[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
TAP Motion in Thomson West Merger
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________
In the matter of: )
)
United States of America )
1401 H Street, NW )
Suite 4000 )
Washington, DC 20530 )
State of California )
State of Connecticut )
State of Illinois )
Commonwealth of Massachusetts )
State of New York ) Civil No. 96-1415 (PLF)
State of Washington )
State of Wisconsin )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
The Thomson Corporation, and )
West Publishing Company )
Defendant. )
_________________________________)
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE DENIAL
OF TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT'S MOTION TO
PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS CURIAE
The Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP) respectfully
requests that the court reconsider its denial of TAP's
motion to participate in the above captioned proceeding as
amicus curiae. The Department of Justice (DOJ) noted in
its opposition to TAP's motion that the purpose of a Tunney
Act proceeding is to determine whether the proposed Final
Judgment in a government antitrust suit is in the public
interest. TAP is the one consumer interest that asked to
participate as amicus curiae, and the interests of consumers
are at least as important as the commercial publishers who
will participate in the proceedings.
DOJ claimed that TAP's amicus participation is not
required to ensure that the Final Judgment is in the public
interest. As this proceeding stands currently, two foreign-
owned corporations that have long dominated the U.S. legal
publishing market, and which have somewhat parallel
interests, will be the primary participants, with DOJ as a
counterweight.
The only American owned publisher and the only small
business that was granted amicus status was Hyperlaw, and
only on a limited basis prohibiting any oral presentation at
the hearing. This situation does little to satisfy the
requirements that the public interest be carefully
protected, since there have been long-standing complaints
that consumer and small business interests have been given
too little weight by government policy makers, not only at
the DOJ, but also within the Courts and the Congress.
The benefits of allowing TAP to participate as amicus
is potentially great, while the burden the court must suffer
in order to accomplish this is negligible at best. TAP will
be able to provide a valuable contrast to all the other
participants as a non-profit organization dedicated solely
to serving the public interest.
According to DOJ, TAP's views (and those of the other
groups petitioning for amicus status) can be given "full and
appropriate consideration" through review of its "extensive
comments." This approach, however, is an inferior
substitute for amicus participation. The court will be
deprived of valuable information and based upon DOJ's
filing, Plaintiff's Response to Public Comments, several
issues have been misstated and would benefit from
clarification by amicus participants:
- DOJ states (page 50) that the requirement that Thomson
approve any license agreement "appears unrelated to the
acquisition." This bears directly on whether the Final
Settlement is in the public interest and DOJ is clearly
mistaken in claiming that the method for securing a
license is unrelated to the acquisition. Under this
approach Thomson is free to object to the form (i.e.,
electronic) as well as the content of the agreement.
Providing so much leverage to Thomson, which has a
tremendous incentive to undermine on-line access, is
contrary to the public interest and should be remedied
before the Final Judgment is approved.
- DOJ is also off the mark in claiming (page 44) that in
the enhanced primary law markets "the text of opinions
is not difficult to obtain." Building upon this false
assumption, DOJ claims that a text copyright is not a
necessary element of the Final Judgment. This is
directly contrary to the information submitted by those
who are in the best position to know: the small,
independent legal publishers. It is also a strange
position DOJ take after DOJ was forced to lay-off 27
employees from its JURIS program after West Publishing
refused to renew its contract as a supplier of the text
of cases, and DOJ couldn't find an alternative supplier
for the materials, and after DOJ has opposed efforts by
citizens to obtain copies of court decisions collected
by the Air Force that were typed into a government
database from the West reporters, due to West copyright
assertions on the text of federal judicial opinions that
are published in its reporters.
- DOJ also claims that it has no information indicating
that Thomson was a potential competitor in this area of
collection of primary source materials, and that the
Final Judgment will not make getting cases any harder.
This misstates the situation because Thomson was the
most likely competitor and had made significant efforts
towards completing a case law archive. DOJ is aware that
Thomson had been an active in efforts to reform court
practices in the dissemination of legal information,
before it decided to purchase West, in copyright
litigation and efforts at legislative reform. The
Merger will eliminate a powerful force for reform in
this market.
Wherefore, the Taxpayer Assets Project respectfully requests
that in the interest of justice and the protection of the
public interest it be permitted to participate in the above
captioned proceeding as amicus curiae.
_____________________
James Love
Director
Taxpayer Assets Project
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 387-8030
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
James Love / love@tap.org / P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
Voice: 202/387-8030; Fax 202/234-5176
Center for Study of Responsive Law
Consumer Project on Technology; http://www.essential.org/cpt
Taxpayer Assets Project; http://www.tap.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~