Re: Libraries Urge Justice Departmen to Block Cinven and Candover Purchase of BertelsmannSpringer

["Fytton Rowland" <J.F.Rowland@lboro.ac.uk>]

Sally is right to remind us that *something* is going to happen whether we
like it or not.

Actually there are three separate questions.  First, is it a good thing
that a new player (C + C) comes into the picture instead of one publisher
buying out another?

Secondly, is it a good thing to merge Springer with Kluwer?

Thirdly, is it a good thing that the no. 2 STM publisher should be nearer
in size to Elsevier?

My tentative, gut-level answers are "yes" to question 1, "no" to question
2, and "it probably doesn't matter" to question 3.  If C + C took over one
of the two and another player again took over the other of the two it
would be a healthier situation.

Fytton Rowland, Department of Information Science,
Loughborough University, UK.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris" <sec-gen@alpsp.org>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2003 12:44 AM
Subject: Re: Libraries Urge Justice Departmen to Block Cinven and Candover
Purchase of BertelsmannSpringer


> I think we need to consider what the alternatives might have been.  They
> had to be bought by somebody - the other contenders were all other
> large(ish) publishers.  The evidence quoted suggests that all mergers tend
> to lead to higher prices - so this would have been equally likely whatever
> the outcome.
>
> So is it better for a new player to come into the game, or not?  And is it
> better that the resultant company should potentially provide more or less
> effective competition to the largest player?
>
> That a merger of some kind was inevitable is not in doubt.
>
> Sally Morris, Secretary-General
> ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org