If you cannot compete on merit, eliminate competition by court order

[Jam]

U.S. Judge Rules Against Obama’s Stem Cell Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/he...pagewanted=all

The Court of Appeals [ruled that] the two researchers [Dr. James L. Sherley and Dr. Theresa Deisher] could be harmed by the new policy since they worked exclusively with adult stem cells and would face increased competition for federal financing under the new policy.

[Master Shake]

Re: If you cannot compete on merit, eliminate competition by court order

U.S. Judge Rules Against Obama’s Stem Cell Policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/24/he...pagewanted=all

You need to go back and read the entire article because this ruling has zero to do with eliminating competition by court order.

Sheesh!

[Jam]

Re: If you cannot compete on merit, eliminate competition by court order

Here is the relevant excerpt from the court ruling.

Plaintiffs are researchers who work exclusively with ASCs. They seek funds for their
research projects from defendants and allege “that obtaining NIH funding is necessary for their continued research.” (Pls.’ Mot. [3] at 44.) The Guidelines, by allowing federal funding of ESC research, increases competition for NIH’s limited resources. This increased competition for limited funds is an actual, imminent injury.

It is, therefore, incorrect to state that it has "zero" to do with eliminating competition (for federal funding, this time). In fact, as far as I understand, this was the only reason for not dismissing the case in the first place.
And, yes, I have read the entire article.
Here is the link to the full ruling
https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin...?2009cv1575-44

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: If you cannot compete on merit, eliminate competition by court order

Not good, but certainly not anything new.

Remember the decisions about mad cow disease back in 2004?
A private company wanted to perform 100% testing at their own expense on their own cattle to gain access to the Japanese market.

Big Cattle got Big Gov't to rule it was unfair to make them look bad by comparison and perhaps unleash market forces wherein customers might require THEM to pay more money for extra testing on THEIR beef or risk losing their customers or reducing their profits.

Better to just remove that choice from the market place. The little company was compelled to cease and desist the extra testing.

U.S. Won't Let Company Test All Its Cattle For Mad Cow
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr.
Published: April 10, 2004

The Department of Agriculture refused yesterday to allow a Kansas beef producer to test all of its cattle for mad cow disease, saying such sweeping tests were not scientifically warranted.

The producer, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to use recently approved rapid tests so it could resume selling its fat-marbled black Angus beef to Japan, which banned American beef after a cow slaughtered in Washington State last December tested positive for mad cow. The company has complained that the ban is costing it $40,000 a day and forced it to lay off 50 employees.

The department's under secretary for marketing and regulation, Bill Hawks, said in a statement yesterday that the rapid tests, which are used in Japan and Europe, were licensed for surveillance of animal health, while Creekstone's use would have ''implied a consumer safety aspect that is not scientifically warranted.''

Lobbying groups for cattle ranchers and slaughterhouses applauded the decision, but consumer advocates denounced it, saying the department was preventing Creekstone from taking extra steps to prove its product was safe.
Under the Virus Serum Toxin Act of 1913, the department decides where cattle can be tested and for what.

Consumer groups accused the department of bending to the will of the beef lobby, saying producers do not want the expense of proving that all cattle are safe or the damage to meat sales that would result if more cases of mad cow are found.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/10/us...r-mad-cow.html

[Master Shake]

Re: If you cannot compete on merit, eliminate competition by court order

That part of the ruling has only to do with "standing" (Ability to be able to bring the suit) and has nothing to do with the decision.

[Jam]

Re: If you cannot compete on merit, eliminate competition by court order

The net result is the same: the competition (for federal funds) for the two researchers is eliminated (by court order).
I see it as I read it, and what I see is drs Sherley and Deisher worried that the increased competition from other researchers would cut into their funding. So, what do they do? They don't try to compete on merit by doing good research and producing results. Rather, they sue to stop the other researchers from competing for 'their' money.
Just like the scenario described by thriftyandboringinohio: big beef suing to stop their competition from doing something that could cut into their profit margin rather than compete on quality/price.