Microsoft Blasts Google Book Deal

eldavojohn writes "With authors, scholars, the DoJ and publishers ripping apart the Google book deal, it's Microsoft's turn. They're claiming it's frankly an illegal 'joint venture' and not a settlement. According to ZDNet, Microsoft's four complaints against the deal are: 1) Future infringements are covered by the settlement, affecting the exclusive rights of absent class members for the life of their copyrights. 2) The deal gives away to Google vast rights that were not contested in the underlying litigation. The lawsuits dealt with Google's displaying brief excerpts. Instead of compromising on that infringement, the parties instead agreed to give away the rights to display entire books. 3) The publishers who negotiated this deal each have undisclosed side deals with Google, which will likely give them better terms than the class will get. 4) The publishers plan to exclude their own works from the deal. You might recall over a year ago Microsoft's own scanning effort died."

Comments

Haul down the competition

[bradley13]

Microsoft sees Google as a major competitor. As such, it is only logical that they would attack something like this that will give Google a substantial competitive advantage. I hope the court will see it in that light...

Re:Haul down the competition

[Zibri]

You summarize my thoughts exactly. And I would also add that this deal is flamed by another party: the FSF. (fsf.org seems to be down atm, but here comes the link: http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-09-google-book-settlement-objection )

"But under the proposed settlement, works released under the GFDL and similar licenses are lumped in with works under full restrictive copyright. Google would therefore be given permission to display and distribute these works without abiding by the requirement to pass the freedoms guaranteed under the GFDL on to Google Books readers."

Forest, meet trees

[Angst Badger]

It's hard to get excited about this deal one way or the other without feeling like it's getting annoyed at the bloodsucking tick you found on the sofa -- without noticing that the tick is on the back of a snarling rottweiler. The underlying problem is our broken intellectual property system -- or even the very idea of intellectual property -- and not the specifics of how one company or another takes advantage of it.

I'm a bit worried...

[Richard_at_work]

Is anyone else a bit worried about the precident that using a class action lawsuit in this way might set for the future? I mean, Google is essentially getting a court to tacitly agree that its settlement with a second party over rights held by unrelated third parties is valid (lets face it, its looking like the court will agree), unless the unrelated third party deliberately withdraws at this stage.

I'm not entirely sure I like the sound of that. It sounds like an abuse of the class action system for commercial gain.

I'm dyin' here

[$RANDOMLUSER]

These competitive and transparent efforts affirm the benefits of an open market, and the Constitutionally mandated legislative process ensures that the diverse interests of the many stakeholders are considered and balanced, accommodating copyright owners, online services, libraries and the public. The proposed settlement, on the other hand, pursues an illegitimate approach. Following closed-door negotiations that excluded millions of copyright owners and the very public that copyright law serves, Google and the plaintiffs seek to arrogate public policymaking to themselves, bypass Congress and the free market, and force a sweeping "joint venture" - built on copyrights owned by a largely absent class - via this Court's order.

So, in this one paragraph, Microsoft says:
1. Competition and open/free markets are good.
2. The diverse interests of the many outweighs the greed of the few (a corporation).
3. Closed-door negotiations are bad.
4. Copyright law serves the public.
5. Joint ventures are bad.
6. We should be worried about the millions of unenfranchised who were left out of a back-room deal.

*boggle*