Google Spent $100M Defending Viacom Lawsuit 153
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Lawsuits are never cheap, even if you're on the winning side. But not many cost as much as Viacom's lawsuit against Google. The search giant won before trial, and even so Google spent $100 million defending themselves. Incidentally, Viacom is appealing the ruling, so it's not even over yet. Perhaps it's no wonder our rights are vanishing online when it takes $100M to protect just one of them."
A possible fix: (Score:5, Insightful)
On all matters regarding intellectual properties, only public defenders may represent both parties.
And move to a non-profit court system. Some jurisdictions figured out they could attract dollars by being attractive venues for lawsuits.
Re:A possible fix: (Score:5, Interesting)
And move to a non-profit court system. Some jurisdictions figured out they could attract dollars by being attractive venues for lawsuits.
That has nothing to do with the court system - it actually loses money on each case, whether patent, criminal, or civil. However, the city of Marshall, Texas makes a lot of money on patent suits, with lots of expensive hotels and restaurants for out of towners. Are you going to suggest banning capitalism in towns with courthouses? Obviously not.
Forum shopping is bad for many reasons, but not the one you suggest.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A simple solution would be to not require people to travel for these sort of court matters. Everything can be done by a teleconference between the parties, each at a courthouse local to them.
Re: (Score:2)
A simple solution would be to not require people to travel for these sort of court matters. Everything can be done by a teleconference between the parties, each at a courthouse local to them.
And is the jury at a third courthouse? Or does one side get to look them in the eye while the other side is over video?
Re: (Score:2)
And is the jury at a third courthouse?
Do they have a jury for the pre-trial? If these are settled before they go to trial, then there should be no jury involved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And is the jury at a third courthouse?
Do they have a jury for the pre-trial? If these are settled before they go to trial, then there should be no jury involved.
So, the suggestion is that they should do pre-trial matters via teleconference? They already do. Not unusual.
Plus, really, do you think the majority, or even a significant amount, of the $100 million cost was the airfare and hotels? Really?
Re: (Score:2)
They may be at any convenient courthouse, even one where another party is located, but will still view the trial only via video conference to avoid the unfair advantage you cite.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost is primarily the hourly rate for lawyers, not travel expenses. This case barely even saw the inside of a courtroom. Teleconference maybe could have saved a few thousand, maybe even a few hundred thousand, but not any significant percentage.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could have taken the profitability for the town though.
Re:A possible fix: (Score:4, Insightful)
Better solution: make better laws, appoint better judges.
I kind of hate when you get a problem that stems from people doing stupid things and everyone runs around trying to figure out how to rejigger the system to make stupid things impossible. There is no systematic way to stop stupid greedy corrupt people from wreaking havoc. You can come up with systems that will diminish the amount of damage any one stupid greedy corrupt person can do, but that's about it. If you let stupid greedy corrupt people stay in charge, they'll still wreak havoc.
Re:A possible fix: (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not the laws, this was a lawsuit that didn't even enter a courtroom. I can sue anyone for anything: if I knew your name and address I could sue you right now for... oh, let's say slander and you'd have to shell out $$$ or be found guilty. Oh sure you could counter sue saying the lawsuit has no basis and might get your money back, but you'd still have to shell out the $$$ first just to go to court.
Legal system is no better: without any proof or evidence at all I could accuse anyone of assault and the police will go arrest them and put them in jail and maybe the next day they could talk to a judge and get out of jail after paying thousands in bail. That's what this women did. [ocregister.com] She sent fake harassing text messages to herself and her ex-boyfriend was arrested three times before the police finally investigated to see that all the text messages were sent close to where the woman worked. Each time he was arrested he had to pay thousands in bail money and now has a police record for harassment that he has to try and clear up.
The US legal system is horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
So it's not the laws and judges, but it's the "legal system"? Can you spell out that distinction better?
Re: (Score:2)
The US legal system is horrible.
