I have to agree. Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure someone will!:-), but
this acquisition will be de-railed only if the Dept. of Justice decides
there is an antitrust problem, not because we don't want Thomson to buy
West. I'm assuming that this decision will be made after input from
individuals such as us, and study of the situation. I'm uncertain as to
what people think AALL should do, and what purpose it would serve. This
is not the same thing as lobbying for or against legislation.
Don't interpret this to mean that I'm thrilled about the prospect of
Thomson buying West. I just don't think that other than providing
information on to the DOJ on publication overlap and the effect of
the merger on the legal book industry, which I believe is being done,
we have anything to say about it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Chick cchick@netcom.com
http://www.well.com/user/cchick/home.html
Graham & James
Los Angeles, CA 90017
-------------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Lisa Satterlund wrote:
> I promised myself I wouldn't do this, but I'm really getting sick of the
> attitude that "if you're not for me you're against me" and "there is no such
> thing as neutrality"
>
> I think AALL did the right thing in choosing to remain neutral. It is an
> ORGANIZATION made up of INDIVIDUALS who have many different
> views. It would be impossible for AALL to choose any position without
> offending many of its members. It is wise not to try.
>
> Lisa Satterlund
> Foster Pepper & Shefelman
> Seattle, WA
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 14 2007 - 20:49:12 PST