• http://websitecash.net/ Scott McKirahan

    There never was any doubt in my mind that Google would win this case and for the exact reasons the judge found – especially number four. What a colossal waste of time and money. Cases like these make me more convinced every day that companies and individuals need to be able to sue the originators of these lawsuits – the lawyers in particular – when there is clear frivolity, as there was here. This case never stood even the remotest of chances of being a winner for the Writer’s Guild. In fact, I wrote about it back in June here – http://storecoach.com/blog/google-experiences-minor-setback-in-authors-guild-lawsuit/

  • http://www.seo-theory.com/ Michael Martinez

    Judges and technology…we are making a daring new world.

  • Durant Imboden

    It’s all a plot to make authors buy AdWords.

  • http://www.webmaxformance.com/ Igor Mateski

    Truth be told, during my university days, I did use Google Books to in fact get more sources for paperworks. And I could read good portions of most of the books I used. But for a person who has a physical book to go over Google Books to gain digital access to the book seems quite dumb. For a 300 page book, it only takes about an hour to scan through on a cheap flatbed scanner. Time-wise, it simply doesn’t make sense. Good for Google.

  • totnuckers

    And thanks to Microsoft for wasting everybody’s time for organizing this lawsuits.

  • daveintheuk

    Google Books is nothing to do with research, it is just another source of “free” information Google can scrape and profit from. Kinda like a thin MFA site.

  • http://www.michaelmerritt.org/ Michael Merritt

    Actually, it is my understanding that Google wanted to show the full text of the books, and were actually kind of baffled that anyone would see this as a problem. It was only after the copyright holders began to complain that it switched to snippets and partial views.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    That’s an incorrect understanding.

  • http://searchengineland.com/ Danny Sullivan

    That’s an incorrect understanding.