FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE AT
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1996 (202) 616-2771
TDD (202) 514-1888
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL REVISE
THOMSON/WEST MERGER SETTLEMENT
Governments Ask Court to Enter Revised Settlement
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Justice Department and six State
Attorneys General have asked a federal court to approve a revised
settlement in a merger case involving two of the nation's largest
legal publishers--Thomson Corp. and West Publishing Co.
The revised settlement, submitted late yesterday in U.S.
District Court in Washington, D.C., now requires the newly-formed
company to charge lower fees to competing firms that want to
provide publications using the widely-relied upon West page
numbering system.
The Department and Attorneys General from California, New
York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, and Wisconsin said
that the court should approve the revised consent decree because
it remedies any harms that might have occurred from the merger.
In its original consent decree, agreed to last June, the
Department required a total divestiture of 50 primary and
secondary law products--including major flagship products, such
as U.S.C.S. and Supreme Court Reporter. Also, the consent decree
contains protections to preserve competition in the comprehensive
online legal services market.
"This revised settlement makes a good deal even better,"
said Joel I. Klein, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge
of the Antitrust Division. "The reduced license fee to use
West's page numbering system should encourage entry into
important markets, like CD-ROMs--an emerging electronic form of
legal publishing."
Klein added that the federal and state governments and the
merging parties listened to the public comments and agreed to
changes to address them. Thomson concurred in the revision.
At the same time, the U.S. filed a motion to oppose Lexis-Nexis' request to intervene in the case. Lexis-Nexis, a
competitor, is a division of a $5.8 billion Anglo-Dutch
publishing conglomerate, Reed-Elsevier. In its motion, the
government said that an antitrust case is not the place for a
competitor to pursue its private interests. It also opposed a
motion of Lexis-Nexis and others to participate as friends of the
court noting that all interested parties already have had the
opportunity to inform the court of their views through the public
comment process.
Further, the Department and the State Attorneys General
opposed Lexis-Nexis' objections to the consent decree. The
government court filing dismissed as "unfounded" claims that the
proposed decree would interfere with Lexis' contract rights or
impair the Auto-Cite product distributed through Lexis.
In addition to seeking approval of its revised agreement,
the Department and the State Attorneys General filed detailed
responses to the public comments the Department received during
the Tunney Act period.
The federal and state governments said that broader
divestitures were not necessary to remedy the competitive harm
that resulted from the merger, and that requiring Thomson to
offer licenses to use its numbering system will encourage new
entry and benefit consumers.
The governments' filing also explained how the decree
operates, interpreting some of its provisions, and clarified some
aspects of the decree some commentors thought were ambiguous. In
particular, the clarifications indicated that the license fee for
print publications would be paid by the licensee in the year the
book is first printed, and would need only be paid by the final
publisher, not by intermediate information providers.
On June 19, 1996, an antitrust suit was filed opposing the
merger of Thomson and West. At the same time, the Department and
the State Attorneys General announced a settlement with the two
companies that addressed the competitive harms resulting from the
merger. The complaint, filed in U.S. District Court Washington,
D.C. alleged that the merger, as originally structured, would
lessen competition in several specific markets for legal
publications.
Thomson, headquartered in Toronto, Canada, owns several
major legal publishing companies in the United States. West,
headquartered in Eagan, Minnesota, is the largest publisher of
enhanced primary law materials and related research tools in the
U.S. Prior to the merger, Thomson and West published numerous
competing legal publications, including the only two annotated
United States Codes and the only two enhanced U.S. Supreme Court
reporters.
Some of the products that will be divested under the
settlement are: U.S. Code Service; U.S. Reports, Lawyers'
Edition; Deering's Annotated California Code; New York
Consolidated Laws Service; and Auto-Cite, a citation system
currently licensed by Thomson to Lexis-Nexis, for its on-line
service.
To ensure that each divested product will be sold as a
viable, ongoing line of business, Thomson is required to divest
related production assets in addition to its rights to
publication titles, and to allow the purchaser to seek to hire
employees who have been working on the products. The revised
settlement is subject to court approval.
The settlement requires Thomson to license openly to any
third party for a fee the right to use the pagination of
individual pages in West's National Reporter System. The new fee
schedule, disclosed in Monday's filing, is significantly lower
than the one in the initial proposed decree. The first year rate
for a new entrant is four cents rather than nine cents per
thousand characters, and it increases gradually over seven years,
rather than three years. The new top rate is nine cents rather
than 13 cents.
West has long claimed a copyright in the internal pagination
of its case reporter system. The settlement states expressly
that it should not be read to suggest that the Department
believes that a license is required for use of such pagination.
Indeed, in other ongoing litigation, the Department has filed
amicus curiae briefs arguing the position that no license is
required for star pagination.
The settlement also states that the parties agree that the
license option provided for in the decree should have no impact
whatsoever on the resolution of such copyright cases.
###
96-468