Google Book Settlement Falls Short For Justice Dept.

Business Law

Google's latest effort to settle the copyright lawsuit brought against it by The Authors Guild and several publishers in 2005 suffered a setback on Thursday when the U.S. Department of Justice said that copyright and antitrust issues arising from the revised settlement proposal haven't been adequately addressed.

The lawsuit charged that Google's effort to scan and digitize books violates copyright law. Google and the plaintiffs have been trying to reach an agreement that allows Google to make scanned books available in a limited form online and to sell electronic access to digital books with the consent and participation of copyright owners.

The DoJ filed a statement of interest with U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York stating that despite good faith negotiations on the part of the parties involved, "the amended settlement agreement suffers from the same core problem as the original agreement: It is an attempt to use the class action mechanism to implement forward-looking business arrangements that go far beyond the dispute before the court in this litigation."
A hearing on the proposed amended settlement is scheduled for February 18 and the judge is likely to take the DoJ's concerns seriously. The original settlement, presented in October 2008, was shot down after widespread criticism.

Google in a statement said that the DoJ's filing "recognizes the progress made with the revised settlement, and it once again reinforces the value the agreement can provide in unlocking access to millions of books in the U.S."

The company said that it is looking forward to Judge Chin's review of the DoJ filing and that the settlement, if approved will expand online access to published works and provide authors and publishers with new ways to distribute their works.

Related listings

  • Ex-Lawyer: Toyota Willfully Deceptive

    Ex-Lawyer: Toyota Willfully Deceptive

    Business Law 02/04/2010

    Toyota's public relations nightmare appears far from over. The beleaguered automaker is facing renewed allegations that it systematically withheld information and ignored safety issues that could have prevented fatal accidents. Dmitrios Biller, a for...

  • SEC alleges fraud by Austin investment firm

    SEC alleges fraud by Austin investment firm

    Business Law 12/30/2009

    An Austin businessman and two of his companies are accused in an alleged scam using former NFL players to attract investors.The Securities and Exchange Commission on Tuesday filed securities fraud charges in federal court in Austin naming Kurt B. Bar...

  • Prosecutors: LA man cheated investors out of $10M

    Prosecutors: LA man cheated investors out of $10M

    Business Law 12/15/2009

    A Los Angeles man has pleaded not guilty to running a Ponzi scheme that cheated about 50 investors in a NASCAR merchandise wholesale business out of at least $10 million.Federal prosecutors say 63-year-old Eliott Dresher was arraigned and ordered hel...

Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC

A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party

Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party

However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.

Business News

St Peters, MO Professional License Attorney Attorney John Lynch has been the go-to choice for many professionals facing administrative sanction. >> read