Perfect 10 Case Against Google Dismissed (With Prejudice) After Court Asks Perfect 10 To Open Its Books

from the a-perfect-0 dept

Thu, May 10th 2012 10:16am — Mike Masnick

In the same week that Perfect 10 sued Tumblr for alleged copyright infringement, it effectively lost one of its other key lawsuits: agreeing to a dismissal, with prejudice, in its quixotic case against Google that had so far resulted in a string of losses (and useful precedents). Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story).

As the TorrentFreak article linked above notes, Perfect 10 was so desperate to find some sort of evidence to use against Google, it offered $25,000 to anyone who could provide evidence that Google "aided or condoned copyright infringement." Considering how often we see people (especially in our own comments) insist that Google does this all the time, it sure seems like when it was time to present evidence no one could come up with a damn thing. And that's not surprising, because if you know anything about anything, you'd know that Google is actually pretty aggressive against infringement (sometimes over-aggressive) -- and contrary to the claims of people who seem to know nothing about online advertising, there's little money made in any advertising around infringement anyway.

What's more interesting is that, as TorrentFreak notes again, this sudden agreement to dismiss the case with prejudice comes after the court had ordered that Perfect 10 open up its books and "provide full insight into all internal communications regarding the court case." Given the accusations concerning Perfect 10's business practices (i.e., supposedly relying on such lawsuits as its business model), perhaps they felt it was better to keep that stuff from being revealed publicly.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright infringement, settlement
Companies: google, perfect 10

17 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2012 @ 10:20am

If Google aids copyright infringement, then so do the rest of the search engines. Where are the attacks on Yahoo, Bing etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Watchit (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 2:48pm
  
  Re:
  There are other search engines?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cerberus (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 10:20am

I would like to see their books, actually. Why didn't the judge order them to open their books anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 10:37am
  
  Re:
  I'm not sure if the judge had that power in this sort of case. IANAL, but I think that maybe absent suspicion of criminality, the most a judge could do is say "open your books or lose the lawsuit," which is what he did. And Perfect 10 opted to lose the lawsuit.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GMacGuffin (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 11:15am
  
  Re:
  Court basically loses jurisdiction over the party when the suit ends; so they killed the suit rather than be subject to the Order. Needed a stipulation by Google, which I'm sure they were happy to provide ... with provisions as noted.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 10:24am

:-D
To take a line from Lethal Weapon 2:

"Big smile! Big smile! ... Big smile!"

I'm very glad to hear Google's ninja attorneys are finally earning their paychecks rather than opting for the lazy/quick 'settle out of court' route, which is ultimately futile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PlagueSD (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 10:40am

Google - 1
Patent Trolls - 0
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2012 @ 12:26pm
  
  Re:
  Google - 2
  Patent Trolls - 0
  
  If you take into account that the Java/Android case is going mostly in their favour.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PlagueSD (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 3:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Google - 2
    Patent Trolls - 0
    
    If you take into account that the Java/Android case is going mostly in their favour."
    
    That's like counting a goal before it's scored...
    
    It's 1-0 right now...A very good chance it'll end up 2-0 in the near future though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Torg (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 10:43am

"Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story)."

People assume that lawsuits are a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, they're more like a big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 10 May 2012 @ 5:00pm
  
  Re:
  People assume that lawsuits are a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually, from a nonlinear, non-subjective viewpoint, they're more like a big ball of wibbley-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
  
  Started well, that sentence... :)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
silverscarcat (profile), 10 May 2012 @ 10:43am

Of course Google's evil!
Google isn't forcing people to pay money to the MPAA and the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Walf.nete, 10 May 2012 @ 10:49am

Walfnete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
arcan, 10 May 2012 @ 11:48am

i guess google's argument
*put sunglasses on*
got a perfect 10.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 May 2012 @ 12:28pm

I misread the title...
...and thought Perfect 10 was opening something else. Dammit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TDR, 10 May 2012 @ 6:35pm

Part of the stipulated settlement is that Perfect 10 will never again sue Google over such claims in the past (going forward is another story).

This sentence has me a little confused. Certainly the judge doesn't think the P10 execs are going to build a time-traveling DeLorean, fly into the past, and attempt to sue Google all over again? Seriously, though, might want to clarify what that sentence is supposed to mean. Or maybe it's just that I don't speak legalese.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 May 2012 @ 12:36am
  
  Re:
  That means they can't sue Google for anything that has occured prior to the exact second the judge dismissed the case with prejudice. They can still sue them for any actions that Google takes from this point on, which given they claim the infringement is ongoing would let them get back into court, at which point the judge would tell them to open they books, and history repeats.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]