Mike Harvey via London Times; Tech groups join fight against Google books:
"Critics say that the deal gives Google the unimpeded ability to set prices for libraries, once they scan books and put them on the Internet. They also say that it would also allow Google — and only Google — to digitise so-called orphan works, which could pose an antitrust concern. Orphan works are books or other materials that are still covered by US copyright law, but on which ownership rights are not clear.
Google took issue with the criticism. Gabriel Stricker, a spokesman for the company said: "The agreement is not exclusive. If improved by the court, it will expand access to millions of books in the US."
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article6805993.ece
Showing posts with label antitrust concerns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label antitrust concerns. Show all posts
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Major Objection to Google Book Search Settlement Is Filed; Publishers Weekly, 8/19/09
Andrew Albanese via Publishers Weekly; Major Objection to Google Book Search Settlement Is Filed:
"The Google Book Search settlement has its first significant objection. On Wednesday morning author and attorney Scott Gant filed a 50-page objection with the court that claims the sweeping deal is an illegal expansion of class-action law. In a copy of the brief shared with PW, Gant, a Harvard-educated lawyer with more than a decade of class-action litigation experience, and the author of We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in The Internet Age (Free Press), argues that the settlement is a “predominantly commercial transaction,” that “cannot be imposed through the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,” the order that authorizes class action.
Among his arguments, Gant asserts that the settlement:
Fails to satisfy notice requirements imposed by Rule 23 and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Fails to provide putative class members with adequate compensation
Fails to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23
Would vest Google with significant market power which it could not acquire without the settlement.
Raises serious antitrust issues that must be considered as part of this Court’s review of the Proposed Settlement.
Gant’s most damaging argument, however, may be that the settlement fails to safeguard the due process rights of absent class members as required by law—a potentially fatal blow to the settlement, because if upheld by the court, it would remove a critical foundation of the deal, under which Google would essentially obtain a license to works without the specific consent of the copyright holder."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6678673.html?industryid=47152
"The Google Book Search settlement has its first significant objection. On Wednesday morning author and attorney Scott Gant filed a 50-page objection with the court that claims the sweeping deal is an illegal expansion of class-action law. In a copy of the brief shared with PW, Gant, a Harvard-educated lawyer with more than a decade of class-action litigation experience, and the author of We're All Journalists Now: The Transformation of the Press and Reshaping of the Law in The Internet Age (Free Press), argues that the settlement is a “predominantly commercial transaction,” that “cannot be imposed through the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,” the order that authorizes class action.
Among his arguments, Gant asserts that the settlement:
Fails to satisfy notice requirements imposed by Rule 23 and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Fails to provide putative class members with adequate compensation
Fails to satisfy the typicality and adequacy requirements of Rule 23
Would vest Google with significant market power which it could not acquire without the settlement.
Raises serious antitrust issues that must be considered as part of this Court’s review of the Proposed Settlement.
Gant’s most damaging argument, however, may be that the settlement fails to safeguard the due process rights of absent class members as required by law—a potentially fatal blow to the settlement, because if upheld by the court, it would remove a critical foundation of the deal, under which Google would essentially obtain a license to works without the specific consent of the copyright holder."
http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6678673.html?industryid=47152
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Restless Giant (Lawsuit); James Grimmelmann's Laboratorium Blog, 7/23/09
James Grimmelmann's Laboratorium Blog; The Restless Giant (Lawsuit):
"The Google Book Search case appears to be gradually waking from its long summers’ nap. Objections and comments, which had slowed to a crawl in June and July, have started to pick up again...
There’s also been a sudden spike of activity on the policy front. Three essays of note have crossed my radar.
First, the EFF launched today a privacy campaign targeted at Google, asking it to commit to reader privacy protections as part of implementing the settlement. They’ve sent a letter to Google’s Eric Schmidt laying out their concern...
Second, Bernard Lang, a French computer scientist with an interest in digital copyright, has written a paper on the settlement from an international perspective, with special emphasis on orphan works. He assesses the settlement against the “three-step test” for assessing whether national exceptions and limitations on copyright are permissible under international copyright treaties...
Third, David Balto, a fellow at the Center for America Progress and a prominent antitrust attorney, has a long post at the American Constitution Society’s blog responding to my Issue Brief on the settlement. He critiques my analysis of the antitrust risks and praises the settlement".
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009/07/23/the_restless_giant_lawsuit
"The Google Book Search case appears to be gradually waking from its long summers’ nap. Objections and comments, which had slowed to a crawl in June and July, have started to pick up again...
There’s also been a sudden spike of activity on the policy front. Three essays of note have crossed my radar.
First, the EFF launched today a privacy campaign targeted at Google, asking it to commit to reader privacy protections as part of implementing the settlement. They’ve sent a letter to Google’s Eric Schmidt laying out their concern...
Second, Bernard Lang, a French computer scientist with an interest in digital copyright, has written a paper on the settlement from an international perspective, with special emphasis on orphan works. He assesses the settlement against the “three-step test” for assessing whether national exceptions and limitations on copyright are permissible under international copyright treaties...
Third, David Balto, a fellow at the Center for America Progress and a prominent antitrust attorney, has a long post at the American Constitution Society’s blog responding to my Issue Brief on the settlement. He critiques my analysis of the antitrust risks and praises the settlement".
http://laboratorium.net/archive/2009/07/23/the_restless_giant_lawsuit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)