Category Archives: Section 4.1(a)(iv)(1)


5 responses to “S”

  1. Deven Desai says:

    Corporate subscription models may pose threats to innovation and entrepreneurial activities (this becomes a toll for information and works where congestion is not necessarily a problem).

  2. Say more. How does offering a subscription pose more threats to innovation than not offering one would?

  3. Deven Desai says:

    It is difficult to know exactly how this product (if that is what is) will function. Imagine if Google has stayed with its initial offering. More folks could have come in and played with the information for a host of reasons and opened up new possibilities. The Settlement, as a general matter, seems to lock down many ways one could use this information. James, have you looked at the linking restrictions? As far a corporate pricing goes, it will be highly difficult for anyone to compete in this arena. I am saying that the vague corporate language may be O.K. or may be a way to claim that any corporate entity (non-profits seem oddly absent from the Settlement for example) must pay fee (possibly huge) just to gain access. That is something to think about when we are looking at this much information.

  4. Deven Desai says:

    So apparently Einer Elhauge has a paper, WHY THE GOOGLE BOOKS SETTLEMENT IS PROCOMPETITIVE arguing for that the deal is good for competition. Brett Frischmann pointed me to it. I have to read it, but I still wonder whether folks are assuming facts that may be true once the deal is executed. Brett also noted Matt Sag’s paper THE GOOGLE BOOK SETTLEMENT AND THE FAIR USE COUNTERFACTUAL.

  5. Einer’s paper; Matthew’s paper. Einer’s paper makes some factual mistakes about the settlement, but a lot of the analysis is very good indeed. Matthew’s paper is less ambitious (though I understand he’s hard at work extending its intellectual ambitions), but he does a very good job at walking through the way the settlement fits together and how it changes the status quo.

    Deven, what do you mean by “more people could have come in and played with this information” mean? Has Google in some way foreclosed them from doing so? Not in any way that I can see. The settlement locks down only what Google does with its scans. That’s why I have a hard time getting really upset about some of the limitations the settlement places on Google; the corpus of books is still less encumbered than it was when it just existed on paper.

    I think there is a serious antitrust risk with the settlement, but that risk has more to do with Google getting to play fast and loose with copyright law while no one else does.

(1) Corporate (may include per seat licensing in addition to FTE);

Also posted in Article 04, Section 4.1, Section 4.1(a), Section 4.1(a)(iv), Settlement | Comments closed