Google Book Settlement: Objection by Scott E. Gant

I have just been reading the Objection to the Settlement by the lawyer and author Scott E. Gant, a specialist in class action litigation. What I can feel in my gut, he can quote good US law for.

He points out that the agreement is in part 'a commercial transaction, which the settling parties are improperly attempting to impose through the judicial process and the procedural device of Rule 23, rather than through the normal commercial process of negotiation and informed consent'. Absolutely: I could see that myself, but I lack the legal knowledge to point out exactly why it won't wash.

[According to Cornell University Law School's very useful website, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs class actions.]

Mr Gant continues: 'A central feature of the Proposed Settlement’s commercial arrangement is the sweeping transfer of intellectual property rights from class members to Google and its partners. … The use of Rule 23 to transfer class members’ intellectual property rights to Google and its partners is improper, and would violate the Rules Enabling Act’s express mandate that the Rules of procedure “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b).'

He cites 'the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 82, which provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure “do not extend . . . the jurisdiction of the district courts”' in support of his contention that the court quite simply has no jurisdiction to approve this.

Further on he turns his attention to the way the settlement purports to rewrite existing contracts between authors and publishers. Again, he cites the rules for class action litigation and the Rules Enabling Act to show that this really can't be done.

He makes a number of other very important points.

Google Book Settlement: Objection by Scott E. Gant

I have just been reading the Objection to the Settlement by the lawyer and author Scott E. Gant, a specialist in class action litigation. What I can feel in my gut, he can quote good US law for.

He points out that the agreement is in part 'a commercial transaction, which the settling parties are improperly attempting to impose through the judicial process and the procedural device of Rule 23, rather than through the normal commercial process of negotiation and informed consent'. Absolutely: I could see that myself, but I lack the legal knowledge to point out exactly why it won't wash.

[According to Cornell University Law School's very useful website, Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs class actions.]

Mr Gant continues: 'A central feature of the Proposed Settlement’s commercial arrangement is the sweeping transfer of intellectual property rights from class members to Google and its partners. … The use of Rule 23 to transfer class members’ intellectual property rights to Google and its partners is improper, and would violate the Rules Enabling Act’s express mandate that the Rules of procedure “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b).'

He cites 'the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution, as well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 82, which provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure “do not extend . . . the jurisdiction of the district courts”' in support of his contention that the court quite simply has no jurisdiction to approve this.

Further on he turns his attention to the way the settlement purports to rewrite existing contracts between authors and publishers. Again, he cites the rules for class action litigation and the Rules Enabling Act to show that this really can't be done.

He makes a number of other very important points.