RE: Confidentiality clause is back in at Nature

[Kent Mulliner <mulliner@ohio.edu>]

On the consortial issue, my favorite clause has yet to be 
mentioned -- most-favored consortium (after 'most-favored nation' 
in trade treaties).  As far as I know, this has become relatively 
standard in consortium deals.  It states that the terms (or at 
least the price) are as the best given any other consortium.

This is a great idea in theory but, without transparency, it 
becomes a relatively meaningless part of the contract.  Also, 
with consortia--for which terms of each license may vary--it is 
nearly impossible to claim that the most-favored consortium term 
has been violated because changes in other terms are probably 
sufficient for a publisher/provider to claim that the prices 
can't be compared.  I'm unaware of legal action to enforce a 
'most-favored consortium' deal.

As one more note to Rick's comment about consortia, the 1998 
<http://www.library.yale.edu/consortia/statement.html> Statement 
of Current Perspective and Preferred Practices for the selection 
and purchase of electronic information (March 1998) by ICOLC 
(International Coalition of Library Consortia) states that: 
"Non-disclosure language, if necessary, should not preclude 
library consortia from sharing pricing and other significant 
terms and conditions with other consortia."

K. Mulliner
Rutland, OH 45775       Phone: 740-742-2650
mulliner@ohio.edu


At 12:19 PM 10/01/2006, you wrote:

>> As to confidentiality of pricing, this is due to negotiations 
>> with consortia.
>
>The license I'm negotiating with them is not for a consortial 
>purchase, but for our institution alone.  I might be able to 
>countenance the confidentiality clause if it were for a 
>consortial deal.  (Though I'm not sure why I feel that way. 
>Hmmm.  Need to think about it more...)
>
>----
>Rick Anderson
>Dir. of Resource Acquisition
>University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
>rickand@unr.edu