Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

Editor: D. Daniel Sokol
University of Florida
Levin College of Law

A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Wednesday, February 10, 2010

Competition in Agriculture Syposium Post: Comments of Ron Cass

Posted by Ron Cass (Chairman, Center for the Rule of Law and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law)

USDA and DOJ inquiries into competition in agriculture could recast antitrust law as substantially contrary to patent law. A prominent contribution to the inquiries argues that the seed industry needs regulation because one firm (Monsanto) dominates competition for seed types based on that company’s own patented innovation. That is, looking at competition only among seeds based on Monsanto’s patents, Monsanto is too dominant. Taken seriously, the argument would make antitrust a vehicle for eliminating patent holder exclusivity, instead requiring patent licensing on an open basis, as if each patent conferred the equivalent of an essential facility. That approach is destructive of IP rights and also at odds with the basic thrust of antitrust laws, which don’t proscribe every impediment to unrestrained competition in inputs and outputs but instead prohibit specific practices that tend to undermine competition and harm consumers. Those aren’t serious concerns here.

The seed industry is highly competitive. Farmers choose seeds each year (no lock-in problem). Hundreds of firms produce and sell seeds. Other major firms (including firms far larger than Monsanto) invest heavily in developing their own competing seeds and seed traits. In fact, the primary push for regulation here comes from DuPont (a larger firm with a roughly equal share of the overall seed market – but not of every segment of the seed market), along with those looking for short-term reductions in seed costs and professional antitrust advocates interested in expanding the ambit of antitrust law. That should give pause to officials considering intervening in this sector.

The pro-regulatory argument would replace IP-sensitive law like Independent Ink with a version of Terminal Railway on steroids. Terminal Railway is something of a sport, debatable even when limited to its facts. Hopefully, officials at Agriculture and Justice will not make it a template for revising IP laws under antitrust guise.

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/antitrustprof_blog/2010/02/competition-in-agriculture-syposium-post-antitrust-and-seeds-a-railway-terminal-too-far.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef0120a8852cd6970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Competition in Agriculture Syposium Post: Comments of Ron Cass:

Comments

Whilst the USDA and DoJ inquiry is US centric this is no longer a national issue, and the food security of developing nations is of great concern to the US and to other developed nations. CAS-IP contributed to this debate in its role to assist the CGIAR and its constituency of resource-poor farmers. Click here to view the paper we submitted. http://www.cas-ip.org/publications-impact-of-seed-company-competition-on-access/

For updates http://casipblog.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Kay Chapman | Feb 11, 2010 4:07:34 AM

I too hope that the agriculture inquiries do not recast antitrust as contrary to patent law. More regulation is unlikely to be an answer, especially if it includes compulsory licensing. On the other hand, as one involved in an antitrust case against Monsanto on its seed patent practices, I see issues of patent abuse and monopolization. It is not only DuPont, professional antitrust advocates and short term cost cutters complaining, though DuPont may have the biggest megaphone.

Posted by: Yee Wah Chin | Feb 11, 2010 5:21:36 AM

The patent law and the prior decisions never contemplated patent protected for "self-replicating inventions." When combined with the strict liability aspect of patent law, the current regime is unworkable and needs to be fixed. When it is enforced in the manner that Monsanto has pursued its claims with attorneys and investigotrs of questionable ethics, it truely requires action to be taken.

Posted by: anew | Feb 24, 2010 8:25:02 AM

That is, looking at competition only among seeds based on Monsanto’s patents, Monsanto is too dominant.

Posted by: ffxiv gil | Nov 10, 2010 5:59:19 PM

That should give pause to officials considering intervening in this sector.

Posted by: ray ban sunglasses | Apr 18, 2011 12:49:57 AM

This is an Excellent information for anyone is the farming industry . Pls give me some basic information about farm and agriculture tool.

Posted by: windsor | Jul 25, 2011 7:53:52 PM

Post a comment