>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Becky Yoose <b.yoose_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> "In a move that could have far-reaching implications for competition in
>> the library software and technology services industry, SkyRiver
>> Technology Solutions, LLC has filed suit in federal court in San
>> Francisco against OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc. The suit
>> alleges that OCLC, a purported non-profit with a membership of 72,000
>> libraries worldwide, is unlawfully monopolizing the markets for
>> cataloging services, interlibrary lending, and bibliographic data, and
>> attempting to monopolize the market for integrated library systems, by
>> anticompetitive and exclusionary practices."
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Gene Fieg wrote:
> This sounds a like a market grab by III
This is an extremely serious matter which affects all of us who work in
or use "public" [including academic] libraries, actually a vital part of
the "public" educational system, so I think a little bit of in-depth
analysis is required.
To the 72,000 OCLC libraries:
The real and central issue in court can be whether "non-profit" ventures
themselves are "lawful." The very concept of "non-profit" ventures could
be called into question re. "market" monopolization, e.g. whether they
should be allowed to grow unfettered or be considered unfairly efficient
restraints to economic activity. Are "individual" rights better served by
collaborations between individuals for mutual benefit ("non-profit") or by
protection of "individual" profit-making enterprises run for the benefit
of the "individuals" operating them?
Should the focus turn to OCLC itself, it should be directed toward
restructuring OCLC [if necessary] so that is can be more repersentative of
its membership and considered unquestionably "non-profit." There will be
attempts made (e.g., note the word "purported" above) to get us to picture
this suit as the perfect venue in which to demolish OCLC because we do not
see it as "non-profit." Such an approach could result in the "legal"
elimination of any and all "non-profit" cataloging that results from
collaboration between libraries.
What we have to do is use the suit to support the "non-profit" concept
itself, perhaps devising ways OCLCs can better meet our needs in a
"non-profit" manner in order for them (presumably meaning "us") to be
successful in court.
You might want to take note of the fact that there have always been three
political philosophies at work in the U.S.: Radicalism, Conservatism, and
Liberalism. Decisions made in the legal system concerning societal
structure (e.g. "non-profit" vs. "product/profit") revolve around the
conflict between these three political philosophies and which is
represented by the language of the Constitution.
We as libraries have to be concerned about the "non-profit" vs.
"for-profit" nature of the educational system s a whole (including
libraries), which teaches politics and legalisms but poorly at best.
In order to understand what takes place in our legal system and does not
take place in our educational system (and is the ultimate responsibility
of librarians) you have one "must-read" available to you: The legal
foundations of inequality / by Roberto Gargarella (blatant recommendation
based upon personal experience).
Here is a summary of the book and the problem from the publisher's Web
site:
"The long revolutionary movements that gave birth to constitutional
democracies in the Americas were founded on egalitarian constitutional
ideals. They claimed that all men were created equal with similar
capacities and also that the community should become self-governing.
Following the first constitutional debates that took place in the region,
these promising egalitarian claims, which gave legitimacy to the
revolutions, soon fell out of favor.
"Advocates of a conservative order challenged both ideals and favored
constitutions that established [state] religion and created an
exclusionary political structure [based upon economic elitism]. Radicals
favored an openly majoritarian constitutional organization [i.e. majority
always prevails over minority, and government is authoritarian] that,
according to many, directly threatened the protection of individual
rights. Liberals proposed constitutions that protected individual
autonomy and rights but established severe restrictions on the principle
of majority rule.
"This book examines the influence of these opposite views during the
'founding period' of constitutionalism [and throughout history] in
countries including the United States, Argentina, Colombia, Chile,
Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela."
For more see the Introduction at: http://tinyurl.com/28bj92v
Cheers, and work hard!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Thu Jul 29 2010 - 13:15:45 EDT