From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 09:17:28 +0000 As far as I know, over the past 10 years there has been no suggestion that the SCOAP3 project would fall of foul to anti-trust issues. This ‘flipping’ programme looks, in many ways, like SCOAP3 writ large. Of course, SCOAP3 covers only a very small number of publishers, but would it be difficult to make an anti-trust case if even a small number of publishers have been enjoying revenues from similar programmes over the past few years? David On 24 Dec 2015, at 03:35, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 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.