New Google Book Settlement Tries To Appease Worries

from the doesn't-really-change-much dept

Late (very late) Friday, Google and groups representing publishers and authors squeaked in just under the deadline and put forth a revised Book Scanning settlement agreement, designed to address at least some of the concerns and complaints raised by people over the last one. If you want a good breakdown over the changes, check out Danny Sullivan's analysis or James Grimmelmann's. Not surprisingly, the Open Book Alliance is not happy, but seeing as it's a bunch of Google competitors, they were never going to be happy in the first place (and you know that press release was probably 95% written before the actual new terms were released).

In my mind, the biggest news is the new restrictions on countries from which it will scan books. From now on, the book scanning project will only scan books that have registered copyrights in the US, UK, Australia or Canada. This was mainly to address ridiculous concerns by some in Europe that this project -- to help make all books more accessible -- was somehow a threat to European culture. I was in Europe on Friday (well, Saturday there) when the announcement was made, and it actually pissed off the folks I talked to about it -- who felt that their politicians were doing serious harm to European books by having them excluded from such a useful resource.

Separately, a lot of the focus on this new agreement, as with the old agreement, is over how Google treats orphan works. Again, I have to admit that I think most people are making a much bigger deal of this than it warrants. The orphan works stuff really covers a very small number of works. And giving rightsholders ten years to claim their rights seems more than adequate to me. I just don't see what the big deal is here. The real issue is that we have orphan works at all. Under the old (more sensible) copyright regime, you actually had to proactively declare your copyright interest. The only reason we have orphan works at all is that we got rid of such a system in the ongoing effort of copyright maximalists to wipe out the public domain.

Anyway, I think this is all something of a sideshow. I still stand by my original feeling towards the settlement, which is that I'm upset anyone felt it was necessary at all. Google had a strong fair use claim that I would have liked to have seen taken all the way through the courts. And, of course, this settlement really has nothing at all to do with the main issue of the lawsuit (that fair use question) and is really a debate over a separate issue: how to take the books Google scans and trying to turn them into a "book store" rather than more of a "library." And, in doing so, the important fair use question gets completely buried -- which I find unfortunate.

11 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google Book Settlement Off For Now... May Be Renegotiated

from the reading-the-unscanned-tea-leaves dept

With so much opposition from pretty much everyone about the "settlement" between Google and authors/publishers' representatives, it looks like the parties are looking to renegotiate the deal. It wasn't too hard to read the tea leaves on this: there was so much vocal opposition -- including from the US gov't -- that it seemed unlikely that the settlement would ever get approved. My question, though, is what would a better settlement look like? I'm still of the opinion that no settlement should be needed, and that Google has a strong case that what's it's done is protected fair use. However, it appears that Google no longer wants to fight that battle, so we'll see some other settlement (probably involving Google coughing up more money and granting more restrictions), and we'll go through this whole argument again.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 Per Song Unconstitutional Or Oppressive

from the tell-that-to-Jammie dept

While this probably isn't a huge surprise, given the fact that the Justice Department is stocked with former lawyers for the entertainment industry (and because it's filed similar briefs before), but it's still worth noting that the Justice Department has filed a brief in the Jammie Thomas lawsuit, in support of the constitutionality of the $1.92 million fine (and, no, none of the former RIAA lawyers are signatories to the brief, though you have to imagine their "expertise" was consulted). The reasoning is quite troubling and appears to include some serious revisionist history.

First, what's stunning is that the brief claims the awards are perfectly constitutional because it is not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense [or] obviously unreasonable." Really? It seems that an awful lot of people find the idea of being forced to hand over $80,000 per song without any evidence that it was ever actually shared by anyone is severe and oppressive to the point that it's disproportionate to the offense and quite obviously unreasonable. I mean, this is a woman who wanted to listen to her favorite bands, and she now has to pay nearly $2 million. How can anyone claim that's not "severe and oppressive" in relation to the actual "harm" done?

