From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 01:04:52 +0000

I suppose it depends on who is determining what is necessary.  There
have been rumors throughout the trial that the individual plaintiffs
were reluctant.  But the decisions have been made, and bankrolled, by
the AAP and the CCC.  I have seen nothing that changes my original
opinion that the suit was quite deliberately intended as a marketing
tool for the CCC's annual campus license.  Indeed, the CCC is the only
entity on the plaintiff side that could be considered to have won
something out of the lawsuit, since more publishers will have a
greater incentive now to participate in all of CCC's various licensing
schemes.  Even if schools do not suddenly all feel that they have to
flock to buy the AACL, it's overall value will probably increase.
Perhaps the CCC actually realized from the start that this suit had a
huge upside for them if the plaintiffs won and a lesser one, but an
upside nonetheless, even if they lost.

By the way, when it is seen as an aggressive marketing strategy, some
of the apparently inexplicable things about this case, including the
decision to sue a state institution, start to make sense.

Kevin


On Aug 19, 2012, at 7:25 PM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 06:52:44 -0700
>
> Kevin,
>
> No quarrel with the legal facts, but this lawsuit was brought
> reluctantly.  Publishers don't want to sue libraries or colleges.
> Once a decision was made that a suit was necessary, then shopping for
> the right defending was a matter of procedure.
>
> Of course, with the court decisions, the publishers have even more
> reason to be reluctant.
>
> Joe Esposito