DOJ says Google Book Search still anticompetitive

01 March 2010

Antitrust regulator voices concerns over copyright deal

Eileen McDermott, New York

The US Department of Justice said last month that the November amended settlement agreement (ASA) in the Google Book Search case remains "a bridge too far".

In a statement filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, the DOJ responded to the amended book digitisation deal announced last year by Google, the Authors' Guild and the Association of American Publishers.

That agreement included revisions based on the Department's September amicus brief in which the antitrust watchdog raised a number of copyright and competition law concerns about the original proposed settlement.

The lawsuit centres on the 2004 Google Library Project, in which Google agreed with various libraries to digitise books in their collections, including many rare and out of print works as well as so-called orphan works whose copyright owner cannot be identified.

The project prompted authors and publishers to bring a...



Only subscribers have complete access to Managing IP Magazine, log in or subscribe now.

Alternatively take a free trial, giving you 48-hour access to Managing IP Magazine (some articles and surveys may be excluded).

Subscribe Now

This article is available to subscribers. Please click subscribe to read the rest of the article.

Subscribe

Take a free trial

Please take a free 48-hour trial to gain limited access. Some articles and surveys may be excluded.

Take a free trial


INTA Daily News 2012

Read this year's INTA Daily News - published daily by Managing IP direct from the 134th INTA Annual Meeting in Washington DC

null null null
null null

May 2012

Do you want to be famous?

Famous, well-known, notorious, reputed: everyone wants enhanced protection for their trade marks. But should they, and what does it mean if it is? Emma Barraclough explains



Most read articles

Poll

Will the new post grant and inter partes review proceedings result in more litigators practising pro hac vice before the USPTO?







Supplements