High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORKThe Authors Guild, Inc., Association of AmericanPublishers, Inc., et al.,Plaintiffs,v.Google Inc.Defendant.Case No. 05 CV 8136 (DC)
BRIEF OF GOOGLE INC. IN SUPPORT OFMOTION FOR FINAL APPROVALOF AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Daralyn J. Durie (
pro hac vice
)Joseph C. Gratz (
pro hac vice
)DURIE TANGRI LLP217 Leidesdorff StreetSan Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: (415) 362-6666Facsimile: (415) 236-6300ddurie@durietangri.com jgratz@durietangri.com
Attorneys for Defendant Google Inc.
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 941 Filed 02/11/2010 Page 1 of 77
i
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
P
AGE
N
O
.I.
INTRODUCTION
................................................................................................................ 1
II.
ARGUMENT
........................................................................................................................ 2A. The negotiated terms of the settlement reflect a reasonable compromise. .............................2B. There is widespread support for settlement approval among class members. ........................3C. This Court has the power to approve the ASA. ......................................................................51. Settlement approval is a proper exercise of judicial power, and does notinterfere with legislative prerogatives. ..............................................................................52. The ASA properly resolves claims relating to activities that will continue in thefuture. ................................................................................................................................7a. Courts routinely approve settlements affording prospective relief. ............................8b. The ASA meets the
Firefighters
criteria. ..................................................................14(i) The ASA springs from and serves to resolve a dispute within thecourt’s subject-matter jurisdiction. ..................................................................15(ii) The ASA comes within the general scope of the case made by thepleadings. .........................................................................................................17(iii) The ASA furthers the objectives of the Copyright Act....................................18c. The identical factual predicate doctrine does not defeat approval here. ...................20D. The ASA enhances consumer welfare and is consistent with the antitrust laws. .................281. The ASA expands output and reduces entry barriers for every category of books. ..............................................................................................................................32a. Books for individual purchase. .................................................................................32b. Institutional subscriptions. ........................................................................................352. The ASA does not violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act ...............................................36a.
Per se
treatment is inappropriate because there is no horizontal agreementthat eliminates competition among competitors. ......................................................36b. Even if there were a horizontal agreement, under
BMI
these provisionsshould be analyzed under the rule of reason. ............................................................39c. The ASA’s individual purchase provisions are reasonably related to thesettlement’s procompetitive purposes and lack anticompetitive effects. ..................42(i) Revenue split ....................................................................................................42(ii) Pricing algorithm .............................................................................................44(iii) Discounting ......................................................................................................46d. The institutional subscription pricing provisions are lawful under the rule of reason. .......................................................................................................................473. The ASA does not violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act ...............................................49
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 941 Filed 02/11/2010 Page 2 of 77
ii
T
ABLE OF
C
ONTENTS
(C
ON
'
T
)P
AGE
N
O
.
E. The ASA is fair to third parties. ............................................................................................511. The ASA does not harm libraries or other digitization efforts. ......................................522. The objections relating to user privacy have no merit. ...................................................53F. The remaining objections raised by class members are addressed in the ASA. ...................571. Google’s database of information about Books is already comprehensive andwill be improved. ............................................................................................................572. Rightsholders can reasonably determine whether they registered their pre-1978Books with the Copyright Office. ...................................................................................603. Google is taking appropriate steps to safeguard the security of Rightsholders’Books. .............................................................................................................................63a. Digital copies of books are protected from unauthorized access. .............................64b. The services authorized in the ASA will not be available to users outside theUnited States. ............................................................................................................644. The amended Removal provisions provide control to class members andcertainty to libraries. .......................................................................................................655. The Settlement properly provides access to old and outdated books. ............................66
III.
CONCLUSION
.................................................................................................................. 66
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 941 Filed 02/11/2010 Page 3 of 77
Add a Comment