The problems you mentioned are not specific to the United States of America. But considering that I've heard of rescuers sued by people who's lives they saved for injuring their arm pulling them out of burning cars, you do have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, volunteer rescuers are protected by good samaritan laws - nearly every state has them. Professional rescuers (paid fire or EMS) are a little more liable, but unless they ripped the arm off or injured someone when it was clearly unnecessary, it'll still be thrown out.
I do volunteer EMS and I've been named in suits a half dozen times so far. The only time I hear about it is the note saying I was named and it was dismissed - the ambulance chasers sue everybody all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
If only you were right [go.com] "The court ruled 4-3 that only those administering medical care have legal immunity, but not those like Torti, who merely take rescue action. The justices said that the perceived danger to Van Horn in the wrecked car was not "medical." The court majority said the 1980 Emergency Medical Service Act, which Torti's lawyers cited for protection, was intended only to encourage people to learn
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, if you RTFA carefully, you'll see it was the victims that did the investigating first, and then took their findings to the police, who then ran with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, after they took the findings to the police, the police arrested one of them again and kept her in custody for a few more days.
Re: (Score:2)
The US does not have, and never had a legal system. It has at best a system of order. This isn't terribly surprising considering that most law enforcement and legal officers in the US are elected rather than appointed. Law in the US was always essentially made up by civilians at a local level, primarily to keep whatever order was deemed neccessary at the time, with little or no thought given to justice, legal theory or common sense. The ultimate manifestation of the US system
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the US legal system is wonderful...if you happen to be a lawyer.
And guess the number one profession of pre-election representatives to be?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Teleconferencing is generally a farce. There is no substitute for being in the same room with someone when important issues are being discussed. Much of human communication is in body language that can not be seen over teleconferencing. Sorry but a 4" picture of someone on a screen is not equivalent to watching that same person from ten feet away.There is also a separation effect in that people will say different things when they are in front of a camera than in the same room. Some people lie more when view
Re: (Score:2)
The city may be losing money, but the officials, judges and the people working in that system aren't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you going to suggest banning capitalism in towns with courthouses?
If it will allow me to continue watching videos of cats doing cute things, people falling down in funny ways, breakdancing, and all the other silly but entertaining things I see on youtube, then I'll suggest that yes, communism socialism anarchy or whatever in Marshall Texas is just fine for me personally. Cede it to North Korea for all I care, just don't let Viacom win.
(I should explicitly mention that I am not a lawyer, not from Texas, and am not serious)
Re: (Score:2)
The outside jurisdiction stuff can't be helped, but I think the GP's point is still valid.
In criminal cases, if you're accused you're provided an attorney if you cannot afford one. This isn't true in civil cases. In this day and age, your average citizen cannot afford justice against a big company. That's the main point. Doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, the working man can't afford to take a case to a final verdict anyways.
I say that public defenders should be available to the defendant even in
Re: (Score:2)
> That has nothing to do with the court system - it actually loses money on each case, whether patent, criminal, or civil.
Well, they COULD let people transfer things to a more reasonable jurisdiction (i.e. one where at least one of the parties and some of the witnesses are based). Then again, the patent trolls have set up shop there, so they're local now and it doesn't do much good. There was a lot of press once, about how a ruling might allow for transfer to another jurisdiction, but it doesn't seem t
Re: (Score:2)
In Texas? Let me get back to you.
OK, I've thought about it. Upon extensive review, I've decided we should just ban Texas. Their Republican governor has spent them into an 18 billion dollar budget deficit, and the number one issue for the school board is to rewrite text books so they "ain't so liberal".
Yes, a high electrical fence around Texas is the way to go. It would be a shame to lose Austin, but it's a sacrifice worth making to ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Your invention of the "ice pick in the eye over the internet" would just land you in court against this guy [bash.org].
Legal ridiculousness (Score:2)
Maybe that's something that needs to be outsourced - civil suits. The way legal firms rack up billing is as great a crime as Hollywood / RIAA accounting.
Re:Legal ridiculousness (Score:5, Informative)
Sometimes, yes.
