Publication is not only about the distribution of information. It is a money-making business. With so many publishers coming out of the market, it is normal to have competition.

Big ones may try to eliminate smaller or starting publishers. We don't judge the quality of research on the basis of the name of the journal or publisher or indexer. That is favoring unfairly one business from the others without the chance and benefit of bidding.  

Who are the scammers? Are they the ones who ask authors to transfer or assign their copyright ownership to the publishers or journal? Researchers and scientists can decide the quality of the information they read. Who is guilty of being gullible? Aren't they the ones who judge publications on the basis of suspicion, "possibly predatory"? Are we the researchers who judge on the basis of uncertainty? Why can't Beall's List simply say, "these journals are predatory"? WHY? Isn't it because he doesn't have evidence that can stand in court? I read in the wiki that Beall is open to facing legal charges from publishers and that his employer denies involvement. (search for Baell's list at Wikipedia). Of course 'predatory' if proven, should be dealt with. My goodness to the research evaluators who dismiss research articles on the basis of suspicion, "suspected predatory". Because of the evaluators' INCOMPETENCE to prove predatorial, the authors are made to suffer by denying/disqualifying them certain academic ranks. God forgive them for they do not know what these evaluators are doing. Wake up government educational institutions!! Evaluate the "intrinsic merit" of the article and not of the journal (welcome. ac. Uk). Include in the criteria the "accessibility" of the article for publication means making information accessible to the public. In case you missed this, DORA's advice is not to judge the quality of research articles on the basis of the name of the journal (or the name of publisher/indexer). Search for "San Francisco Declaration of Research Assessment (DORA)"