<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Digital Daily &#187; Sherman Antitrust Act</title>
	<atom:link href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/tag/sherman-antitrust-act/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com</link>
	<description>by John Paczkowski</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:37:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>DOJ Confirms Antitrust Investigation Into Google Book Settlement</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:41:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[digital]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorneys general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fairness hearing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gabriel Stricker]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GOOG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopoly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mountain View]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[online]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orphaned works]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[probe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sherman Antitrust Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=20671</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View. On Thursday afternoon, the Department of Justice officially notified Google that it is investigating its book deal for violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The notification after the jump.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/files/2009/07/googfireworks.jpg" alt="googfireworks" title="googfireworks" width="150" height="57" class="alignright size-full wp-image-20685" />Looks like the fireworks have begun early in Mountain View&#8230;</p>
<p>The Justice Department probe of the Google Books settlement is heating up. On Thursday afternoon, the agency officially opened an investigation into the deal, which would allow the search sovereign to make millions of books available online. </p>
<p>“The United States has reviewed public comments expressing concern that aspects of the settlement agreement may violate the Sherman Act,” wrote William F. Cavanaugh, a deputy assistant attorney general. “At this preliminary stage, the United States has reached no conclusions as to the merit of those concerns or more broadly what impact this settlement may have on competition. However, we have determined that the issues raised by the proposed settlement warrant further inquiry.”</p>
<p>The move is the strongest sign yet that the DOJ may block the settlement, which critics claim would grant Google (GOOG) a monopoly on orphaned works&#8211;copyrighted texts without an identifiable copyright holder. The notification, included below, is the first time the DOJ has confirmed the investigation publicly and said that it is indeed looking at possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act.</p>
<p>Odd that the letter was filed this week inasmuch as the &#8220;fairness hearing&#8221; that will determine whether final approval is given to the settlement is still months away.  Clearly, <a href="http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/google-makes-a-case-that-it-isnt-so-big/">Google&#8217;s recent public relations offensive</a> claiming the company is just as vulnerable to competition as anyone else hasn’t had much effect.</p>
<p>Reached for comment, Google spokesperson Gabriel Stricker offered the following statement:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The Department of Justice and several state attorneys general have contacted us to learn more about the impact of the settlement, and we are happy to answer their questions.</p>
<p>It’s important to note that this agreement is non-exclusive and if approved by the court, stands to expand access to millions of books in the U.S.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p><object id="_ds_8068529" name="_ds_8068529" width="350 " height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=8068529&#038;mem_id=780373&#038;doc_type=pdf&#038;fullscreen=0&#038;showrelated=0&#038;showotherdocs=0&#038;showstats=0 "/><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object> <br /> <font size="1"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8068529/2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter"> 2009.07.02 Order _ DOJ Letter</a> &#8211; </font> </p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090702/doj-officially-opens-antitrust-investigation-into-google-book-settlement/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Psyonara &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080827/psyonara/</link>
		<comments>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080827/psyonara/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Aug 2008 08:11:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John Paczkowski</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Digital Daily]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Paczkowski]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clayton Antitrust Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EULA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mac OS X]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Computer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Open Mac]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psystar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sherman Antitrust Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/?p=3944</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After twice failing to meet a deadline to formally respond to Apple’s charge that its OpenMacComputer Mac clones violate Apple copyrights, Psystar has finally answered Apple’s July 3 lawsuit--with one of its own. On Tuesday the company filed paperwork for a countersuit that accuses Apple of tying its OS to its hardware in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After twice failing to meet a deadline to formally respond to Apple&#8217;s charge that its Open<strike>Mac</strike>Computer Mac clones violate Apple copyrights, Psystar has finally answered <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080716/openmac-not-open-for-much-longer/">Apple&#8217;s July 3 lawsuit</a>&#8211;with one of its own. On Tuesday the company filed paperwork for a countersuit that accuses Apple (AAPL) of tying its OS to its hardware in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)">violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act</a>. “We’re alleging restraint of trade, among other things,” <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&amp;articleId=9113522">said Colby Springer, one of three attorneys representing Psystar</a>. “We’re going to let the court decide.”</p>
<p>A curious strategy for a company that has been selling desktop computers running Mac OS X in <a href="http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080414/openmacs/">clear violation of Apple&#8217;s software license agreement</a>&#8211;desktop computers Apple claims are so lousy they&#8217;re <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9328">damaging the Apple brand</a>. Interesting, though. Because if Psystar wins the suit it would certainly set an interesting precedent. </p>
<p>Not that it&#8217;s likely, given the acumen and prowess of Apple legal. They&#8217;re like Pacino&#8217;s John Milton in <em>The Devil&#8217;s Advocate</em>&#8211;the whole team of them. </p>
<span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsPreviousSiblings"></span><span class="fdPrintIncludeParentsChildren"></span>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20080827/psyonara/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