I'm an Engineer. It took me 5 years of University (co-op program) and six years of EIT time before I became a Pro. I would charge out time at about $200 an hour, which is roughly the same as other Pros. (This isn't what I get paid at work but then I get other benefits like steady work, legal resources and insurance, and a great environment.)
Lawyers get a degree before they go to law school and then have to spend years articling before they can do their bar thing. (What? I'm not a lawyer. My lawyer's a lawyer.) Why should they charge a cheap rate for professional services? Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training. It's not like on Law and Order or Ally MacBeal where it's just talking. Most of it is research, practice, and training.
Loser pay, though, that's the way to go. They do it up here.
Re:Legal ridiculousness (Score:5, Insightful)
Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.
Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training because laws are written by lawyers. So long as that's the case, law-makers will never do in one paragraph what they could stretch to a thousand pages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I would accept your premise if thousand-page-long laws written by lawyers had no ridiculous holes or unforeseen consequences.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:2)
As for unforseen consequences, I'd rather have those than the laws that have specific hidden consequences (not unforseen because the writers saw the holes, they just h
Re: (Score:2)
If laws were "interpreted" based on stated intent, rather than explicit word, then we'd be fine again.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Does that include machine guns and automatic rifles?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it doesn't specifically include them, which is the current rationale for excluding them. Not that I agree with that. The problem comes in with the previous wording "a well regulated malitia", which could have just been given as a reason, has been interpreted as an entitiy given those rights, and the power to regulate that entity
Re: (Score:2)
But, again, there's the whole intent, spirit, letter confusion.
If they spent a few more words on that one, we'd...well, we'd still likely be having problems over it, but probably on a more granular scale rather than "completely banning guns in W.,DC" scale.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a horrible sentence (that isn't even a law, but a guideline for laws, and I stated laws, but I'll let that slide) for this example. It shows more my example of a bad l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the wording needs to be (well, in theory at least) as precise as possible.
Try to fit IEEE 802.11 into a paragraph and not run into conflicts and problems.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Loser pays" sounds good when you imagine the "good guy" is getting sued and he racks up a bunch of legal bills winning against frivolous lawsuits, but what about when the whole thing is turned around?
Like lets say McDonald's was putting neurotoxins into Happy Meals and my child becomes permanently disabled because of it. I sue McDonald's, and they hire millions of dollars worth of lawyers who trounce my cheap lawyer. Now I'm on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees?
Or is that not how it works?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's how it works. The end result is that only parties with very, very deep pockets will be able to bear the risk of initiating an action, since you can never be 100% sure of the outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Like lets say McDonald's was putting neurotoxins into Happy Meals and my child becomes permanently disabled because of it. I sue McDonald's, and they hire millions of dollars worth of lawyers who trounce my cheap lawyer. Now I'm on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees?
Or is that not how it works?
No, not really. It's a shitty example. Something like that would be class action.
A better example would be accusing the manager of a McDonalds of spitting in your food, or the local mom and pop store putting neurotoxins in your food.
Re: (Score:2)
No its not altogether how it works. In the UK, at least, user pays is at the judge's discretion, and the judge gets to decide what reasonable costs should be.
Losing can still be very expensive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing wrong with highly skilled people charging top dollar. The problem is that I cannot hire an unskilled lawyer to take my case.
If I want to hire a random guy off the street who is willing to represent me for $50/hr., so be it. It is my fault for choosing to use his services in the first place if something goes horribly wrong. Or maybe he will actually be really good at the work it and I will have saved a fortune.
I recall reading about a case where a lawyer got into a lot of trouble for practis
Re: (Score:2)
There was a similar case with a high school teacher in my country.
He was hired by the school and taught there for 13 years. Not only was he regarded as a very kind men (everyone loved him, from students to other employees), but his students got grades much higher than average in the national tests, meaning he was a good teacher too.
After 13 years the director board accidentally found out he didn't have a diploma, so they fired him (legally, they had to).
In the mean time, I had a teacher not so long ago who
Re: (Score:2)
Law is a difficult topic and requires a lot of training.
