[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
UK Reviewing Reed Elsevier proposed acquistion of Harcourt
- To: "Liblicense-L (E-mail)" <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
- Subject: UK Reviewing Reed Elsevier proposed acquistion of Harcourt
- From: "Hamaker, Chuck" <cahamake@email.uncc.edu>
- Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:52:21 EDT
- Reply-To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
http://www.competition-commission.gov.uk/pressreleases/05-01.htm 5/01 22 February 2001 REED ELSEVIER/HARCOURT GENERAL COMPETITION COMMISSION SEEKS EVIDENCE Kim Howells, Competition and Consumer Affairs Minister, has asked the Competition Commission to look into the proposed acquisition of Harcourt General Inc by Reed Elsevier Inc. The Commission will look at competition concerns relating to the market power the merged companies would have in scientific, technical and medical journals, and will consider whether the proposed acquisition may be expected to operate against the public interest. The Commission will report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by 28 May 2001. The report will be published later. This inquiry is being undertaken by a group of four Commission members. The Chairman is Arthur Pryor, a former DTI Civil Servant, who is now a consultant on competition policy and government affairs. The other members are Anthony Clothier, an independent consultant specialising in privatisation and restructuring in Eastern Europe, Dame Helena Shovelton, the Chair of the Audit Commission, and David Stark, a Chartered Engineer and retired company director. Mr Arthur Pryor...has been a member of the editorial board of World Competition, published by Kluwer, for the last eight months or so. Mr Pryor has received no remuneration for these services. He has now resigned from the editorial board... For the list of those who have provided evidence: http://www.competition-commission.gov.uk/inquiries/reedevid.htm It includes SCONUL (Standing Conference of National and University Libraries) For a response from CURL(Consortium of University Research Libraries) by Chris Bailey Executive Secretary of the group-to the proposed merger-9 March 2001- see: http://www.curl.ac.uk/about/Responses.html Note especially CURL members table that lists: total combined number of Reed & Harcourt titles as a percentage of all titles they subscribe to, as a percentage of their total subscriptions... expenditure on Reed & Harcourt titles as a percentage of their total journals expenditure. Membership of CURL:The full members of CURL include the largest research libraries in the UK higher education sector: Questions asked by the Competition Committee are listed at : http://www.competition-commission.gov.uk/pressreleases/13-01.htm Some very specific questions are raised regarding impact of the proposed merger. For full list see url above, but here's a sample from the web page: 1. The appropriate definition of the economic markets affected by the proposed merger, in particular: a) whether the global market is the relevant one in all cases, or b) whether, for some products, the geographical market is different; c) whether pricing is global or differentiated regionally; and i) if regionally, where pricing decisions are taken; d) whether there is a single market for all types of STM journals; or i) whether they are part of a larger market, which also includes other STM publications such as magazines and books; or ii) whether there are separate markets (or a distinct segment of a market) for journals relating to separate subject areas or academic disciplines within the STM sector; or iii)whether journals produced by commercial publishers are in a separate market (or market segment) from those produced by non-commercial bodies, such as learned societies; or iv) whether individual journals constitute distinct markets in themselves; and e) whether there is a single market for journal publishing services or for the other products anD services affected by the proposed merger, or i) whether they too should be divided into separate markets (or distinct segments of a market); f) whether electronic publishing should be regarded as a separate market; and g) whether there is scope for substitution at the boundaries of any of the markets identified. ---
- Prev by Date: Cornell's letter on Nature and monthlies
- Next by Date: Harcourt General Posts loss
- Prev by thread: Harcourt General Posts loss
- Next by thread: Cornell's letter on Nature and monthlies
- Index(es):