[linux-elitists] Re: More sites targeted -- another view (fwd)
Tue Nov 19 01:36:09 PST 2002
Followup has slowed to a trickle. This is probably the last post.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 04:18:47 -0500
From: Michael Engel <mkengel@WEB.DE>
Reply-To: CHEMICAL INFORMATION SOURCES DISCUSSION LIST
Subject: Re: More sites targeted -- another view
I was asked to add the following point to the discussion - see below.
One thing that all CHMINF-L or SLAPAM-L contributors seemingly forget is
that a Gov. funded entity / institution / venture whatever you wants to
call it and whatever it may be it is not allowed by Gov law to compete
with commercial operators in developing like / same areas. Therein lies
your chief reason why PubScience was pulled. It was NOT because Elsevier,
Thomson et al "lobbied" to have it removed without reason but rather that
they were quite correctly "pointing out" that were litigation proceedings
to ever have been required (searchable database with public funds in
direct competition with similar commercial venture eg Scirus,
Search4Science, Interscience are such examples) then they had a right to
instigate any such proceedings deemed vaild to loss of potential profits.
For-profit-publishers aim to make money but such investing CREATES jobs
etc. Furthermore designing any such searchable database required staf to
police and monitor, to make it truely searchable a thesauri would have had
to be created - this is what commercial ventures were pointing out.
CHMINF-L Archives (also to join or leave CHMINF-L, etc.)
Search the CHMINF-L archives at:
Sponsors of CHMINF-L:
More information about the linux-elitists