Saying it's always been guided by "[i]nclusion, reciprocity, trust and the highest standard of ethical conduct," OCLC responded today to the lawsuit filed on July 28 by bibliographic services company SkyRiver Technology Solutions and library automation company Innovative Interfaces charging OCLC with antitrust violations and anticompetitive practices.
Here is the statement from Larry Alford, the chair of the OCLC Board of Trustees, and Jay Jordan, OCLC's president and CEO, in full:
"On July 29, SkyRiver Technology Solutions and Innovative Interfaces, Inc. filed suit against OCLC, alleging anticompetitive practices. We at OCLC believe the lawsuit is without merit, and we will vigorously defend the policies and practices of the cooperative.
"OCLC's General Counsel, working with trial counsel, will respond to this regrettable action by SkyRiver and Innovative Interfaces following procedures and timetables dictated by the court. This process will likely take months or even years, not days.
"In the meantime, we want to assure the OCLC membership and all 72,000 libraries that use one or more OCLC services that these spurious allegations will not divert us from our current plans and activities. These include maintaining and enhancing existing services, pursuing an ambitious agenda in library research and advocacy, and introducing new Web-scale (cloud) services. Indeed, OCLC has been a global leader in providing cloud-based services for libraries since 1971, and the next generation of these services holds great promise for reducing member library costs.
"It is worth noting that our current strategy represents a collective effort by librarians around the world, developed through ongoing dialogue and consultation with the Board of Trustees, Global Council, and Regional Councils in the Americas, Asia Pacific, and Europe, the Middle East and Africa. We will continue our active engagement with OCLC members and governance participants as, together, we move our cooperative forward.
"Inclusion, reciprocity, trust and the highest standard of ethical conduct have guided the OCLC cooperative in the past and will guide us in the future. As always, OCLC's public purposes of furthering access to the world's information and reducing the rate of rise of library costs remain paramount."
Click here for recent reaction to the lawsuit from ILS vendors and library bloggers.
Reader Comments (7)
"...OCLC has been a global leader in providing cloud-based services for libraries since 1971."
This is BS. How much "computing cloud" infrastructure existed in 1971? None, of course.
All those Xerox Sigma series mainframes in Dublin may have looked like a maze, maybe even a forest - but not a "cloud" in the sense the Marketing Department applies it to computing infrastructure in 2010.
Posted by Mark Andrews on August 5, 2010 06:15:45PM
This statement is so much like a commercial.
Posted by Niuniu on August 6, 2010 07:05:48AM
"...the lawsuit is without merit..." they have a monopoly and are a nonprofit making a profit. I think the company has EVERY right to push the issue.
I am very curious to see how this goes.
Posted by Amy on August 6, 2010 07:19:23AM
It is long past time for OCLC's membership to take control of their organization BACK from management and its crony board. A non-profit, public benefit corporation would do well to make its chief resource - most of which was paid for, directly or indirectly, by the taxpayers of the United States - as widely available as possible.
That doesn't preclude profit; Google can and should pay - PLENTY - for use of the metadata in WorldCat. I'd like to see Google and its ilk pay OCLC, SkyRiver, and as many other viable players that currently or may exist in the bibliographic metadata market for their content.
Lets be plain and direct: OCLC is not a non-profit in its attitude and actions. It may be legally incorporated as a non-profit in the State of Ohio, but it acts like a for-profit entity that seeks to leverage its non-profit legal status for competitive advantage, if not overt control, of the bibliographic metadata market. OCLC should re-incorporate as a for-profit corporation, with all the benefits and obligations of that status - including full payment of corporate income tax and sales tax in all jurisdictions in which it does business.
None of this excuses Innovative Interfaces from its many sins, including successfully flogging an over-priced, closed, proprietary integrated library system for 30 years, but I digress.
Posted by Mark Andrews on August 6, 2010 09:48:26AM
Yes, and, although the last time I brought this up on LJ.com, they deleted the comment, there are 18 people who make over $200,000 a year at OCLC. That would never fly at a public library, so it's beyond me why it does at a cooperative they fund. OCLC produces a lot of really top flight research but it's really more than libraries can use. It's like NASA consulting for the local airstrip. It's just overkill. And why do they need to market so aggressively? Member institutions should only support expansion if it lowers costs and that's definitely not the trend at OCLC.
Posted by jonesy on August 9, 2010 05:22:54PM
With OCLC, there are mechanisms for guiding it away from any
strategic mistakes, including the fact that librarians serve
on its board. There may be mistakes (like with records use)
but over time, the momentum will be towards correction. With
for profit vendors like Innovative, there are no such
mechanisms.
Posted by Al Cornish on August 11, 2010 05:00:41PM
My belief is OCLC has all but defrauded its member libraries with higher than necessary prices and exclusionary practices. A "not for profit" corporation that can buy the cooperation of leaders in librarianship with "scholarships", thwart the advancement of international protocols, and deprive libraries of the free use of their own databases is a monopoly. Kudos to the plaintiffs and good luck. It is time this bloated bureaucracy living off the backs of libraries and taxpayers was brought down.
Posted by Mark Wilson on August 14, 2010 11:24:15PM
