From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2016 18:22:12 -0500

Jean-Claude Guedon is of course entitled to his subtexts, provided
that he does not attribute them to me.

David Prosser's comment is thoughtful and helpful, but I still hanker
for the perspective of a lawyer with experience in antitrust. I assume
that David is not an antitrust lawyer, but I could be wrong about
that.

Speaking as someone who has spent much of his adult life dealing with
civil litigation and regulatory concerns, I can say that no one
without the protective shield of an established organization will want
to get too close to this situation without assurances from antitrust
lawyers. This may be a bigger issue for us Americans, who live with a
nutty legal system.

Joe Esposito


On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 7:18 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2015 11:18:21 +0000
>
> When I read a statement expressing an outlandish hypothesis about a
> closed meetings of librarians and scholars, I clearly see the
> sub-text. By the same principle, any seminar would run afoul of "the
> law". Which law, incidentally? US? German? Martian?
>
> Whether this is mind reading or not is not my concern. From my
> perspective, it is simply discourse analysis.
>
> As for an apology, I do not begin to fathom what the apology might be about.
>
> This said, happy holidays ... and peace to all beings (men included)
> of good will.
>
> Jean-Claude Guédon
> ________________________________________
>
> From: Alex Holzman <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:04:11 -0500
>
> Jean-Claude, unless you can read minds, you have no idea what Joe
> Esposito was thinking when he asked about possible antitrust
> implications of the meeting.  Regardless of your personal views, the
> question of whether the meeting might run afoul of any laws is in
> itself completely unbiased.  It's a question about law.  And it is
> certainly neither a threat from Joe nor his endorsement of
> oligarchies. From where I sit, you owe an apology.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alex Holzman
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:41:30 +0000
> >
> > Joseph Esposito's remark is really weird if we think about the fact
> > that we live in the context of a tight oligopoly of a few commercial
> > publishers. But that seems to be all right, at least to him!
> >
> > On the other hand, when some librarians and researchers join together
> > for a quiet strategy meeting, the threat of antitrust is immediately
> > raised. And I mean "threat".  Amazing!
> >
> > Does anyone on this list remember professor Barschall who was sued
> > (under anti-trust provisions) in four countries for displaying
> > accurate comparative figures of publishing costs for a set of physics
> > journals. Gordon and Breach was behind this, in personal terms, cruel
> > move. Gordon and Breach lost everywhere. With deep pockets, they
> > annoyed Barschall literally to death for between ten and twelve years.
> > It all stopped only when Wiley took over Gordon & Breach.
> >
> > Orwell's notion that some are more equal than others is turning out to
> > be ever more accurate.
> >
> > As for the possible relationship between ethics and profit seeking, I
> > will the readers judge.
> >
> > Jean-Claude Guédon
> >
> > ________________________________________
> >
> > From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2015 09:33:16 -0500
> >
> > I would be interested to know from lawyers familiar with antitrust
> > issues whether this development may face legal challenges.
> >
> > Joe Esposito