In Case You Missed It…

Among the flurry of court filings earlier this week calling out concerns about Google’s book settlement with the Authors’ Guild and AAP, was a little noticed but very interesting filing in opposition from Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.  Blumenthal is no stranger to tough fights and standing up to powerful interests.  

Inside the brief are arguments about how the settlement runs up against the doctrine of sovereign immunity and CT’s own unclaimed property laws. But most interesting, from our perspective, is AG Blumenthal’s analysis that “the Settlement appears to raise objectionable issues” … from the point of view of the federal antitrust laws or federal copyright laws.” It further anticipates that the DoJ may focus on this issue. With the deadline for DoJ’s submission to the Court coming up next week, we think this is a significant development.

This analysis is also in line with the arguments contained in the Open Book Alliance brief, which makes the central and crucial point that Google and its partners are attempting to circumvent the nation’s antirust laws via court action in order to create a horizontal cartel for the sale and distribution of digital books.

From the Connecticut filing…

Connecticut has limited its comments herein to state specific issues that it does not expect will be addressed by objectors or commenters other than the states. Connecticut anticipates that other states will submit comments about the Settlement Agreement. The U.S. Department of Justice has indicated that it has opened an antitrust investigation into the proposed settlement in this case, and the Court has given the Department of Justice until September 18, 2009 to present its views in writing. See, Order, July 2, 2009 (Docket Item No. 120). Connecticut anticipates that the Department of Justice may submit views on the legality or advisability of the settlement from the point of view of the federal antitrust laws or federal copyright laws. The Settlement Agreement appears to raise objectionable issues under these headings. Connecticut’s decision to focus on the issues of unclaimed property, unlawful conversion of charitable assets, and unconsented inclusion of the sovereign within a defined class should not be interpreted as assent or acceptance of any other feature of the settlement.