4 ms·

Justice Dept. Opens Inquiry Into Google Books Deal

10 points by physcab 18y ago

jrockway 18y ago
I like how nobody tried in the past to do this, then Google does it, and everyone whines about the anti-trust implications. Sometimes I think there is some sort of conspiracy to slowly push society back to the stone age.
- pierrefar 18y ago
  Or... society didn't realize there might be a problem until someone did it. For example, 23andme and other labs like it were sent cease & desist letters by Californian health regulators. A few months later, the C&D was lifted and license was granted. There is nothing wrong with society or government checking that all is a-OK. There isn't a conspiracy to push anyone to the stone age. Ref: http://www.genomeweb.com/california-grants-navigenics-23andme-licenses-offer-services-state http://www.genomeweb.com/california-grants-navigenics-23andm...
fatdog789 18y ago
The problem isn't that Google tried to do it, The problem is that Google set up the deal so that nobody else could ever do something like this ever again. Google set up a per se monopoly. It pulled a Microsoft. Hell, based on publicly available information, it looks like Google has just committed a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act Sec. 2. (Note that the attempt to anti-competitively monopolize is just as much a violation as establishing an actual anti-competitive monopoly. Monopolies are only sanctioned when they arise purely from competitive market forces, i.e., Apple getting away with 90+% of the MP3 player market). Both Microsoft and Adobe tried to pull off something like this in the past, but both failed due to a break down in negotiations related to orphaned works. Neither would pay the Author's Guild for access to orphaned works b/c the Guild doesn't have the legal right to bargain on behalf of those authors. The Justice Department did get involved in the MS attempt; I don't know if they were snooping around in Adobe's attempt. The fact that Google is willing to arrange payment to the Guild for rights to works that the Guild doesn't have the power to grant says a lot about the lack of research and general shoddiness of Google's transactions and antitrust legal teams.
- frig 18y ago
  (not following closely) I thought the difference between the prior attempts and this one is that: - the guild doesn't have authority to grant rights to orphaned works - but in this case the plaintiffs did a class action against google (where the class == authors, essentially), and thus in the context of this agreement the guild does have the authority to grant those rights, b/c the class's legal representatives have granted the guild that authority in the interest of obtaining a settlement If that pocket summary is accurate it says a lot about the quality of Google's research, imho: it's quite a clever hack of the legal process.
  - fatdog789 18y ago
    Class representatives do not have the right to bargain on behalf of members in materially different circumstances. Technically, orphaned book authors should not even be part of this class action because an orphaned-book author is not in the same position as an identifiable author. At best, the orphaned book authors could be part of a subclass, but they would require a separate settlement (or rather, sub-settlement). The problem is clear, as here, where the Guild negotiated money on behalf of orphaned authors...to be paid to the Guild. The Guild is not required to attempt to locate these orphan authors, or their successors/estates...it can just keep the money until the authors claim it. Even worse, the Guild is allowed to use this money for its own purpose, rather than setting it aside into a trust account for the orphan authors. In this case, others have challenged the settlement on two grounds: (1) antitrust, which is the most important issue, and (2) the orphaned authors were not fairly represented by the Guild, as evidenced by the lack of proper notice, the Guild negotiating to receive money for orphan authors, and the Guild granting itself the right to use that money for its own efforts. (Note: the challenge on (2) is both to the settlement AND to the class certification.) You're right, the pocket summary says a lot about the quality of Google's research. But it's not a clever hack of the legal process, because a law student could easily observe the antitrust issues arising here. It's an example of Google's lawyer's fucking up on an issue, and getting the Justice Department involved (and millions spent in responding to the JD's subpoena's and information requests) where the JD didn't need to get involved. If this had been an outside law firm, it would be considered malpractice.

10 points by physcab 18y ago

I like how nobody tried in the past to do this, then Google does it, and everyone whines about the anti-trust implications. Sometimes I think there is some sort of conspiracy to slowly push society back to the stone age.

pierrefar 18y ago
Or... society didn't realize there might be a problem until someone did it. For example, 23andme and other labs like it were sent cease & desist letters by Californian health regulators. A few months later, the C&D was lifted and license was granted. There is nothing wrong with society or government checking that all is a-OK. There isn't a conspiracy to push anyone to the stone age. Ref: http://www.genomeweb.com/california-grants-navigenics-23andme-licenses-offer-services-state http://www.genomeweb.com/california-grants-navigenics-23andm...

fatdog789 18y ago

The problem isn't that Google tried to do it, The problem is that Google set up the deal so that nobody else could ever do something like this ever again. Google set up a per se monopoly. It pulled a Microsoft. Hell, based on publicly available information, it looks like Google has just committed a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act Sec. 2. (Note that the attempt to anti-competitively monopolize is just as much a violation as establishing an actual anti-competitive monopoly. Monopolies are only sanctioned when they arise purely from competitive market forces, i.e., Apple getting away with 90+% of the MP3 player market). Both Microsoft and Adobe tried to pull off something like this in the past, but both failed due to a break down in negotiations related to orphaned works. Neither would pay the Author's Guild for access to orphaned works b/c the Guild doesn't have the legal right to bargain on behalf of those authors. The Justice Department did get involved in the MS attempt; I don't know if they were snooping around in Adobe's attempt. The fact that Google is willing to arrange payment to the Guild for rights to works that the Guild doesn't have the power to grant says a lot about the lack of research and general shoddiness of Google's transactions and antitrust legal teams.

frig 18y ago
(not following closely) I thought the difference between the prior attempts and this one is that: - the guild doesn't have authority to grant rights to orphaned works - but in this case the plaintiffs did a class action against google (where the class == authors, essentially), and thus in the context of this agreement the guild does have the authority to grant those rights, b/c the class's legal representatives have granted the guild that authority in the interest of obtaining a settlement If that pocket summary is accurate it says a lot about the quality of Google's research, imho: it's quite a clever hack of the legal process.
- fatdog789 18y ago
  Class representatives do not have the right to bargain on behalf of members in materially different circumstances. Technically, orphaned book authors should not even be part of this class action because an orphaned-book author is not in the same position as an identifiable author. At best, the orphaned book authors could be part of a subclass, but they would require a separate settlement (or rather, sub-settlement). The problem is clear, as here, where the Guild negotiated money on behalf of orphaned authors...to be paid to the Guild. The Guild is not required to attempt to locate these orphan authors, or their successors/estates...it can just keep the money until the authors claim it. Even worse, the Guild is allowed to use this money for its own purpose, rather than setting it aside into a trust account for the orphan authors. In this case, others have challenged the settlement on two grounds: (1) antitrust, which is the most important issue, and (2) the orphaned authors were not fairly represented by the Guild, as evidenced by the lack of proper notice, the Guild negotiating to receive money for orphan authors, and the Guild granting itself the right to use that money for its own efforts. (Note: the challenge on (2) is both to the settlement AND to the class certification.) You're right, the pocket summary says a lot about the quality of Google's research. But it's not a clever hack of the legal process, because a law student could easily observe the antitrust issues arising here. It's an example of Google's lawyer's fucking up on an issue, and getting the Justice Department involved (and millions spent in responding to the JD's subpoena's and information requests) where the JD didn't need to get involved. If this had been an outside law firm, it would be considered malpractice.