Yesterday a US district court judge rejected the Google Books settlement the search giant negotiated with the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers. While most news outlets are covering the copyright angle of the ruling, the judge’s opinion had some interesting quotes on whether Google has a monopoly status:

The settlement “would give Google a significant advantage over competitors, rewarding it for engaging in wholesale copying of copyrighted works without permission, while releasing claims well beyond those presented in the case.”
The settlement “would give Google a de facto monopoly over unclaimed works. Only Google has engaged in the copying of books en masse without copyright permission.” (p.36)
The settlement “would arguably give Google control over the search market…Google’s ability to deny competitors the ability to search orphan books would further entrench Google’s market power in the online search market.” (p.37)
This ruling comes as the DOJ is still mulling over whether to allow Google to purchase travel industry data company ITA. The government agency was expected to make its decision as far back as January, and the fact that they’re taking this long indicates they’re very seriously weighing the anti-trust implications of such a deal. While it’s not clear that the district court judge’s ruling would have any sway on the DOJ investigation, I wouldn’t be surprised if it were taken into consideration. Will Fairsearch.org and the other companies opposing the ITA deal use the Google Book ruling in their PR and lobbying campaigns?
You can follow me on Twitter, fan me on Facebook, or go ahead and hire me.