This will supplement my earlier post with some observations on the Google Books decision from attorney C.E. Petit, who focuses on copyright and author’s issues.
[T]he “real holding” is that the settlement improperly reaches too far, for a combination of procedural and substantive reasons — especially as the settlement concerns a release for Google’s future conduct. Over time, I suspect that this will become the majority perception of the opinion. . . .
. . . .
An appeal has slightly (but only slightly) more than a snowball’s chance in hell of being successful: The meat of Judge Chin’s opinion is actually very early — the part where he objects that there are conflicts between the named representatives and the class, and among the named representatives. Findings of this nature are reviewed on appeal only for “abuse of discretion”… and the Second Circuit has not reversed a judge’s rejection of a settlement after finding that conflicts of interest made representation inadequate in over two decades.
Link to the rest at Scrivener’s Error