RE: Monopolies in publishing

["Harvey Brenneise" <HBrenne@MPHI.org>]

I'm sure they could make some very self-serving comments on the subject.

As for DOJ, like the Microsoft case, it's likely to have been a political
decision that didn't really address the legal issues.  As I recall, the
Clinton Administration was pursuing this, the current Administration may
not have.  However, there IS a powerful new player on the block (the EC)
that may also have a say about this.  Any unique product that has no
direct competition (most publications would fall under that definition)
are pretty much by definition a monopoly.  The question, really, is
whether certain publishers have used their monopolies in extortionate
ways.  And therein is the political decision.  An administration that
believes business is always good, even when it is monopolistic is not
likely to try to halt the behavior.

Harvey Brenneise
Michigan Public Health Institute
hbrenne@mphi.org

***

The Association of American Publishers (AAP) in Washington should be able
to help with arguments about why the current regime is not a monopoly.  
The business news coverage of the acquisition of the Harcourt journals
business by Reed a few years ago covered the monopoly issue extensively.  
You will recall that the Dep't of Justice decided that there was no
monopoly.

There is more information on the other side, of course, as Google will
tell you.

Joe Esposito