I guess I see it differently. Not that I admire the price assigned for
MSU at all. I'm only saying that a policy, publicly available, isn't a
threat. To me a threat is something outside of policy and procedure. I
think we do agree, though, that the there's little to admire in the
price quote for MSU. Sure, the policy for membership is that you are
currently contributing data, not that you have done so in the past. The
outcome of the suit will help define whether OCLC's price quite was
legally done, or simply punitive and anti-competitive.
Daniel
>>> Tim Spalding 08/08/10 10:33 AM >>>
> I'm not sure why it might be considered a threat. In any event, I
think this has been more or less the working definition for a while.
Well, for example, Michigan State argued that they did not deserve the
treatment they got insofar as they were still paying OCLC $85,000
dollars a year for resource sharing and because:
"We've been OCLC members for 40 years*we're the ones who built this
database." (Feb 16 LJ article)
It would seem OCLC is underscoring that the two factors cited*paying
large sums of money and having contributed the records that OCLC
sells*are not relevant.
Tim
Received on Sun Aug 08 2010 - 17:25:59 EDT