The Official Laboratorium Jellyfish

The Laboratorium has been brought to you since 2000 by James Grimmelmann. Here's some information about the site and here's my disclosure statement.

Recent Comments

Ayelet Oz, on GBS: Google Books in Israel?, “As I see it, http://books.google.co.il/ is the Hebrew version of Google Books.…”

john walker, on GBS: Macbeth without the Prince, “James A better story title for GBS , could be “The Battle…”

Douglas Fevens, on GBS: Google Editions to Launch This Summer, “The article gives a launch date as “late June or July”. Perhaps…”

Peter G, on Epic Fail, “I fail to discern your point, James.…”

john walker, on GBS: First Digital Humanities Grants Announced, “The biggest selling book, reprinted several times, written by Edgar Allan Poe,…”

john walker, on GBS: Final Version of Samuelson's Future of Books in Cyberspace, “Pamela Samuelson is a clear contender for this years ‘Oliver Sacks trophy’.…”

john walker, on GBS: First Digital Humanities Grants Announced, “The projects sound riveting. I look forward to Titles like- “The songs…”

john walker, on GBS: Final Version of Samuelson's Future of Books in Cyberspace, “Having had a chance to properly read this excellent history( i.e. get…”

Douglas Fevens, on GBS: Open Book Alliance Writes to Congress, “Regarding the comment above: “This newspaper article and my comment to it…”

Frances Grimble, on GBS: First Digital Humanities Grants Announced, “So, how to find out whether copyrighted books are being used for…”

Archives

2010
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul 
2009
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2008
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2007
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2006
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2005
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2004
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2003
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2002
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2001
Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
2000
Jan  Mar  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec 
1999
Jan  Feb  Mar  Sep 
1998
Jan  May  Jun  Sep  Nov 
1997
Sep 
1995
Nov 
1993
Oct 
1992
Oct 


Old Sideblog Archive


Pondering Potter Archive

I am systematically digging through last week’s filings. I’ll start by giving a quick rundown of the motion for attorneys fees. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given how big this case has become, the counsel for the author sub-class are asking for the full $30 million in fees and reimbursement of their out-of-pocket costs.

As set out in their memorandum of law in support, you can get to that number in one of two ways. First, there’s the “lodestar” method: calculate how much you’d have billed if you’d been working for a normal, paying client, then multiply by some figure to reflect the uncertain chances of recovery. Under that method, they’ve invested a little over $10 million in billable time, so they’re asking for a multiplier a little under 3. Here are some salient details about how the $10 million figure was calculated:

Boni declaration in support of the motion for attorneys fees, ex. C: Michael Boni and Joanne Zack bill at $675 an hour. Boni has spent 4997.5 hours on the case; Zack has spent 3326 hours. Boni & Zack LLC as a whole has spent 9778.75 hours.

Id., ex. D: Boni & Zack has incurred $151,700.37 in out-of-pocket expenses on the case. That includes $86,511.16 on expert witnesses and consultants, and $44,742.66 on travel-related expenses.

Id., ex. F (declaration of Sanford Dumain), p.5: Milberg LLP put 4,519 hours into the case, spread out among more attorneys. One partner, two associates, and five contract attorneys worked more than a hundred hours on the case. NYU professor (and head of Milberg’s appellate practice) Arthur Miller logged 18 hours and claims a rate of $995 an hour.

Id., ex. G (declaration of Robert LaRocca), p. 6: While at Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Boni worked another 1342.70 hours on the case, out of a total of 4718.80 hours of firm time.

The other method of calculation is to look at benefits to class members. Out of the $109.5 million Google is to pay (not counting the separate attorney fees for the publishers’ counsel), $30 million is about 27 percent.

The numbers used for total benefits include minimum of $45 million pool for the $60 per principal book, but as pointed out by Prof G, under GBS par 5.1 (b) Google has to continue to pay more as required by proof of claimed books. With Clancy confirming over 10 million books now scanned from over 40 libraries each million of principal books charges Google $60 million, so this fund grows to $240 million, real money, if 4 million of these books are principal works.And there is more for inserts.Adding into the balance the open ended future revenue streams from the advertising splits, thats a lot of money from this endeavor to trickle down to authors and publishers via the BRR.
Well, $30 million is alot of money for lawyers, but the number is not unconscionable if Google in fact will be paying over $120 (say for 2 mill principal claimed books) for its scanning violations. Whether $30 million is reasonable as opposed to unconscionable, well that is up to Judge Chin to say.

Post a comment



You can use HTML style tags or Markdown.

Comment Preview: