So you've spent years researching and writing a book about the federal price-fixing case involving informant Mark Whitacre and Decatur-based agri-giant Archer Daniels Midland Co.

A motion picture is being made about the subject of your book, and the last film by the new movie's star made close to a quarter of a billion dollars at the U.S. box office.

You're a pretty happy person, right?

If you're Kurt Eichenwald, the New York Times reporter who wrote "The Informant: A True Story," sure.

If you're James Lieber, author of the book "Rats in the Grain," which covered much of the same ground as Eichenwald's tome, well - you're due in court Tuesday.

"This is the world we live in," said Lieber, a Pittsburgh-based private practice lawyer for the past 25 years.

In a phone interview, Lieber was philosophical about someone else's book being the basis for a film.

"It wasn't meant to be cinematic," he said of his book. "It was meant to take and try to understand this incredibly important area of the economy.

"I have not read much of Eichenwald's book. I'm more interested in things like political and economic trends. I've heard some things about it.

"One thing that's kind of funny about it that people say is they'd have expected the lawyer/author to do a Grisham-type book, and the guy who wrote for the New York Times to take a detailed reportorial approach."

But in many observers' eyes, Eichenwald's book reads like a thriller, and Lieber's reads like a textbook.

"The book still sells," Lieber said. "People continue to buy it - I don't know how many copies. I continue to get royalties. Certainly not enough for me to give up my day job.

"It's a serious book, maybe not for everybody."

Lieber hasn't been ignored by movies. His book was one of the source pieces for the documentary "The Rats Below."

In any case, he's unconcerned.

"I never had any kind of thought that any movie would be made out of my book," he said. "I'm glad there is one being made, unless it distorts what is a serious problem."

He's uncertain about whether the film will draw his interest as a viewer.

"Will I see it?" he said, repeating a question. "Possibly.

"I have interest as a writer about what I think are important questions, like 'Did the truth come out?' I've read about it being classified as a 'dark comedy,' and that seemed like an awfully narrow slice to me."

The description baffles almost everyone who comes across it. The handful of people who have seen much of the script and are talking (albeit very quietly) discuss how the film's humor comes out of the circumstances and situations rather than mocking individuals. That many in the cast are known for their comedy work led to one insider saying the comedy will come organically from viewers' knowledge of the actors as comic figures.

Of course, those pronouncements could be a load of hooey as well.

"With this film," Lieber said, "while I haven't read the script, I've been led to believe it's kind of focused on Mark Whitacre as a crazy person.

"I don't think for a minute that this was an isolated incident. There were lots and lots of people involved in this. And the one who did the most to bring the situation to light was the one who was punished the most. And there weren't that many people who were punished.

"This was systematic. There were a lot of people making a comfortable living from it.

"I would be much more interested in a movie that shows the widespread corruption that was going on at the time. But if the word of mouth says it's a good film, I imagine I'll go."

Nevertheless, Lieber was and remains troubled by what he sees as negative justice system treatment of Whitacre.

"The way it was handled had a pretty chilling effect," Lieber said. "After seeing what happened to the whistle-blower in this case, more whistle-blowers did not come forward.

"One of the things about the situation in agri-business at that time was how well-organized the price-fixing was. That was just the way of the world. I've been away from it for some time, so I don't know how it is now, but I assume that's not the way it is any more."

Regardless of how the film turns out, Lieber - as is the case with many observers on the outside looking in - sees no indictment of Decatur in the story.

"Decatur happens to be where a multinational corporation is based and also where it does some processing," he said. "Multinational corporations including ADM are really not location-specific by their very nature. To me, Decatur was a decent, hard-working town. It shouldn't reflect badly on Decatur. If there's an inference drawn about a lack of moral integrity, that's wrong.

"It's not like the business there is like Las Vegas. You know, Cargill is in Minneapolis, and Cargill was a part of this. That doesn't reflect negatively on Minneapolis.

"If anything, the story reflects badly on Washington, D.C. There was briefly, in the 90s, an interest in antitrust and antimonopoly. That's not so much there any more, it seems."

Lieber also hands praise to a couple of key figures in the case.

"There were some extraordinarily dedicated people in the government," he said, "and some elements of the government that were not so positive. Punishment has been selectively applied.

"I can't imagine more dedicated public service than that of (FBI agent) Brian Shepard and (U.S. attorney) Scott Lassar. Without them, big lobbyists definitely would have won, and this case would not have come to light."

Tim Cain can be reached at timcain@herald-review.com or 421-6908.