From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:50:03 -0500 Jean-Claude Guedon mischaracterizes my post. I was not (and am not) advocating regulatory review of the Max Planck initiative. I am asking if it is likely to happen. This is a material consideration for people who might be involved in working on such a project, especially if they are not covered by institutional liability policies that pay for legal representation. Joe Esposito 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 > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 10:04 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2015 21:59:50 -0500 > > > > Berlin 12 Conference Focuses on Proposal to Flip Subscription Journals > > to Open Access > > > > Reporte by Kathleen Shearer. Association of Research Libraries > > Partnership Consultant > > > > "On December 8 and 9, 2015, representatives from several regions > > (Asia, Europe, and North America) met in Berlin, Germany, to discuss a > > proposal to flip subscription-based journals to open access models. > > The initiative is being led by the Max Planck Society, the organizer > > and host of the invitation-only Berlin 12 Open Access Conference. The > > rationale for the initiative is based on an analysis undertaken by Max > > Planck Digital Library (MPDL), which found that a flip to open access > > would be possible at no financial risk, “maybe even at lower overall > > costs” to the system. > > > > "The objective of the conference was to build a consensus for an > > internationally coordinated effort to shift libraries’ journal budgets > > away from subscriptions and towards article processing costs (APCs). > > The meeting was attended by 96 participants from 19 countries, with > > several US and Canadian representatives. The major point of discussion > > was an expression of interest (EOI) that would form the basis for > > gaining support and moving forward with the initiative. Once > > published, organizations will be invited to sign the EOI and it will > > be used to galvanize interest in the initiative around the world." > > > > Ms. Shearer's full report is found at: > > > > http://www.arl.org/storage/documents/publications/2015.12.18-Berlin12Report.pdf > > > > Interesting to read about what may be be an underlying difference > > between the US and other countries on the matter of conversion to open > > access. At least some US representatives seek a transition in which > > there are real reductions in the costs of the scholarly publications > > system and assert that a key to success is greater competition in that > > system. The Max Planck proposal appears to be more straightforward -- > > a swap (flip) of subscription payments for models that assure open access.