Second, the brief claims that the damages should be much more than the $1.29 price per song found on iTunes, because it "ignores the potential multiplying effect of peer-to-peer file-sharing." Except, if that were the case, shouldn't the plaintiffs been required to show that these songs were actually shared? And should Thomas also be liable for the actions of anyone else she shared the songs with? That seems to go quite beyond what the law states.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, is the Justice Department's sneaky little claim that the statutory rates are obviously fair for file sharing, because they were put in place in 1999, with the explicit statement from Congress that these numbers were there because of internet file sharing. That sounds good, but ignores the fact that this little change in the law was pushed almost entirely by entertainment industry lobbyists (the same folks who now run the Justice Department!) to protect their dying business model, rather than through any empirical evidence. The real original purpose of statutory rates had nothing to do with punishing personal, non-commercial use, but were very much about dealing with commercial harm.

It's a neat, but immensely troubling, trick by the entertainment industry. Sneak through bizarre and totally unsupported legislation through a Congress that's never met a stronger copyright law it didn't love, using your high paid lobbyists. Then, get those same lobbyists appointed to the Justice Department to defend it against Constitutional challenges. Regulatory capture at its finest.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

AP Settles All Headline News Lawsuit; Forgets To Report On It?

from the this-is-odd dept

There's been a lot of discussion lately about the AP's reliance on a rather ancient precedent that "hot news" can be protected, despite the fact that you can't copyright factual information, in its case against the site All Headline News. This has thrust the concept of "hot news" protection back into the spotlight after most people considered it a dead concept. Now, suddenly, newspapers all over are talking about trying to extend the "hot news" concept and even expanding copyright law to explicitly allow such hot news protectionism, despite the massive harm it would do. For that reason, the lawsuit between the AP and AHN was quite important... and yet, Will alerts us to the fact that the the AP and AHN quietly settled the lawsuit last month (warning: pdf). No details are provided in the settlement announcement, but the key thing for the AP is it lets it act as if "hot news" is definitely still allowed. A full lawsuit with AHN pushing back on the concept could have wiped out the concept of hot news, and clearly the AP didn't want that to happen just as it was about to start threatening and suing a bunch of aggregators. Perhaps that's why the Associated Press didn't even seem to report on its own "hot news."

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions

from the can't-stop-the-lying dept

This will come as a surprise to just about no one, but Jammie Thomas' lawyers have pointed out that the $1.92 million verdict against her is excessive, and is asking the judge to either throw out the award, lower it to the statutory minimum or grant a new trial. That was pretty much expected. What's odd, however, is the note at the very bottom of that article, concerning the filing that the RIAA made to the court. The RIAA keeps insisting that it just wants to settle the case, but if that's true, it seems weird to then attack Thomas in court again, but that's what the filing seems to do. It suggests that Thomas (despite this whole process) must still be sharing songs and that the court needs to issue an injunction barring her from doing so. While we've said that there appears to be ample evidence that Thomas used file sharing programs (and that she shouldn't have let this case go to trial), it would be quite surprising if anyone had any evidence that she was still doing this. As far as I know, the RIAA has not presented any such evidence at all. Demanding an injunction, then, seems quite strange.

On top of that, the RIAA appears to falsely claim (or the AP reporter misquoted the RIAA) that Thomas "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others through the file-sharing system Kazaa." That may be true, but it certainly was not shown in court at all. The RIAA only named 24 songs she was charged with sharing, and then did not present any evidence that she actually shared any of them with anyone other than the RIAA's own investigators. The claim that she "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others" was not proven at all, and in fact this entire new trial was because the judge originally made the mistake of assuming "making available" meant distribution. It does not. For the RIAA to misstate this point is really quite odd.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Not Willing To Settle Yet... Acccording To The RIAA

from the bizarre dept

How badly do you think the RIAA wants Jammie Thomas to settle? Since the verdict came down, the organization has done everything it possibly can to distance itself from the $1.92 million verdict against her for file sharing. While willing to play up the ruling itself the organization seems to recognize that the insanity of the $1.92 million doesn't do it any favors. Even the musicians whose music was part of the case are embarrassed by the amount. In an ideal world, the RIAA would love to settle the lawsuit for some lower amount so it can run around touting the "risks" of file sharing without having people laugh outloud when hearing that someone had to pay $1.92 million for potentially sharing 24 songs that could be bought for $1 each.

