Sunday, July 27, 2008

An Open Response to DoJ Antitrust Div. Explaining Sean Dix´s Antitrust Accusations

This article was originally published at on July 20th, 2008

A couple days ago I read an article by Mary Sparrowdancer explaining the predicament of one Sean Dix, the inventor of a simple yet revolutionary product for flossing teeth. Ms. Sparrowdancer struck me as a thoughtful, intelligent, trustworthy individual and a principled reporter. She did an excellent job of telling Mr. Sean Dix´s story and provided many facts I´m sure she verified and included information about witnesses. The story she told was very disturbing, for it involved people and companies who many Americans would trust implicitly and would believe incapable of such malicious acts. The story I´m referring to can be found here: Floss Story

Toward the end of the article Ms. Sparrowdancer asks the reader to send an email to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice asking them to provide justice to Mr. Dix. It is the only thing Sean Dix desires. After everything he went through, that seems to be a pretty magnanimous request. I felt it was only fair and followed the instructions provided to me, keeping my letter to the DoJ simple and providing a link to Ms. Mary Sparrowdancer´s well written story. To my surprise, the DoJ actually emailed me back. Here is a copy of the email:

"Thank you for contacting the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The Citizen Complaint Center has reviewed your complaint, and though we understand your concerns, we have determined that the information provided does not warrant further review by the Division at this time. We have your information on file and should the legal staff need further information, they may contact you in the future.

We appreciate your interest in the enforcement of the federal antitrust laws and we wish you the best in resolving your concerns.

Citizen Complaint Center
Antitrust Division
Department of Justice"

So, they understand my concerns, yet they feel the information does not require further review? How can that be? It makes me wonder if they actually read the article I sent them a link to. If they understand my concern, they certainly should understand that this matter needs to be investigated. They seem to have forgotten the purpose for which they were created. The public puts trust in certain institutions and businesses and they expect certain government entities to make sure those institutions and businesses do not become too powerful. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice would certainly qualify as one such government entity. Those of us who would like to see this matter investigated are simply asking you to do your job.

The information provided does not warrant further review by the division at this time? What would warrant further review? Are you not supposed to investigate practices that unfairly limit competition? Need I remind you that back in the early 1900s Standard Oil and John D. Rockefeller were investigated for using the government sanctioned railroad monopolies unfairly to stifle his competition? Need I remind you that it was by virtue of his millions and his conniving with others of great means that he was able to cut out the hard working small business men and prevent them from innovating to better serve consumers? It seems to me that something very similar has happened here.

These accusations need to be investigated and either verified or proven false. If CNN was paid off by Johnson and Johnson to misrepresent Mr. Dix´s FlossRings or did so to protect one of their largest advertisers from competition with the potential to take millions of dollars in market share, that certainly "warrants" further review by the division. The man just wants his day in court to try to prove his allegations, so why not let him have it? Is there something about this case that frightens you?

Perhaps lying, providing misinformation to the public, and misrepresentation with malicious intent don´t concern you. After all, the DoJ is a monopoly in itself. Where else can one go to seek justice in such a matter? You can certainly pick and chose which antitrust "crimes" you´d like to investigate and which you wouldn´t. Some small, little businessman whose life was ruined by two huge conglomerates colluding with each other, who cares about that? Of course if it was some small business accusing another small business, or some such thing, you´d probably jump all over that. It wouldn´t be so tough to prosecute such a case. Perhaps it wouldn´t be so hard if it wasn´t CNN, the propaganda arm of the government, that was the culprit here.

Although I´d like to, I won´t stoop to name calling here. I´m sure the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice thinks it has better things to do than investigate the accusations of one Sean Dix who has a legitimate grievance and the documentation to prove it. But if you just don´t want to do your job, than just say so. Prove that the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is just as worthless as any other government agency. Meanwhile, perhaps the consumers can help the market decide what floss is best for them. Start buying Dix´s FlossRings and let the demand for them grow. Go to CVS, Walgreen´s, Walmart, Target, or any local drugstore and start asking them to carry FlossRings. Tell your friends about how FlossRings would have offered the only sterilized floss on the market if not for CNN´s hit piece. Let them know the government is helping to keep a superior product from reaching consumers. If your government refuses to do its job, perhaps the consumers can provide justice for Sean Dix and gain a superior product in the process.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

An open letter to Jeanne Moos and Ted Turner;

If Sean Dix commits suicide, as Edwin Armstrong (Americas best
inventor) did, will you claim it was nothing to do with you, as David
Sarnoff did?

How will you hide the evidence?

Perhaps the courts in Atlanta could order the people not believe it?