Source: http://hyperlaw.com/topix/westmerger/dojvthm.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 07:53:44+00:00

Document:
"The Department of Justice and the State Attorneys General have served up a glass that is 90% empty, and the 10% in the glass is watered down." Alan D. Sugarman, HyperLaw, July 10, 1996."
SEE NEW DOJ NEWS ITEMS Thursday, February 27, 1997.
For related news stories, see HyperLaw In the News.
American Association of Law Libaries, letter by Robert L. Oakley, Washington Affairs Representative of AALL, to Judge Paul L. Friedman, February 22, 1997 Included in this letter is a March, 1996 letter from AALL to DOJ, which, apparently, was not provided to the Court because it was sent prior to the commencement of the Tunney Act notice period, which was July to early September, 1996.
Transcript - Conference before Judge Friedman, February 6, 1996 -- USA v. Thomson, 96 CV 1415, USDC District of Columbia Judge Friedman raises further questions, criticizes Department of Justice, objects to provisions in new license agreement proposal, objects to divesture to Lexis, and invites HyperLaw to file an expanded motion to intervene.
Docket -- USA v. Thomson, 96 CV 1415, USDC District of Columbia"
Docket sheet last updated by Court November 20, 1996.
Docket sheet of proceedings current to November 20, 1996.
A Word Perfect For Windows Version may be found at DOJ's Site: "United States v. Thomson Documents" DOJ did not include a copy of the cross-reference table included in the version filed in court which purported to permit correlation between the comments filed prior to September 3, 1996 and the DOJ response.
HyperLaw October 10, 1996 Letter to DOJ requesting that DOJ make available to the public, as required by the Tunney Act, documents on which the proposed consent decree is based.
This letter includes a discussion of the 1988 Secret License Agreements between West and Lexis which are the counterpoints to DOJ's Proposed License Agreement for everyone else. Included is language from 1976 and 1988 complaints.
This request was denied by DOJ on October 3, 1996.
This motion was granted in part by an order of Judge Friedman on October 9, 1996. HyperLaw's Response is due October 16, 1996. The Government's Response is due October 23, 1996.
Judge Richey who is presiding over DOJ v. Thomson is the author of a book published by a Thomson company, Clark Boardman Callaghan. HyperLaw has brought this to this attention of the Court in a letter filed with the Court Monday morning and suggested that there is at the very least an appearance of impropriety. On September 17, 1996, the case was then assigned to Judge Friedman.
Lexis-Nexis also filed on September 12, 1996 a multi-volume Motion to Intervene with numerous exhibits from publishers and law librarians supporting the Lexis-Nexis motion. Once we receive the electronic version, it will be posted. Following is a letter included in the filing. NEW SEPTEMBER 16-17, 1996.
Final comments to the Department of Justice were due September 3, 1996. DOJ is required to provide its responses to Judge Richey on September 23, 1996. A hearing is scheduled for September 30, 1996. Following are comments that were made subsequent to the filing of the proposed Consent Decree.
Comment Letter by Gary Reback on behalf of Lexis-Nexis.
Comment Letter by Irell and Minella on behalf of Matthew Bender & Company.
American Association of Law Libraries comments.
AMERICAN LAWYER ARTICLE - Not available. Check Counsel Connect.
The September issue of the American Lawyer contains an extensive article by John Morris on the settlement negotiations. Conclusion: the consent decree "was hardly a great victory for consumers. The real winners were Thomson and its lawyers from Shearman and Sterling." According to the article, Thomson offerred up the license agreement "as a ploy to force the government's hand." Although the Antitrust Division tries to make it sound like the agreement was carefully reviewed and negotiated, according to the article, DOJ signed off on the deal "at 4 A.M. on Friday, June 7, 1996 -- fewer than three days after Thomson had made the offer on the page license ..."
"Competitive Impact Statement Published in Federal Register July 5, 1996."
This document details the Department of Justice rationale for the proposed consent decree. One revealing statement: West had only issued two licenses of star pagination in the past. We assume the two are: the 1988 license to Lexis after West sued Lexis and the 1995 license to a small publisher Juris that West publicized in an effort to show that it "routinely" offered licenses.
"United States v. Thomson Documents"
The Complaint and Stipulation and Order filed June 19,1 996, which includes the proposed License Agreement, may be found at this Department of Justice site.
"HyperLaw Third Comment Letter to DOJ Re Thomson/West, September 3, 1996, 1996"
"Docket -- USA v. Thomson, 96 CV 1415, USDC District of Columbia"
Docket sheet of proceedings. Contains scheduling information and other important data concerning the review of the Consent Decree proposed by DOJ, Thomson, and West. The case was assigned to Judge Richey. A hearing is scheduled for September 30, 1996.
Entry No. VI-27, Docket Sheet Excerpt, West v. Mead, 4- 85-931, District of Minnesota, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
"US v. Microsoft, 56 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir 1995) -- Limitations on review by a federal district court in determining whether a consent decree negotiated by the Department of Justice is in the Public Interest"
This 1995 opinion is mandatory reading in order to understand what Judge Richey may consider at the September 30, 1996 hearing.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.