High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC.
et al.
,
!
Plaintiffs,
!
v.
!
GOOGLE INC.,
!
Defendant.
!!!!
05 Civ. 8136 (DC)
!
ECF CASE
!!!!!!!
!!
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAREGARDING PROPOSED AMENDED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WILLIAM F. CAVANAUGHU.S. Department of JusticeDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralAntitrust Division950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NWWashington, DC 20530-0001Tel.: (202) 353-1535PREET BHARARAUnited States Attorney for theSouthern District of New York JOHN D. CLOPPER Assistant United States Attorney86 Chambers Street, 5th Floor New York, New York 10007Tel.: (212) 637-2716
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 922 Filed 02/04/2010 Page 1 of 31
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Aspects of the ASA Exceed the Proper Bounds of a Class Action Settlement.....................4A. Class Representatives Lack the Authority Under Rule 23 to Grant Google the BroadRights that the ASA Contemplates...............................................................................4B. Issues Remain Regarding Whether the Class Representatives Adequately RepresentAbsent Class Members...............................................................................................12C. As Written, the ASA Requires Robust Notice, and the Record Requires Further Development of Whether Such Notice Has Been Provided.......................................13D. “Attachment A” to the ASA Requires Careful Rule 23(e) Scrutiny...........................14II. The ASA Continues to Raise Antitrust Concerns................................................................16A. Horizontal Agreements Among Authors and Publishers............................................16B. Google’s
de facto
Exclusivity.....................................................................................21III. If the Court Concludes that Class Representatives May Grant to Google Wide-RangingRights for Forward-Looking Business Arrangements of the Entire Class, the Court ShouldConsider Some Additional Safeguards................................................................................23CONCLUSION.............................................................................................................................25
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 922 Filed 02/04/2010 Page 2 of 31
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor
, 521 U.S. 591 (1997).....................................................3, 5-6, 15
Arizona v. Maricopa County Med. Soc’y
, 457 U.S. 332 (1982)...................................................18
Ayers v. Thompson
, 358 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2004)..........................................................................8
Bourne v. Walt Disney Co.
, 68 F.3d 621 (2d Cir. 1995) ..............................................................14
Catalano, Inc v. Target Sales
, 446 U.S. 643 (1980) (per curiam)................................................18
Citizen Publ’g Co. v. United States
, 394 U.S. 131 (1969)............................................................19
Cohen v. Paramount
, 845 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1988).....................................................................14
Duran v. Carruthers
, 885 F.2d 1485 (10th Cir. 1989)...................................................................8
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).............................................................9
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
, 510 U.S. 517 (1994)...............................................................................9
Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal
, 286 U.S. 123 (1932)..............................................................................9
Gen. Cinema Corp. v. Buena Vista Distrib. Co.
, 532 F. Supp. 1244 (C.D. Cal. 1982)................18
Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar
, 421 U.S. 773 (1975)...........................................................................18
Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter.,
471 U.S. 539 (1985)........................................9
Isaacs v. Sprint Corp.
, 261 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2001).....................................................................5
Jeff D. v. Kempthorne
, 365 F.3d 844 (9th Cir. 2004).....................................................................8
Kozlowski v. Coughlin
, 871 F.2d 241 (2d Cir. 1989).....................................................................8
Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland
, 478 U.S. 501 (1986)............5-9, 11
Nat’l Super Spuds, Inc. v. N.Y. Mercantile Exch.
, 660 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1981)..............................11
New York v. St. Francis Hosp.
, 94 F. Supp. 2d 399 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)..........................................19
Random House, Inc. v. Rosetta Books LLC
, 150 F. Supp. 2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2001),
aff’d
, 283 F.3d 490 (2d Cir. 2002)............................................................................................14
Stewart v. Abend
, 495 U.S. 207 (1990)...........................................................................................9
Case 1:05-cv-08136-DC Document 922 Filed 02/04/2010 Page 3 of 31
Add a Comment