A Study of the Google Book Search Antitrust Controversy
Date Issued
2012
Date
2012
Author(s)
Hsieh, Ming-chun
Abstract
From 2004, Google has been undertaking digital library project. Google is trying to build a database including millions of digital books. But the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers sued Google in 2005, because copyright owners didn’t license Google to scan and online display their works. After negotiations, the parties reached a settlement agreement in 2008. If the settlement agreement had been approved by court, people could online access to millions of books, especially to Orphan Works, through Google book search (GBS). The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and some objectors, however, concern that the settlement agreement raises some antitrust issues, resulting in some anti-competitive effects and harm consumer welfares. The court rejected the settlement agreement in March. 22, 2011. In chapter II, in order to make sure the antitrust issues relating to the settlement agreement, this article analyzes the structure and characteristics of settlement agreement, and summaries the Statement of Interest and the court’s ruling.In chapter III, this article discusses the first issue regarding horizontal price fixing among copyright owners. Chapter III shows that the terms wouldn’t restrict price competition, and could reduce effectively the quantity of orphan works. Under the rule of reason, these terms are reasonable ancillary restraints.
In chapter IV, this article discusses the second issue regarding de facto exclusivity over orphan works that the settlement agreement would grant Google. Chapter IV shows that orphan works couldn’t define as the relevant product market, consumers could find some reasonable substitutions. Even if define the orphan works as the relevant product market. Potential competitors who want to enter this market face a legal restriction, so there is a barrier to entry in this market. Google would have monopoly power. Current copyright law doesn’t permit the fiduciary to license orphan works to potential competitors. The settlement agreement would have the effect of unilateral refusals to deal, and would grant Google de facto exclusive rights over orphan works. But this article shows that it is a reasonable restraint. There isn’t a less restrictive alternative for achieving the same goal. So the settlement agreement wouldn’t violate Sherman Act §2. Finally, this article discusses the third issue regarding a tying arrangement between Google Web Search engine and Google Book Search. This article shows that there isn’t a tying arrangement because Google couldn’t coerce users into buying any products of GBS.
Subjects
Google Book Search
horizontal agreement
price fixing
orphan works
de facto exclusive rights
monopolize
but-for baseline
less restrictive alternative
Type
thesis
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
ntu-101-R94341028-1.pdf
Size
23.54 KB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):39c3e0dcc81645a181eeb0b167085738