In Lawsuit Over Library Scan Plan, Google Subpoenas Its Rivals
-- Library Journal, 10/13/2006
Publishers and authors looking to halt Google's library scan plan in court got a taste of just how long and hard the litigation could be, as Google is prepared to drop subpoenas on its rivals, including Microsoft and Yahoo, as well as publishers and an online bookseller. For Google's defense, according to papers filed in U.S. District Court in New York, the company has asked for documents from Yahoo Inc., Microsoft Corp., the Association of American Publishers, HarperCollins Publishers Inc., Bertelsmann/Random House Inc., Holtzbrinck Publishers, and Amazon.com. According to news reports, Google is asking for information pertaining to everything from content agreements to each company's analyses of copyright infringement and fair use, as well as fiscal forecasts, technical details, and digital rights management schemes.
In granting Google's requests, U.S. District Judge John Sprizzo ordered that any information gathered by Google from the subpoenas could be used only for litigation purposes. Still, the idea of deep-pocketed Google lawyers collecting internal documents and deposing publishers as well as Google's biggest competitors about their digital businesses and partnerships raises a sensitive, potentially troublesome scenario. In fall 2005, Google was sued in separate actions by a coalition of publishers and the Authors Guild, both of which charge that Google's scanning of library books for indexing purposes constitutes infringement. Google claims its library scan plan falls under fair use. What information collected by the subpoenas might mean for Google's defense is unclear. Microsoft has launched a search engine for books called MSN Book Search, while Yahoo has joined with the Open Content Alliance, but both projects are well behind Google's ambitious pace, and both Microsoft and Yahoo claim only to scan those works already in the public domain or with permission of the copyright holder. What is clear, however, is that the Google subpoenas portend a complicated, lengthy and costly discovery phase in a case that revolves around a rapidly changing marketplace and hinges on the inherently murky nature of copyright law—components which could work to force a settlement.