And laws are written by lawyers in a way to ensure that a lot of money will have to be paid to lawyers. Like that 1990's modification of trademark law that says that companies MUST sue for all perceived infringement or else lose their trademark, meaning that "yoga inside" gets sued because "x inside" is too close to a chip maker's sales pitch to be allowed to be used for something clearly unrelated to their field.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers get a degree before...
Law educations in government subsidized schools, with government backed student loans... Afterward, charge whatever the market will bear to hell with civilization. Those who practice law have an inherent responsibility to the civilization that chooses to respect it. Today the neglect of that responsibility manifests itself as indifference toward bankrupting all the non-lawyers.
This will sort itself; the western world is rapidly bankrupting itself and when the ride finally stops there will be little patien
Re: (Score:2)
It's even easier than that. I'm pretty sure I've seen this idea mentioned before on Slashdot:
The best scheme that I've seen is to have loser pays, but with the addition that a side is only responsible for up to the amount they spent on their personal lawyer. This brings much more power to the little guy trying to defend a lawsuit, and also makes sure that the corporation can't bury him in an insane amount of fees in the case that he loses.
This also provides the incentive of "only spending as much as you nee
Other interesting monies (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps the data is published somewhere or is simply waiting to be compiled, but I would like to know how much was spent lobbying for the DMCA in the first place. This figure can then be compared with the money spent defending. Those numbers could then be used to show how much money was wasted on this and similar laws that offers negative net benefit to those whose copyrights are being "protected."
As we know, belief trumps fact. It has been widely believed to be true until studies have proven it to be true. So perhaps such a study would be an exercise in futility, but perhaps before MORE stupid laws and treaties are put into place, these sorts of facts need to come out into the open to show the world what is really going on and who is really benefiting. Turns out that the individual people aren't benefiting (we already knew that) but the parties allegedly being defended aren't benefiting either. The courts systems are being burdened and tied up as well. It's all a tremendous waste and the only beneficiaries are the lawyers behind it all.
Re:Other interesting monies (Score:4, Funny)
As we know, belief trumps fact./quote>
Is that a fact?
It has been widely believed to be true until studies have proven it to be true
Okay, I'll believe it then.
Re: (Score:2)
Studies do not produce fact. They only produce a slice of fact. Which way you slice is up to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Ask Phil Zimmerman (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose.
McLibel (Score:4, Informative)
What about Viacom? (Score:5, Interesting)
a legion of lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
litigating laws that should not exist in the first place
a kind parasitism, that we are all paying for
legal cruft, created by lawyers, in the service of paying lawyers and keeping them busy, but adding nothing whatsoever to society or the common good, serving to do nothing but waste other people's money and time and keep a bunch of pointless people buried under paperwork
what do these people create?
i'd like one of these lawyers in cases as pathetic and pointless as this to actually try to defend their useless existence
how can they wake up in the morning and not put a shotgun in their mouths, so utterly without any redeeming quality is their useless existence?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd wager it's the piles of money and many extra-marital affairs that keep lawyers from taking their own lives in disgust.
Re: (Score:2)
Jay Sherman: How do you sleep at night?
Rainer Wolfcastle: On top of a pile of money with many beautiful ladies.
Re: (Score:2)
Two guys should be able to take out a loan, buy a truck, and start a moving company without a lawyer, right? It happens all the time.
Then, one of the guys moves to Florida, to take care of his ailing mother. Who gets the truck? Who makes the payments? What happens to the guy who stays put, who will
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is when the lawyers cost more than the truck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just playing advocate's advocate
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyers are not supposed to. The person who REALLY needs to be knowledgeable about such things is the man or woman holding the gavel. They are the ones who are charged with writing the decisions and why they ruled the way they did.
Lawyers are supposed to make their side win above all else. It is the judge who has to be able to cut through the smoke screens and be able to render a decision that will affect the nation's future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, we've reached the point where the legal system is so inaccessible (due both to cost and time) that it is not practical as a way to solve problems either. Its legitimacy is basically inertia; right now, if someone screws you, in nearly every case yo
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad. Should have gone open source and gotten a bunch of college kids to do the work for free. Then make millions on selling support for a completely unusable, undocumented and incomprehensible piece of software.
