john g marr wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Susan McHenry wrote:
>
>> Thank you Brian for reminding all of us that this, personal opinions
>> aside, is whether OCLC violated Antitrust Laws.
>
> In the words of Isabel Paterson "As freak legislation, the antitrust
> laws stand alone. Nobody knows what it is they forbid."
>
> Wikipedia (Monopolization): "Under long-established precedent, the
> offense of monopolization under Section 2 [of the Sherman Antitrust
> Act] has two elements. First, that the defendant possesses monopoly
> power in a properly-defined market[*] and second that the defendant
> obtained or maintained that power through conduct deemed unlawfully
> exclusionary. The mere fact that conduct disadvantages rivals does
> not, without more, constitute the sort of exclusionary conduct that
> satisfies this second element. Instead, such conduct must exclude
> rivals on some basis other than efficiency [e.g predatory pricing]."
> <...>
>
> [* Is a non-profit entity an integral part of a profit-motivated
> "properly defined market" and can it be considered to have economic
> rivals, or are the for-profit copy-cats simply taking an independent
> economic risk at turning a non-profit venture (e.g. soldiering or
> libraries) into a for-profit enterprise? How would any non-profit
> "public" organization survive such arguments as in this suit if not
> given special protection?]
>
> jgm
I don't see how a tax status (i.e. non-profit) has anything to do with
being a monopoly or not. Is OCLC a monopoly in the market that SkyRiver
describes in the suit? I don't know. However, I believe that OCLC's
status as a non-profit cooperative* doesn't have a bearing on whether or
not they are monopolistic.
* Of course, it appears from a first skimming of the complaint, that
SkyRiver may be challenging the notion that OCLC is really non-profit.
Edward
Received on Thu Jul 29 2010 - 17:58:57 EDT