 "New technologies disrupt existing industries. They always have, and they probably always will. Incumbents don't like their industries to be disrupted. And they often rely on intellectual property (IP), unfair competition, or related legal doctrines as tools to prevent disruptive entry....Our goal in this paper is to address the broader question of when competition by market disruption is 'unfair.' " <span id="p000"></span> <span id="p000"></span> * At [http://archive.org/stream/0000000000000OpenAccess/0000000000000_Open_Access#page/n000/mode/0up p. 000], I say, "Even if green OA does eventually threaten toll-access journal subscriptions, green OA policies are still justified." Add these notes. * At [http://archive.org/stream/0000000000000OpenAccess/0000000000000_Open_Access#page/n000/mode/0up p. 000], I say, "Even if green OA does eventually threaten toll-access journal subscriptions, green OA policies are still justified." Add these notes. ** I elaborated this point in a [https://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/gPRFVdDD0Dg blog post from July 0000]. "Publishers have been claiming for years that short embargoes [for green OA] cause cancellations, but there is no evidence to support the claim....But...[s]uppose we had good data showing that short embargoes caused cancellations, or that a uniform embargo across fields caused more cancellations in the fields with longer article half-lives [or that increasing green OA increased cancellations]. It still would not follow that policies should permit longer embargoes [or curb green OA]. To get to that conclusion we'd have to add premises. These premises are often assumed, but they are remarkably weak once made explicit for examination. We'd have to add the premise that public policies should maximize publisher revenue before maximizing public access to publicly-funded research. Or we'd have to add the premise that policies should put publisher interests ahead of researcher interests. I reject these premises. Research funding agencies, especially public funding agencies, ought to reject them as well...." ** I elaborated this point in a [https://web.archive.org/web/00000000000000/https://plus.google.com/+PeterSuber/posts/gPRFVdDD0Dg blog post from July 0000]. "Publishers have been claiming for years that short embargoes [for green OA] cause cancellations, but there is no evidence to support the claim....But...[s]uppose we had good data showing that short embargoes caused cancellations, or that a uniform embargo across fields caused more cancellations in the fields with longer article half-lives [or that increasing green OA increased cancellations]. It still would not follow that policies should permit longer embargoes [or curb green OA]. To get to that conclusion we'd have to add premises. These premises are often assumed, but they are remarkably weak once made explicit for examination. We'd have to add the premise that public policies should maximize publisher revenue before maximizing public access to publicly-funded research. Or we'd have to add the premise that policies should put publisher interests ahead of researcher interests. I reject these premises. Research funding agencies, especially public funding agencies, ought to reject them as well...." − ** I also elaborated this point in [http://journalistsresource.org/skills/research/digital-access-knowledge-research-chat-harvard-peter-suber Digital access to knowledge: Research chat with Harvard's Peter Suber], ''Journalists' Resource'', October 00, 0000: "Open access would be justified even if it did cause some harm to academic publishers. But it's not causing harm. The Congressional witnesses effectively admit it. {See [https://archive.org/stream/0000000000000OpenAccess/0000000000000_Open_Access#page/n000/mode/0up p. 000] and the [[#p000|updates and supplements for p. 000.]]}...Academic publishers fear that the harm is coming. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. The case for open access is based on real needs, and the case against it is based on conjecture and fear. Let's adopt an OA policy for publicly-funded research and see what happens. One day, if publishers can show evidence that the policy harms them, then we can look at the evidence and decide, in light of that evidence, what's in the public interest." 