The 2008 settlement between the Authors' Guild and Association of American Publishers and Google is in limbo for a while, after a New York District Court judge rejected it as "going too far". The settlement, reached after Google was sued for its mass-scanning of books without permission, had given the Chocolate Factory the green …
I don't get it. Can a judge stop a settlement agreed between parties?
Not that he is wrong, really. I guess Google will appeal until the Supreme Court has its say...
@ratfox Yes he can...
You're in a trial and you're working out a settlement. The courts have an obligation to validate that the settlement doesn't violate any laws.
In a trial you have a couple of outcomes....
* The plaintiff drops the case. (Judge does nothing)
* The plaintiff and defendant work out terms... (court allows them or not.)
* The case goes through trial and the judge determines guilt and the amount of awards to the winning party. (Assuming that its a bench trial, not a jury trial)
Google can appeal all they want. They will lose. Google's settlement essentially tosses the copyright laws out the window. If they haven't revamped the USPTO to not allow software patents or business method patents, they aint gonna mess with the copyright laws.
He can in a class action suit.
Do the Authors’ Guild and Association of American Publishers purport to speak for every author in the USA? Can they sign away the rights of non members, or even the rights of members who disagree with Google's property grab?
Just the USA?
Be honest, do you really think that Google would stop at authours in the USA? Google tend to take a 'we deal with the US law and once we get that agreement we do what the hell we want in other countries' approach to the world.
"Google tend to take a 'we deal with the US law and once we get that agreement we do what the hell we want in other countries' approach to the world."
Which would make them identical to the US Government, wouldn't it.
The US Government's approach is to ignore their own laws until caught.
And then to try and pass new laws so they can continue and be absolved of their past lack of compliance.... when they be bothered.
Easier still is to twist the dictionary's arm and rename things like torture as enhanced interrogation, etc, and suddenly all is fine.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- BBC suspends CTO after it wastes £100m on doomed IT system
- Peak Facebook: British users lose their Liking for Zuck's ad empire