Because if it was clear and easy to use, nobody would need that "support".
Repay? (Score:3, Informative)
One would assume that Viacom will be required to pay Google's defense fees. And a nice counter suit is always a possibility.
Florida has an answer to appeals trials. One is required to post the sum awarded by the lower court as well as a hefty fee to appear before an appeal court. Since it takes three or four years to get to trial as a rule the lost interest on the money as well as the build up of ongoing legal fees generally rules out any hope of an appeal trial giving relief. Then just to put the frosting on the cake the superior court often rules that the case must be kicked down to the first level and decided from scratch all over again. Then it takes another year to get back to court and get a ruling and there is no guarantee that the case will not be appealed a second time. This turns into a case lasting for fifteen years with expenses so great that the person fighting the uphill side of the battle will drown before it is over.
Re: Repay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Florida has an answer to appeals trials. One is required to post the sum awarded by the lower court as well as a hefty fee to appear before an appeal court. Since it takes three or four years to get to trial as a rule the lost interest on the money as well as the build up of ongoing legal fees generally rules out any hope of an appeal trial giving relief. Then just to put the frosting on the cake the superior court often rules that the case must be kicked down to the first level and decided from scratch all over again. Then it takes another year to get back to court and get a ruling and there is no guarantee that the case will not be appealed a second time. This turns into a case lasting for fifteen years with expenses so great that the person fighting the uphill side of the battle will drown before it is over
First of all, any post beginning with "Florida has an answer" should send you running for the hills. I've dealt with the State of Florida on a few small issues, and it's how I'd like my justice dealt.
More seriously, the problem with this approach is that it has a condition that ensures that someone will "drown fighting the uphill side". In general, any time there's a condition where one party can be "drowned" fighting for their legal rights, you can be certain that the drowning will overwhelmingly be done by those least able to afford the lawyers. It won't necessarily correlate to justice. I think we'd all be better off trying to come up with legal systems that work better for everyone, rather than legal systems that shaft one party in various circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we'd all be better off trying to come up with legal systems that work better for everyone, rather than legal systems that shaft one party in various circumstances.
It's already here.
Where WE = the_superrich and EVERYONE = everyone_with_$1b+_litigation_budget.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. You'll be running far far away from Florida if you run for the hills.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely. The US is not a loser pays system. Unless Google can prove that Viacom's case had no merit whatsoever (which courts almost never agree with, since frivolous cases are technically not supposed to go forward) or that they otherwise acted in some manner that abuses the legal system, there's little chance the court will order them to pay expenses. And even if they did, they would only order whatever part of $100MM they fou
Simple fix (Score:2)
make the loser pay the defendants costs. viacom would think twice before entering into such a lengthy law suit that benefits neither viacom nor google's users, regardless of the outcome.
and $100m? wowzers! americans just LOVE money, hey?
Re: (Score:2)
What happens when I have to sue Google, or Viacom, or whoever? Then they can afford a 100 million dollar defense, while I cannot. Their 100 million dollar lawyers wipe the floor with my legal team, even if I'm 100% in the right. Then I'm on the hook for 100 million dollars, when I was the one wronged in the first place.
Not such a simple fix.
Re: (Score:2)
When elephants fight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple.
You pay a shitload on legal expenses even if you have to pay a judgement.
It's the difference between 100 million and 200 million.
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ. Sure, court cases like Sony vs Betamax aren't good for either party but the general public sure won. Assuming this goes on all the way to the Supreme Court and becomes one of those huge landmark cases, there is a lot riding on this. For a number of reasons most people will not self-host, they rely on services like YouTube. If the court does the sensible thing and finds that it's not Google's problem that Viacom is struggling to enforce their copyright, then that'll be a standard for all sit
How was the money spent? (Score:2)
I can't load the linked article - but I can't help but wonder if Google spent $100 million because Google could throw that kind of money around without second thought rather than because it truly costs that much.
looser pays (Score:2)
Whats wrong with the system we have in sweden - looser pays all legal costs.