So, you get a slightly bizarre situation, where it's the RIAA proactively reaching out to Thomas to try to settle the lawsuit -- but so far Thomas apparently isn't interested. I've been saying that I thought she would settle, but the longer this goes on, the more I wonder if she's actually planning to fight on. If so, this could certainly represent a case to examine the statutory rates associated with copyright violations. The verdict seems so out of proportion with the supposed "crime" that it's difficult to see it pass the laugh test. However, there's a halfway decent chance that a court punts on the issue, saying (as the Supreme Court did in the Eldred case) that such questions are up to Congress, rather than the courts. Of course, if the case is to move forward, it would help to have lawyers who have had more than a few weeks to study up on the issues, and who didn't make public pronouncements that were distractions rather than anything related to the actual case.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And Of Course: RIAA Mouthpieces Defend $1.92 Million Judgment

from the time-to-pull-back-the-attack-dogs dept

It's been interesting to see the aftermath of the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million ruling, as it appears that even the RIAA is recognizing that such an insanely large award gives them something of a black-eye and has the possibility of creating a bit of a backlash. However, apparently they forgot to send out that message to all of their usual attack dogs. In an AP article discussing the ruling and the $1.92 million number with a variety of different people, the RIAA tried to distance itself from the number, specifically stating, "That was not our number, that was what 12 regular folks rendered." Uh, yeah, except that the RIAA has long used the statutory numbers in their arguments about the "risks" of file sharing.

Tom Sydnor, from the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF), a loud and proud supporter of stronger copyright at every turn (and who is well funded by the RIAA labels), apparently missed the memo on playing down the number. He told the reporter that it was a perfectly reasonable number.

"Legally acquiring a license to give copies of a song to potentially millions of Kazaa users might well have cost $80,000 per song,"

Except... that's not even close to accurate. The record labels presented no proof that she gave the song to millions of users, and seem to totally ignore the fact that these songs were available from tons of other sources (either legally or illegally) for prices between nothing and $1. To claim that the record labels would literally consider an option to license a single user putting a song into a shared folder at $80,000 is simply ridiculous.

But, of course, it shows the mentality of those paid for by the RIAA. These are the same people who accuse Larry Lessig of being a communist by taking a few statements totally out of context, and then accuse universities of supporting terrorism by not violating students' privacy and handing over their details to the RIAA.

So, if the RIAA is really serious about playing down the size of the jury award, it might want to rein in Sydnor before he says much more. If you're looking for someone to get out a message by appearing as a caricature of the evil record labels, I don't think you could find any organization better than PFF. But, that's probably not what the RIAA needs right now, unless it really wants to give the folks on the fence even more reason to leap over to the side who recognizes just how much the labels have twisted, stretched and abused copyright law over the years, totally at odds with its constitutional prescription of promoting the progress of science. Defending a $1.92 million award to the record labels for 24 songs in a shared folder, with no evidence that a single one was actually shared, is not promoting the progress. It's promoting massive greed and regulatory capture at the expense of society.

136 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case

from the seems-a-wee-bit-excessive,-no? dept

Like many others, when I first heard about the $1.9 million the jury awarded the record labels from Jammie Thomas in her trial, my initial question was how that could possibly be constitutional and not excessive. However, given the immediate talk of settlements, I figured that question is unlikely to be asked in a courtroom. The EFF, however, has taken a look at the specific constitutional issues and how any appeal might be organized. There are two specific potential problems. First, the award is clearly designed to be punitive, rather than remunerative:

First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that "grossly excessive" punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as "new") violate the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. In evaluating whether an award "grossly excessive," courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into "grossly excessive"? And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys.

The second issue questions whether the court has the right to try to use Jammie Thomas as an examples to warn off others (something the RIAA has been pushing for throughout this entire show-trial of a case):

Second, recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court. In other words, the award should be aimed at deterring this defendant, not giving the plaintiff a windfall in order to send a message to others who might be tempted to infringe. It's hard to know without having been in the courtroom, but if the record industry lawyers urged the jury to "send a message" to the millions of other American file-sharers out there, they may have crossed the constitutional line.

Interesting stuff, should Thomas decide to push forward. The downside, however, is that for whatever reason, to date the Supreme Court seems to throw normal precedent out the window when it comes to copyright law. I was just reading a long study (more on that later) of how a series of recent Supreme Court rulings on copyright seem to simply ignore precedent and simply accept the myth of copyright's importance over all else.

66 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million

from the bad-bad-idea dept

Last month, we noted that it was a really bad idea for Jammie Thomas not to settle her lawsuit with the recording industry. There was simply way too much evidence for a jury not to convict her. The trial itself was, again as expected, something of a circus, rather than anything interesting or compelling. So, it should come as no surprise that, yet again, Thomas has been found guilty. But what is surprising is that the the jury chose to fine her $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song. That's $1.7 million more than the original trial. $80,000 per song! Still, it was a really bad idea for Thomas to go through with this suit as there was way too much evidence linking her to the music (and too many problems with her own testimony). Now the RIAA is handed a gift. A verdict that it can gloat about and misrepresent to its own advantages. What might be interesting is whether (for all the RIAA gloating) this ruling has a similar impact as The Pirate Bay victory had in Sweden -- galvanizing people to support the Pirate Party. Somehow, the story isn't quite as compelling though.

104 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Refuses To Settle: This Is Probably A Bad Idea

from the she's-likely-to-lose dept

Despite the judge in her case pushing hard for the RIAA and Jammie Thomas to come to some sort of settlement in their rather infamous lawsuit, it appears the sides have not come to any settlement, and a new trial will be heard. The case, famously, was the first in which the RIAA actually won, only to have that ruling quickly thrown out after the judge realized he made a "material misstatement of the law" to the jury in suggesting that merely "making files available" should count as copyright infringement (a point of disagreement in different courts right now). There were some other questions concerning certain "misstatements" by execs from the record labels, which could have misled the jury.

While it's good that the judge reconsidered based on the misstatement over "making available," this seems like a case where Thomas probably should have settled. It certainly appears that there is plenty of other evidence that she was, in fact, breaking copyright law. While I think the law is bad and the fines are ridiculous, her chances of winning in court remain slim. Handing the RIAA a case where it has so much evidence on its side doesn't help matters. It's likely that it will win again and will once again use the ruling to tout its ability to win in court. Perhaps the only redeeming factor of such an eventual court ruling is calling additional attention to the ridiculous damages that would be awarded.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Agrees To Settlement, Then Asks For Twice As Much

from the anything-they-can-get-away-with dept

Ray Beckermann is, once again, highlighting some highly questionable activities by the RIAA, noting that after getting defendants to agree to a settlement amount, the RIAA sometimes immediately asks for double the agreed upon amount, and submits that proposal to the court. It's unclear how widely this is happening, but at least in one case, it's good to hear that a judge has prevented the RIAA from getting away with this practice by denying the agreement, noting the different sum than the one agreed to by the parties:

Judge Nancy Gertner: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered re Stipulation To Judgment and Permanent Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs as to defendant LaShaana Straw. "The parties' Stipulation to Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiffs request that the Court approve a Stipulation requiring the Defendant to pay $10,700, yet state in their Response that they have agreed to accept half that amount, $5,350, in full satisfaction of the monetary portion of the proposed judgment. The Plaintiffs do not provide any reason for this highly unusual arrangement, and the Court will not approve a stipulation which fails reflect the actual terms of the agreement. The Plaintiffs must present to the Court a proposed judgment which accurately states the amount the Defendant will be required to pay to settle the claims."

This would be the same judge, by the way, who slammed the RIAA for its questionable legal tactics just a few months ago. You would think that the RIAA would know better than to try to play legal games with Judge Gertner.

24 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Will Others Now Line Up To Get Paid From Google?

from the bad-precedents dept

I know that many folks disagree with my view that Google's decision to settle with book authors and publishers was a huge long term strategic mistake, but it appears others are beginning to recognize the issues. Already, we've seen Harvard bail out on the deal, since it seems to work at cross purposes to Harvard's mission, but more importantly, others are realizing the implicit statement behind Google's caving: information is not free, and those who have information should line up to Google and demand to get paid. In fact, as found on Romenesko, some are wondering when newspaper and magazine execs will realize what the book scanning deal means, and start demanding the same sort of deal from Google. I would suggest it goes even further than that. If Google is setting up a pool to pay authors, and if that leads to them doing a similar thing for newspapers and magazines, why not other websites as well? Google has now set a precedent of being willing to pay in order to display works in its index, and that's going to backfire badly.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

