Statistical Sophistication Would Have Provided a Different Liability Answer
Nash bargaining solution in patent damages is not always a 50%/50% split
Permanent link to this article: https://betweenthenumbers.net/2013/11/google-prevails-in-copyright-lawsuit-against-google-books/
Sponsor
Between the Numbers is sponsored by Fulcrum Inquiry. Fulcrum Inquiry is a consulting firm whose services include calculation of litigation damages and related expert testimony, forensic accounting, financial investigations, economic analysis, and business appraisals.
Thought for the Day
Denis Waitley (1933 - )
Motivational speaker & best-selling author
Categories
- Appraisal/Valuation (44)
- Bankruptcy (7)
- Capital Markets (16)
- Class Action (14)
- Commentary (61)
- Computer Forensics (4)
- Damages (116)
- Discovery (7)
- Disgorgement (8)
- Economic Damages (36)
- Economics (37)
- Employer Discrimination (6)
- Environment (1)
- Expert Witnesses (31)
- Failure to promote (4)
- Financial regulation (28)
- Financial Reporting (56)
- Forensic Accounting (106)
- Fraud (63)
- Health Care (9)
- Intellectual Property (61)
- Internal Controls (2)
- Just for Fun (33)
- Lost Earnings (20)
- Medical malpractice (12)
- Personal Injury/Wrongful Death (23)
- Personal Investments (37)
- Ponzi Scheme (3)
- Product liability (9)
- Public Policy (58)
- Real Estate (8)
- Research and Polls (43)
- Statistics (46)
- Strategy (7)
- Taxes (61)
- Technology (37)
- Uncategorized (9)
- Valuation (8)
- Whistleblower Systems (56)
- Wrongful Termination (6)
Comments Policy
All postings (including those associated with Fulcrum Inquiry) are the opinions of their respective authors, and do not necessarily reflect positions of Fulcrum Inquiry.
Anyone is allowed to post comments on any article; however, comments appear only following review. Advertisements not pertaining to the blog subject, spam (bot generated) comments, foul language, ad-hominem attacks, and immature behavior will not be approved.
The Lawyers Say….
All posts are copyrighted by Fulcrum Inquiry® as of their publication date
The authors and publishers are not intending to render legal, accounting, tax, or other professional advice. No client relationship is established from making general information available on this site, or from your making a comment or transmitting an email message to us. None of the information on this site should be used as a substitute for consultation with competent advisors that are able to consider the application of any general information to your specific situation.
While we have attempted to ensure that information contained on this site is reliable, we are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for the results obtained from the use of such information. No guarantee of completeness, accuracy, timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information is provided.
Nov 14
Google Prevails in Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Google Books
November 14, 2013
After an eight year class action copyright infringement battle in and out of court, Google won the right to continue its Google Books project to digitize books. According to Judge Denny Chin’s November 14, 2013 Ruling, to date, Google digitized, indexed, and made available for search more than 20 million books. Even though many of these books were still within copyright, Google never received permission from the copyright holders. Judge Chin ultimately found Google’s actions not to be in violation of copyright laws and sided with Google in its “fair use” doctrine defense.
In September 2005, the plaintiffs, including 3 authors and The Author’s Guild, mounted a class action lawsuit against Google, alleging that “Google committed copyright infringement by scanning copyrighted books and making them available for search without permission of the copyright holders.” In fact, as part of its Library Project, Google partnered with major libraries, including the Library of Congress, the New York Public Library, and multiple university libraries to digitize their volumes. In return for providing the library systems with digitized versions of their own books, Google made these books available for search using its own search engine. Plaintiffs complained that in addition to an “About the Book” result, many of the search results provided snippets, or 1/8 page results of the actual copyrighted text, for which Google never obtained permission.
In deciding this matter, Judge Chin assumed the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of copyright infringement; however, he concluded that Google’s argument of the “fair use” doctrine was valid. In his reasoning, the judge analyzed the four factor that constitute fair use (per section 107 of the Copyright Act):
1. The purpose and character of the use
2. Nature of the copyrighted works
3. Amount and substantiality of portion used
4. Effect of use upon potential market or value
Judge Chin found that although the amount and substantiality of use “weighs slightly against a finding of fair use,” the combination of his findings regarding the other factors above were in Google’s favor. First, Google’s “highly transformative” process and non-engagement in “the direct commercialization of copyrighted works” is in line with this stance. Second, Google’s digitization of predominantly non-fiction published books further upholds this argument. Third, “Google Books enhances the sales of books to the benefit of copyright holders.” Overall, Judge Chin found that “all society benefits” from the Google Books project.