That way you dont need to counter sue everytime, and even big corps wont take you to court unless they think they'l win
Of course it would hurt if the small guy sues big corp and looses, but thats not different in the us, so I dont think we are worse of in that perspective.
Re: (Score:2)
because a 100 billion dollar corporation wouldn't want to risk losing $30k in attorneys fees to say, shut down a critic
Except that the critic they're trying to shut down wouldn't have to go hunting for a good lawyer if the case is solid. Presumably, lawyers for the defense would be lining up to take the case.
Imagine how powerful the EFF could become if they had all their expenses reimbursed for all the huge cases they've won. [eff.org]
I'm having a hard time trying to think of good reasons to oppose loser-pays, espec
Re: (Score:2)
As a lawyer, I think EFF does good work but I have some issues with how they operate. For one thing, as the page you link to indicates, they tend to take credit for cases that aren't even theirs; filing an amicus curiae brief is not litigating a case and shouldn't be counted a "win." I also note that concerning the attorneys fees issue, the EFF claimed $400,000 in legal fees in Lenz v.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US there is such a thing as a "contingency fee". This is where you convince a lawyer that your case is good enough to take on for 1/3rd of the proceeds. They get nothing if they lose. Lots of attorneys will take on such cases if they believe the client actually has a good chance of winning.
Of course, the problem is that nobody ever knows what is going to happen in a lawsuit. You go into court and you have no idea what might happen. With a jury you have 12 different people to contend with. Even
Re: (Score:2)
not completely sure, but i believe that in Sweden, the court in the end of the case examines legal costs and only accepts "reasonable" costs, of course that opens up for some levy, but I doubt you would get away with 10M costs in a 10k case. Of course its up to you if you would spend that amount on a case, but you wouldn't get it all back even if you win.
Its not just online (Score:2)
Our rights in any form now goes to the highest bidder.
Money better spent elsewere (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad Summary? (Score:2)
Why does the OP say "our rights" when Google was ostensibly not defending "our rights"... but rather their rights. And even then, what rights of ours would those be? Does he believe we have a right to redistribute the works of others?
Re:Rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's possible GP was talking about the book deal instead of Viacom v. Youtube.
go tell it to the DMCA buddy (Score:5, Interesting)
As much as I disliked the DMCA, the safe-harbor provision has done its job.
Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have,
according to the varying nuances of fair use. The benefits of youtube far outweigh
the theoretical loss of revenue.
Google spent a 100m not defending its good name but to set a legal precedent and defend the value of its company.
Once the legal precedent has been set, the cost of defending these suits will drop a great deal.
Of Google will claim the entire 100m as a tax writeoff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have,
according to the varying nuances of fair use.
Don't forget that viacom was uploading to youtube with sockpuppet accounts at the same time.
Re: (Score:2)
Connivance.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as I disliked the DMCA, the safe-harbor provision has done its job.
Google didn't violate peoples copyrights. The individual uploaders may or may not have, according to the varying nuances of fair use. The benefits of youtube far outweigh the theoretical loss of revenue.
Google spent a 100m not defending its good name but to set a legal precedent and defend the value of its company. Once the legal precedent has been set, the cost of defending these suits will drop a great deal.
Of Google will claim the entire 100m as a tax writeoff.
Screw that! I am very happy with the amount Google spent...
*IF* Google remembers this part of the DMCA: 512(f)
(f) Misrepresentations.— Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section—
(1) that material or activity is infringing, or
(2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it.
Inotherwords, Viacom owes Google their court costs, expenses AND the expenses related to disabling/removing the content. After all, Viacom knowingly had content removed that they posted or authorized for posting - that's a knowing violation right there - not to mention trying to use the DMCA for an "after the fact, the DMCA has already been satisfied on the other issues" attack.
If memory serv