California Schools Not Using $200 Million From The Microsoft Settlement

from the not-a-priority? dept

A few years back, in settling a civil lawsuit against Microsoft for its monopolistic practices, Microsoft agreed to pay out $250 million to California schools, in the form of vouchers. Now, there are some who might point out that this sort of "settlement" makes good business sense, in that many will use the vouchers on PCs with Microsoft software, thereby getting a new generation of kids hooked on Microsoft products (it's worth pointing out that the vouchers can be used on non-Microsoft software as well). However, that's hardly the biggest issue, apparently. Instead, people are realizing that the vast majority of the $250 million is not being used by the schools. Some are pointing out that their budgets are being slashed, and since they have to pay for the equipment upfront and then request money back later, it's just too much trouble. Others are saying it just hasn't been a priority, even though they know the money is available.

22 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Psystar Apple Case Goes To Arbitration; Results May Be Secret

from the hopefully-not dept

As we noted before there even was a lawsuit, a legal battle between Apple and Mac-clone maker Psystar could represent a key legal battle in determining the enforceability of certain provisions in an end user license agreement (EULA). And, indeed, the case was looking interesting, as Apple sued and Psystar hit back with antitrust charges. However, as a bunch of readers have sent in, it appears that the case has moved to "Alternative Dispute Resolution" (ADR). Basically, rather than going through a lawsuit, the two sides have agreed to first take it to an arbitrator, who may be able to work out a settlement. There are many, many good reasons to go this route (many of them have to do with saving money on the lawsuit), but the fear is that any settlement then isn't a binding legal precedent at all, and the actual results may even be kept secret. I can understand why both sides would do this, but it may deprive the world of a useful precedent.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Woman Who Claimed RIAA Infringement Damages Were Unconstitutional Settles For $756/Song

from the cheaper-to-settle-than-to-fight dept

We were a bit surprised last month when Denise Barker, who had been fighting the RIAA in a file sharing lawsuit decided to take the strategy of admitting guilt but challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Act. That seemed like a longshot that was unlikely to play well in court -- especially a court that had already decided against her in interpreting the whole "making available" thing. So, it should come as little surprise that Barker has agreed to settle, rather than fight on, even if her lawyer, Ray Beckerman was more than willing to keep fighting.

The settlement comes to $756 for each of the eight songs she's accused of sharing, and the details of the settlement work out that she'll be paying $110 per month for 55 months (running through February of 2013). That adds up to $6,050, which I imagine will put a crimp on Barker's spending on actual music. While she did break the law, and admitted to breaking the law, the punishment does seem way out of line with the "crime." It's arguable that she did any "damage" at all to the recording industry, as there's a decent chance that she actually helped promote certain artists.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

American Airlines And Google Settle Keyword Advertising Spat

from the too-bad-it's-secret dept

Despite lawsuit after lawsuit ruling in favor of Google whenever a company sued Google because one of their own competitors was buying keywords based on their trademarks, American Airlines decided to get in on the game as well. Since American Airlines was probably the biggest company to take on Google in this manner, some undoubtedly were hoping that it might actually be able to succeed. However, the two companies have now settled the case. And, while the terms of the deal remain secret, Eric Goldman checked the ads on Google and doesn't see anything that indicates that Google has changed its usual practice of allowing non-confusing ads.

In other words, it sounds like American Airlines lawyers finally looked at the details of earlier rulings and realized the company had close to no chance of winning this. A trademark does not give the holder complete control over the use of the word, and a competitor using the word for competitive advertising is completely legal, so long as they're not using it in a way that is likely to confuse a consumer. Even more important, if there's any liability, it should be on the other advertisers, not Google, which is merely the platform provider.

