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