3 ms·

Question: are you familiar with lane's gifts versus google (clickfraud class action settlement)? If not take a look; I think you'll be able to infer some strate

by frig 17y ago

Question: are you familiar with lane's gifts versus google (clickfraud class action settlement)? If not take a look; I think you'll be able to infer some strategic similarities (I'm happy to elaborate, but I'd rather not bias your judgment in advance).

fatdog789 17y ago
There are no strategic similarities in the Lane's Gift case; in that case that i can see, so you should elaborate on what you mean. Google did what all class action defendants try to do: retain control over the payment of monies (in LG)...Here... they transferred that right to the Guild in exchange for the rights to orphan works. Google tried to make the class as broad as possible so that it would be binding on as many authors as possible, which all Ds do in every class action. It's important to note that all the LG members were already Google customers; here, most of the class members have no prior relationship with Google. It's also important to note that the transfer of rights contemplated by this settlement is not possible via a class action (at least, not on behalf of absent members); see the Ars Technica article for more on that.
- frig 17y ago
  Warning: a little long+rambly. At microlevel I don't see anything unusual. At a more-macro level I do think Google (generally) treads a lot of legally-uncertain grounds, and thus often has something to gain from being targeted with (some types of) class action suits. This makes me wonder if they on occasion do a brer rabbit -- "oh please don't throw me in the briar patch" -- thing, and are secretly hoping to get to where they can offer a settlement in a class action context. Consider the Lane's case this way: - there were some potentially problematic aspects of Google's ad services (to what extent are only "human" ad clicks supposed to be billed-for? what recourse -- with Google, or via the legal system -- is available to those who suspect they've been a victim of so-called clickfraud?) - the service about which the uncertainty centers is Google's primary profit center (especially then; it's still the great bulk of revenues so far as I know -- does anything else contribute > 10% of revenues?) - post-Lane's most of that uncertainty is removed: it's pretty much impossible for their USA customers to bring any kind of case on any kind of broadly similar grounds Lane's was the first time I noticed this -- compared to more-standard class actions, Google actually derived net benefit from the suit and the settlement (in my opinion, of course). In the author's guild case there's something similar (and more arguably a case of malfeasance on behalf of the AWG and AAP, also -- but again I've not been following this case super-closely). Pretty much any scenario that lets Google keep doing what it's been doing with Google Book Search -- indexing, making a working book search engine -- is a win (as it makes that space unattractive for rivals); the present agreement seems likely to be modified but it'd have to be modified a lot before it becomes a net loss for Google's interests (again: in my opinion). Hence the brer rabbit speculation: on the scale google tends to operate (all the web, all the world's books, etc.) individually-negotiated anything are to be avoided; class-actions that're "lost" -- but only a little -- have some strategic advantages. This is to my knowledge the first major class action against Google since Lane's; given how well it looked like it might turn out for Google got me thinking about Lane's again.

by frig 17y ago

fatdog789 17y ago

There are no strategic similarities in the Lane's Gift case; in that case that i can see, so you should elaborate on what you mean. Google did what all class action defendants try to do: retain control over the payment of monies (in LG)...Here... they transferred that right to the Guild in exchange for the rights to orphan works. Google tried to make the class as broad as possible so that it would be binding on as many authors as possible, which all Ds do in every class action. It's important to note that all the LG members were already Google customers; here, most of the class members have no prior relationship with Google. It's also important to note that the transfer of rights contemplated by this settlement is not possible via a class action (at least, not on behalf of absent members); see the Ars Technica article for more on that.

frig 17y ago
Warning: a little long+rambly. At microlevel I don't see anything unusual. At a more-macro level I do think Google (generally) treads a lot of legally-uncertain grounds, and thus often has something to gain from being targeted with (some types of) class action suits. This makes me wonder if they on occasion do a brer rabbit -- "oh please don't throw me in the briar patch" -- thing, and are secretly hoping to get to where they can offer a settlement in a class action context. Consider the Lane's case this way: - there were some potentially problematic aspects of Google's ad services (to what extent are only "human" ad clicks supposed to be billed-for? what recourse -- with Google, or via the legal system -- is available to those who suspect they've been a victim of so-called clickfraud?) - the service about which the uncertainty centers is Google's primary profit center (especially then; it's still the great bulk of revenues so far as I know -- does anything else contribute > 10% of revenues?) - post-Lane's most of that uncertainty is removed: it's pretty much impossible for their USA customers to bring any kind of case on any kind of broadly similar grounds Lane's was the first time I noticed this -- compared to more-standard class actions, Google actually derived net benefit from the suit and the settlement (in my opinion, of course). In the author's guild case there's something similar (and more arguably a case of malfeasance on behalf of the AWG and AAP, also -- but again I've not been following this case super-closely). Pretty much any scenario that lets Google keep doing what it's been doing with Google Book Search -- indexing, making a working book search engine -- is a win (as it makes that space unattractive for rivals); the present agreement seems likely to be modified but it'd have to be modified a lot before it becomes a net loss for Google's interests (again: in my opinion). Hence the brer rabbit speculation: on the scale google tends to operate (all the web, all the world's books, etc.) individually-negotiated anything are to be avoided; class-actions that're "lost" -- but only a little -- have some strategic advantages. This is to my knowledge the first major class action against Google since Lane's; given how well it looked like it might turn out for Google got me thinking about Lane's again.