2 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Chinese Movie Site Sues Hollywood Group For Overstating Settlement Terms

from the itchy-trigger-finger dept

The motion picture industry has a habit of overstating its victories against copyright infringement. It appears that one Chinese firm is so upset about this that it's going back to court. The MPA (the international version of the MPAA) had sued the Chinese site Jeboo for distributing Hollywood movies online last year. Earlier this year, the studios and Jeboo reached a settlement, at which point the MPA announced triumphantly that Jeboo had stopped "infringing activities," had apologized and paid a substantial sum. Jeboo, however, said that the terms of the deal were confidential and as a part of the deal, the company absolutely did not admit to any illegal activity. To Jeboo, the MPA's announcement suggests otherwise, and therefore Jeboo is now back in court suing the MPA for its portrayal of the settlement. The MPA folks must be stunned. They've all gotten away with exaggerating for so long the idea that someone would call them on it (in court, no less) must be a surprise.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

MercExchange Saga Over: eBay Just Buys The Patents

from the done-and-done dept

It would appear that the saga of MercExchange and its patents is finally over, as eBay has agreed to buy the questionable patents from the company effectively ending the longstanding lawsuit. The saga began quite a few years ago, when the patent office granted a patent on the concept of online auctions (no, seriously, don't laugh... it happened) along with some other related patents for things like the concept of offering a "buy now at a set price" feature on an auction. Not surprisingly, the guy eventually got around to suing eBay over the patent. Luckily, a court tossed out the online auction claims as being too vague, but did proceed with a patent infringement case over eBay's "Buy It Now" feature -- eventually awarding the guy $30 million, even though the patent office was beginning to question the validity of MercExchange's patents (yes, well after they had granted them).

The case ended up getting plenty of national attention, but not for the main part of the case. Instead, one of the legal questions raised by the case -- whether or not a judge should issue an automatic injunction preventing the use of patented technology when someone is found guilty of infringing -- made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where a judge found (reasonably so) that automatic injunctions don't make sense, and courts should look at a variety of factors in determining if an injunction is necessary. This was an important finding, and it meant that the judge back at the actual case didn't force eBay to stop using its "Buy It Now" feature. However, eBay did still lose the case and was told to pay the $30 million. eBay was in the process of appealing the ruling, but by buying the patents, it's now over. While no amount is given, you'd have to guess that they paid somewhere near $30 million as the ruling required, perhaps a little less as incentive to avoid having to pay lawyers' fees during an appeal. While it still seems silly that eBay had to pay many millions of dollars for daring to let people buy a product at a set price, at least the Supreme Court did get a chance to set a precedent using a part of this case. Of course, now we need to hope that eBay doesn't turn around and sue others for violating the same questionable patents.

10 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Musicians Wondering Why They're Not Seeing A Cut Of RIAA Settlements

from the hey,-wait,-isn't-that-our-money? dept

The RIAA and its associated organizations certainly have a rather long history of not sharing the windfall from various lawsuits and settlements with the artists the RIAA likes to claim it represents -- and now those musicians are getting angry. Torrent Freak points us to the news that various managers and lawyers representing some big name musicians are discussing filing a lawsuit against the record labels for keeping all of that money. The record labels claim either that they are distributing some amount (if required to contractually) or that they're still trying to figure out how to "split" the money. Of course, they're also giving the usual story about how "after legal fees" there really isn't that much left to give out. Remember, though, when it comes to talk to the press or politicians, they'll swear up and down that these lawsuits are all for the musicians.

33 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Vonage Continues To Settle Patent Disputes... With Everyone But Verizon

from the that-one-is-personal dept

Just a few days after settling with Sprint over a patent dispute, Vonage has also settled a patent dispute with a small company called Klausner Technologies. It looks like Vonage is really trying to clear the decks of these pesky patent lawsuits -- which still seem rather petty and against the purpose of the patent system. However, it doesn't look like Vonage is anywhere close to settling in its other big patent lawsuit battle. Instead, it's asking the courts to rehear its patent case against Verizon. This really is a shame. While Vonage has faced a variety of struggles on the business front, it was the company that was able to bring VoIP to the consumer market in a way that no other company was willing to do. It's unfortunate that rather than being able to take the service and the company to the next level, it now has to spend so much time and money battling over patents. The technology behind VoIP was nothing special. People had talked about if for ages. What held back VoIP was having the bandwidth to support it and a convincing marketing campaign that showed how easy it was to switch to VoIP while making it seamless with an existing phone system. Vonage was the ones to innovate here -- and now they need to pay up over a bunch of bogus patents.

9 Comments | Leave a Comment..