Perfect 10 Case Against Google Dismissed (With Prejudice) After Court Asks Perfect 10 To Open Its Books

from the a-perfect-0 dept

In the same week that Perfect 10 sued Tumblr for alleged copyright infringement, it effectively lost one of its other key lawsuits: agreeing to a dismissal, with prejudice, in its quixotic case against Google that had so far resulted in a string of losses (and useful precedents). Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story).

As the TorrentFreak article linked above notes, Perfect 10 was so desperate to find some sort of evidence to use against Google, it offered $25,000 to anyone who could provide evidence that Google "aided or condoned copyright infringement." Considering how often we see people (especially in our own comments) insist that Google does this all the time, it sure seems like when it was time to present evidence no one could come up with a damn thing. And that's not surprising, because if you know anything about anything, you'd know that Google is actually pretty aggressive against infringement (sometimes over-aggressive) -- and contrary to the claims of people who seem to know nothing about online advertising, there's little money made in any advertising around infringement anyway.

What's more interesting is that, as TorrentFreak notes again, this sudden agreement to dismiss the case with prejudice comes after the court had ordered that Perfect 10 open up its books and "provide full insight into all internal communications regarding the court case." Given the accusations concerning Perfect 10's business practices (i.e., supposedly relying on such lawsuits as its business model), perhaps they felt it was better to keep that stuff from being revealed publicly.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 10th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    If Google aids copyright infringement, then so do the rest of the search engines. Where are the attacks on Yahoo, Bing etc?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Cerberus (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 10:20am

    I would like to see their books, actually. Why didn't the judge order them to open their books anyway?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 10:37am

      Re:

      I'm not sure if the judge had that power in this sort of case. IANAL, but I think that maybe absent suspicion of criminality, the most a judge could do is say "open your books or lose the lawsuit," which is what he did. And Perfect 10 opted to lose the lawsuit.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      GMacGuffin (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 11:15am

      Re:

      Court basically loses jurisdiction over the party when the suit ends; so they killed the suit rather than be subject to the Order. Needed a stipulation by Google, which I'm sure they were happy to provide ... with provisions as noted.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    :Lobo Santo (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 10:24am

    :-D

    To take a line from Lethal Weapon 2:

    "Big smile! Big smile! ... Big smile!"


    I'm very glad to hear Google's ninja attorneys are finally earning their paychecks rather than opting for the lazy/quick 'settle out of court' route, which is ultimately futile.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    PlagueSD (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 10:40am

    Google - 1
    Patent Trolls - 0

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 10th, 2012 @ 12:26pm

      Re:

      Google - 2
      Patent Trolls - 0

      If you take into account that the Java/Android case is going mostly in their favour.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PlagueSD (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 3:41pm

        Re: Re:

        "Google - 2
        Patent Trolls - 0

        If you take into account that the Java/Android case is going mostly in their favour."

        That's like counting a goal before it's scored...

        It's 1-0 right now...A very good chance it'll end up 2-0 in the near future though.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Torg (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    "Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story)."

    People assume that lawsuits are a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, they're more like a big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rekrul, May 10th, 2012 @ 5:00pm

      Re:

      People assume that lawsuits are a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, they're more like a big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.

      Started well, that sentence... :)

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    silverscarcat (profile), May 10th, 2012 @ 10:43am

    Of course Google's evil!

    Google isn't forcing people to pay money to the MPAA and the RIAA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Walf.nete, May 10th, 2012 @ 10:49am

    Walfnete

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    arcan, May 10th, 2012 @ 11:48am

    i guess google's argument
    *put sunglasses on*
    got a perfect 10.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, May 10th, 2012 @ 12:28pm

    I misread the title...

    ...and thought Perfect 10 was opening something else. Dammit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    TDR, May 10th, 2012 @ 6:35pm

    Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story).

    This sentence has me a little confused. Certainly the judge doesn't think the P10 execs are going to build a time-traveling DeLorean, fly into the past, and attempt to sue Google all over again? Seriously, though, might want to clarify what that sentence is supposed to mean. Or maybe it's just that I don't speak legalese.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, May 12th, 2012 @ 12:36am

      Re:

      That means they can't sue Google for anything that has occured prior to the exact second the judge dismissed the case with prejudice. They can still sue them for any actions that Google takes from this point on, which given they claim the infringement is ongoing would let them get back into court, at which point the judge would tell them to open they books, and history repeats.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This