Publishers accused of market pacts

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33706, 2 December 1974, Page 25

Publishers accused of market pacts

- t.V.Z.P .A.-Keuter—Copynghr WASHINGTON. The United States Government has sued 21 major American publishers, accusing them of dividing up world book markets in a conspiracy with British publishers. ■ The British Publishers’ Association, comprised of nearly all major [publishers in the United Kingdom, was named as a <o-conspirator. but i not as a defendant.

The suit alleged that the United States defendants — including such publishing giants as McGraw-Hill, Mac-j millan Inc., Harper and Row J Grosset and Dunlap, and Random House — had for 1 30 years worked out exclusive marketing territories [ throughout the world, elimi-i mating United States-British! competition in these coun-i tries. Mr Thomas Kauper, assistant attorney-general ini charge of the department’s j anti-trust division, said that 1 when the same book was to be published in both countries, the American houses granted licences to British publishers giving the British exclusive rights for publication, distribution and sales in some 70 countries now or formerly members of the ICommonweatlth. The British publisher reciprocated by agreeing not to publish the book in the United States and certain other countries, typically Canda and the Philippines, (he suit alleged. The suit said that the i same arrangement was madej when a book originated in i the United Kingdom and: was subsequently published j in the United States. In this case, the suit said, the United States publisher typically would handle distribution in the United [States and perhaps the Philippines, but would commit

himself to stay out of the i traditional British market. The suit, filed in United [States district court in New 'York, named as defendants 'McGraw-Hill Incorporated,. ’Macmillan Incorporated, . Harper and Row publishers, i incorporated, Grosset and' I Dunlap Incorporated, BanItom Books Incorporated, :R a n d o m House, Incorporated, Dell Publishing. [Company, Doubleday and; [Company, Incorporated, 1 Simon and Schuster InIcorporated, Viking Press Incorporated, and Harcourt, Brace Janovich Incorporated, all of New York. The suit also named Penguin Books Incorporated of [Baltimore, Maryland, Oxford [University Press In-1 Icorporated of New York, ■Columbia Broadcasting Sys-' item Incorporated of New York, Prentice Hall Incorporated of Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and Houghton Mifflin Company of Boston. ■ Companies also named were Litton Educational I Publishing Incorporated and [ 'John Wiley and Sons In-; icorporated, both of New [York City, the Times Mirror! [Company of Los Angeiek : California. Intext /Incorporated of Scranton,. Pennsylvania, and AddisonWesley Publishing Company! of Reading, Massachusetts. The complaint did not list!

| the British publishing houses that make up the Publishers’ [Association. The Justice Department charged that (he method of (slicing up markets to supjpress competition among ; publishers deprived book ■buyers of the benefits that ■ might flow from such competition The suit urged the Court ;to issue an injunction bar- : [ring the defendants and alleged co-conspirators perpetually from conduct re- ■ straining competition between American and British publishers. No damages were sought. The defendants were ; unable to comment immedilately on the suit. Many said [that they had not been in!formed of it yet. According to the Justice (Department, the United (States exports an estimated SNZ 190 million worth (books each year and imports (about SNZIO6 million [worth. ■ The United Kingdom, the I strongest overseas market for United States books, [exports more than SNZ •125 million worth, the suit isaid. The complaint branded the i alleged agreements an unlawful combination and I conspiracy that violated the I Sherman Act, the principal Federal anti-trust statute.