as shipment, transportation, landing, importation and exportation, sale, and distribution of fish products . IUU fishing also has the potential to reduce the amount of fish available to subsistence fishers and communities who rely on fish as their staple diet. For example in Sierra Leone, fish provides approximately 65% of the protein source consumed by the under-nourished population. Thus people's livelihoods and food security may be seriously threatened by the possibility of losing access to this food source as result of IUU fishing

Patent Controls on GM Crop Farming

Patents on genetically modified (GM) crop technology arm their owners with powerful control over farmers\u27 ability to grow, harvest, distribute, and profit from GM crops. No clearer example exists than the April 2004 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, in which the court upheld Monsanto\u27s licensing practice of forbidding farmers to save seed from patented GM crops for replanting. By forcing farmers to buy new GM seed each season, the McFarling II decision disproportionately impacts small farmers and concentrates GM crop growth among larger agribusinesses better positioned to bear the financial burden. Notably, the McFarling II court\u27s finding of no misuse by Monsanto was conditioned on the unique circumstance that Monsanto\u27s patents cover both the first-generation GM seed and the second-generation crop grown therefrom. Absent such facts, McFarling II strongly suggests that a use restriction on goods made by, yet not incorporating, a licensed good is not a legitimate field of use restriction. That Monsanto prevailed in this case is certainly consistent with the Federal Circuit\u27s propensity to side with patent owners facing a patent misuse defense. Nevertheless, the court\u27s summary dismissal of McFarling\u27s affirmative tying allegation under the antitrust laws bears further scrutiny, as does McFarling\u27s charge that the patent exhaustion doctrine limits Monsanto\u27s ability to enforce post-sale restrictions on the use of its patented GM seed

Patent Controls on GM Crop Farming

Patents on genetically modified (GM) crop technology arm their owners with powerful control over farmers\u27 ability to grow, harvest, distribute, and profit from GM crops. No clearer example exists than the April 2004 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, in which the court upheld Monsanto\u27s licensing practice of forbidding farmers to save seed from patented GM crops for replanting. By forcing farmers to buy new GM seed each season, the McFarling II decision disproportionately impacts small farmers and concentrates GM crop growth among larger agribusinesses better positioned to bear the financial burden. Notably, the McFarling II court\u27s finding of no misuse by Monsanto was conditioned on the unique circumstance that Monsanto\u27s patents cover both the first-generation GM seed and the second-generation crop grown therefrom. Absent such facts, McFarling II strongly suggests that a use restriction on goods made by, yet not incorporating, a licensed good is not a legitimate field of use restriction. That Monsanto prevailed in this case is certainly consistent with the Federal Circuit\u27s propensity to side with patent owners facing a patent misuse defense. Nevertheless, the court\u27s summary dismissal of McFarling\u27s affirmative tying allegation under the antitrust laws bears further scrutiny, as does McFarling\u27s charge that the patent exhaustion doctrine limits Monsanto\u27s ability to enforce post-sale restrictions on the use of its patented GM seed