• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIOEASTERN DIVISIONSKYRIVER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS,LLC, et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.OCLC ONLINE COMPUTER LIBRARYCENTER, INC.,Defendant.:::::::::::Case No. 2:10-CV-1017Judge WatsonMagistrate Judge Kemp
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTEDOPPOSITION MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFFSSKYRIVER TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, LLCAND INNOVATIVE INTERFACES, INC.TO DEFENDANTOCLC ONLINE COMPUTER LIBRARY CENTER, INC.’SMOTION TO DISMISS
Case: 2:10-cv-01017-MHW-TPK Doc #: 50 Filed: 02/04/11 Page: 1 of 40 PAGEID #: 352
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
-i-
I.INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT................................................1II.STATEMENT OF THE CASE..........................................................................................3A.The Relevant Markets............................................................................................4B.OCLC’s Acquisition And Maintenance Of Its Monopolies Of Bibliographic Data, Cataloging And ILL And Its Attempt To MonopolizeThe ILS Market By Exclusionary Membership Terms, Policies AndPractices.................................................................................................................51.OCLC’s monopolization of bibliographic metadata..................................62.OCLC’s monopolization of bibliographic cataloging services..................73.OCLC’s monopolization of interlibrary lending........................................74.OCLC’s attempt to monopolize integrated library systems.......................8C.OCLC’s Use Of Its Monopoly Power In ILL And Punitive Pricing ToEliminate SkyRiver As A Competitor...................................................................8D.Harm To Plaintiffs, Consumers And To Competition...........................................9III.EACH OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS MEETS THE PLEADING STANDARDAPPLICABLE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION.............................................................10IV.THE COMPLAINT PLEADS FACTS SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH THERELEVANT MARKETS, ANTITRUST STANDING AND ANTITRUSTINJURY...........................................................................................................................12A.Plaintiffs Have Sufficiently Identified And Defined The Relevant Markets.......12B.Plaintiffs Have Alleged Facts Establishing Antitrust Standing And Injury........141.Plaintiffs’ antitrust standing and antitrust injury.....................................152.The cases OCLC cites do not support dismissal for lack of antitruststanding or injury.....................................................................................18V.EACH OF PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS IS SUFFICIENT TO STATE A CLAIMAGAINST OCLC............................................................................................................19A.The First Claim Of SkyRiver For Monopolization Of BibliographicMetadata, Cataloging And ILL Markets Is Sufficient To State A Claim............19
Case: 2:10-cv-01017-MHW-TPK Doc #: 50 Filed: 02/04/11 Page: 2 of 40 PAGEID #: 353
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
-ii-
1.The Complaint alleges predatory pricing and predatory conduct byOCLC and states a claim for unlawful monopolization...........................202.OCLC’s exclusionary membership terms and policies and itsunlawful refusal to deal with for-profit firms have been sufficiently pleaded.....................................................................................................21B.The Second Claim Of Innovative For Attempted Monopolization Of TheILS Market Is Sufficient To State A Claim Against OCLC................................23C.The Third Claim For Relief Of Innovative And SkyRiver For UnlawfulExclusionary Agreements States A Claim For Violation Of Section1...............25D.The Fourth Claim Of SkyRiver For Unlawful Tying States A Claim For Violation Of Section1.........................................................................................27E.The Fifth And Sixth Claims Of SkyRiver And Innovative Are Sufficient..........29VI.CONCLUSION................................................................................................................30
Case: 2:10-cv-01017-MHW-TPK Doc #: 50 Filed: 02/04/11 Page: 3 of 40 PAGEID #: 354
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...