Last October, Google settled the lawsuit brought against it by book publishers and authors concerning its massive book-scanning project. The $125 million deal gives Google the right to store digital copies of the books, include them in its search results, sell online versions and license its book-scans to libraries. It also allows millions of "orphan" works (books still under copyright but whose copyright-holders can't be found) to be included in Google's program.

The only obstacle remaining for the settlement to take effect is final court approval. Given a case of this scope, it's not too surprising that a number of interested parties might lodge objections or ask for changes. Nor is it terribly surprising that at least one party nudging its way into the settlement is an internet-issues-oriented group from New York Law School.

But what does raise an eyebrow is the source of New York Law's funding on this matter: Microsoft.

Microsoft, which lost an anti-trust case of its own in the '90s, has been lobbying to get the government to constrain Google. The Softies already can claim some part in urging the government to decide to challenge a Google-Yahoo ad partnership project last year (which became moot when Google bailed on the plan). But the book settlement is a new battleground.

The Court permits objections until May 5, and will conduct a hearing on June 11. In a letter to the court asking permission to file an amicus curiae brief on the settlement, attorney Daniel Kornstein, representing New York Law School’s Institute for Information Law and

Policy, wrote that the brief would address a number of concerns. It would also request that the Court "solicit the opinions of the

Anti-trust Division of the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade

Commission."

Explaining what the New York Law School brings to the party,

Kornstein cited its mission "to understand the interplay of law and technology and influence their development to serve democratic values in the digital age ... to extend human knowledge and harness new informational tools to the goals of social justice." The Institute, he writes, "is in a position to make a significant contribution to the resolution of the legal issues in dispute by virtue of its recognized scholarly expertise in intellectual property and Internet law.”

And, oh, by the way, he also discloses that the efforts of "the second oldest independent law school in the United States" is funded in part by Google's main competitor, Microsoft.

The chief investigator of the New York Law School project is James

Grimmelmann. In an earlier career phase, associate law professor

Grimmelmann worked as a programmer for Microsoft. At a conference in

February, Grimmelmann was discussing his views of the book settlement with a policy specialist of his former employer, and the Microsoft exec reminded Grimmelmann that the company has had a continuing interest in funding academic efforts.

On March 11, Grimmelmann laid out the project in a proposal sent to

Microsoft. The amicus brief is one four initiatives the Law School will undertake. The others are a series of white papers, a symposium on the settlement issues, and a website that will act as a hub of activity for those challenging or asking for changes on the settlement. Grimmelmann proposed that Microsoft's contribution to fund these efforts should be

$50,000, and he now confirms Microsoft pledged that amount. Though

Grimmelmann says other contributors may emerge, currently Microsoft is the sole outside funder of New York Law School's Google Book Settlement

Project.

Microsoft says that its behavior should be viewed in the context of similar academic grants over the years. "We are funding this like we fund dozens of law projects," says Tom Rubin, Microsoft's chief counsel for intellectual property strategy. "The issues that are implicated in the settlement are important ones. New York Law School has taken an important position on orphan works and they deserve to be heard."

Rubin says that as with other instances of Microsoft funding of academic projects, the recipients maintain their independence and are free to reach any conclusions. He won't comment on whether Microsoft itself plans to file an objection to the settlement.

It may be a good investment on Microsoft's part, but doesn't the

Microsoft money taint New York Law School's efforts? "I'm sure there's a danger in being perceived as compromised," says Grimmelmann. "But I know it's not affecting our work. Microsoft is willing to send us money to do good work with our students and we're happy to take it."

(Grimmelmann's own stance on the Google Settlement, first expressed in a blog posting last November, is rather nuanced. He thinks it's a positive development, but wants significant change — generally, ones that restrain Google. He also says that at various times, his positions on issues have been anti-Microsoft as well as anti-Google.)

My conversation with Grimmelmann came just after his session at the

East Coast Foo Camp last weekend, a conference run by O’Reilly Media.

The name of the session was "Hacking the Google Book Settlement."

Turns out that cleverest hacker here is Microsoft, making an academic grant that may help put some judicial heat on its rival.

See Also: