It's hardly the only example, though. IBM did hard work to defend Linux against Microsoft and SCO's attacks. Apple cracked the carriers' line against useful smartphones with unlimited data, 30% instead of 90% carrier cuts in app stores, and freedom from spyware and crapware; Jobs' sales pitch to AT&T was as big an innovation as any tech in the iPhone. Google fights for net neutrality, fair use, and free speech on the internet. All the big players were active in the effort to organize the users of the internet against SOPA, too.

But the big players can also be destructive. Smartphone patent wars are a danger and a disappointment. If the major players would turn their Washington efforts to our common best interests, we could have excluded software entirely from patent monopolies by now. It certainly would have saved them many billions to do the right thing. Instead they fight to a standstill in courts at great expense and leave startups endangered and exploited in their path.

So let's hope for more of this in the future and tip our hats to Google and Judge Chin this time.

Just another example of the "taking economy" that seems so popular these days among the short-sighted.

The 200 lawyers aren't some magic wand you wave at judges, the 200 lawyers work together to come up with a fantastic argument for whatever it is you're trying to accomplish.

The fact that it was Google may have made the judge realize that this is the kind of thing that could change the world more quickly than if it had been a no-name startup, but Google's track record of blowing the doors off of innovation is something they've earned, not bought (necessarily).

I just don't think it's really a criticism of Google that they won this case at all.

Change can be for the worse as well, you realize?

And your claim about the Judge deciding this differently because it was Google rather than Aaron Swartz Jr. All plaintiffs are supposed to be equal under the law, so whether it's Google or LoneCoder the ruled result should be the same.

Starting to understand how the world got to be as f'd up as it is reading these HN comments...

You mean the same constitutional insight that led him to neglect fair use and decide against Google, only to be reversed on appeal by the Second Circuit which ordered him to do it right?

Yeah, he probably would have done exactly the same if it had been Joe Startup and not Google. Whether Joe Startup would have survived through the process long enough to get to the Second Circuit without being forced to settle and give up is a different question.

Had it been a small non-profit, or some bootstrapped startup, they may have been able to get cheap representation via the EFF or some other group that defends the public interest.

And they very likely would have lost.

I think that cft is insinuating that the law is not the same for the wealthy and well-connected and the poor.

Precedent-setting may not be for the lone wolf without a nickel to his name, but it's rare in any ecosystem that the penniless loner can turn around as monstrous a ship as the US legal system.

Perhaps what's compelling here is that Google's core business is not selling books, that they have super-sized legal resources and that they chose to devote siginificant resources to this even when it does not appear to contribute much to their bottom line.

Would you feel better if Google had the donated funds to libraries to allow them to scan their collections and to defend themselves against any legal challenges? Honest question.

It's the copyright owner's choice to be in a program that may increase sales. If he wishes to decrease sales, that is also his choice and should have the right to opt out.

data is extremely valuable. The data of millions of books many of which have been edited by professionals is really priceless for a corporation like Google.

I won't be surprised when Apple, Microsoft and Facebook start their own "platform" to help out the public and help out authors by increasing sales by showing the public their works.