THIS HURTS MY HEAD

From Publishers Weekly (thanks to Sheila for the heads up...)
"Librarians and book re-sellers say their core activities are now in question after the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on August 15 upheld a lower court decision finding that the “First Sale” doctrine in U.S. copyright law—the provision that enables libraries to lend and consumers to re-sell books they’ve lawfully purchased—does not apply to works manufactured outside the U.S. While the verdict stands as a major victory for the publishing industry, which has long fought the “illegal importation of foreign works,” especially textbooks, critics say the broad decision goes too far, and could harm libraries and encourage the outsourcing of jobs. "
Go here for the whole article.

JANET SCHULMAN

I just found out that Janet Schulman passed away last week. I'd seen her in the Random House office here and there but never really spoke more than briefly. I wished that I'd had the opportunity to have a meaningful conversation over tea and crackers... or something... but it just never happened. I think she meant a lot to publishing and despite the fact that I never got to know her personally I remember pushing her anthology books-- The 20th Century Children's Book Treasury: Celebrated Picture Books and Stories to Read Aloud (Knopf, 1998) and You Read to Me & I'll Read to You: Stories to Share from the 20th Century (Knopf, 2001) a lot while working in the children's dept. at the bookstore. Anytime anyone wanted a present I told them either would make for a fine one.

I recall reading a long time ago, with fascination, about she forged the way early on for women in publishing. Before being editor at large at Random House she was marketing director at Macmillan. This is part of what she wrote in Publishers Weekly:

"With the New York Times #1 bestseller Watership Down and the many other commercially and critically successful authors and illustrators that Hirschman brought to the list, plus the Narnia books as the anchor of the paperback line that we started in 1970, the children’s division was growing rapidly and contributing significant profit. In the fall of 1974, though the country was in a deep recession with inflation cutting into profits, we believed that Macmillan, Inc. was in good shape....

But on October 14 and 15 of that year Macmillan suddenly fired 185 people from its offices at 866 Third Avenue. Why? Wall Street viewed it as a business blunder. Others viewed it as a Machiavellian scheme. It was both....

(there's a lot more to this and you can read the whole article here - I'm cutting a lot of it out)

At four o’clock that afternoon, after 13 years service, I was given one hour to get out, as was my staff of five....

In 1973 women employees had begun gathering facts about how Macmillan discriminated against them. I had always suspected (correctly) that I was being paid far less than male vice-presidents or male marketing managers. The final straw was my discovery, after I had a baby, that maternity medical benefits that were denied me were given to the wives of male Macmillan employees. I joined the Macmillan women’s group and was subsequently elected co-chairperson.

We filed a class action complaint with the federal EEOC on May 15, 1974 and on September 5 New York State Attorney General Louis J. Lefkowitz charged Macmillan with sex discrimination in a complaint filed with the State Division of Human Rights. On October 9 some 200 Macmillan women met at the YWCA on Lexington Avenue to hear an attorney from the State Division of Human Rights inform us of our rights. Less than a week later nine of us who had signed our names to the attorney general’s complaint were among those fired, as were a number of other active members of the Macmillan Women’s group.

The New York publishing world was shocked. The firings were front page news in the New York Times and were covered in most New York media. The Washington Post headlined its story “Mac the Knife...

Three years after the EEOC consent decree was signed I received a check from Macmillan for $2,841.61. A modest sum based on my not continuing employment with Macmillan after October 15, 1974… as if I had a choice! The money meant little to me. I felt vindicated that the small part I played was going to make things better for all women in publishing. And I think it did."

Janet was 77.

B&N NOOK UNDER FIRE

B&N is being sued by Spring Design for "stealing" design features now existing in the Nook. I'd known about this for a while and had read the actual court documents via Wikileaks. But apparently the lawsuit is going forward. The judge this month said there is enough evidence to go to trial. I don't like this!!! (I have my reasons).

FROM PC WORLD NOV 2009:
"According to court documents, Spring Design first presented their design for Alex to a Barnes & Noble consultant on February 17, 2009 – five days after both sides signed a non-disclosure agreement. On March 20, Spring Design met with Ravi Gopalakrishnan, head of B&N software development, who allegedly told Spring executives that B&N wanted a product that would compete with the Kindle.

"In April and May, Spring Design met with other B&N executives, including William Lynch, president of B&N.com and Kevin Frain, B&N's CFO. Lynch and Frain were given a product demo and shown a PowerPoint presentation for an Android-based e-reader known as Alex.

"Lynch warned Spring's Albert Teng that he should not consider Amazon as a content partner, because Amazon was likely to steal Spring's unique idea without ever buying anything from Spring," according to court documents.

"Thanks for coming and showing us your innovative work," Lynch wrote in an e-mail after the meeting. "Kevin [Frain] owns these partnerships and I know he's excited to work with you. Looking forward."

In July, B&N requested a summary of Spring's product development and on October 1, B&N had a meeting with Spring's CEO to discuss possible revenue sharing for Spring's Alex device in the university textbook market."

LAW 360 SAYS:
In his Dec. 27 opinion Judge Ware said the evidence B&N and Spring submitted showed "extensive dispute" over whether prior e-reader devices had "disclosed all aspects of plaintiff's trade secrets" and that the evidence was divided on whether B&N had developed the Nook independently.

"Comparing the specific features of the Nook with [Spring's] alleged trade secrets is a fact-intensive task best left to a jury," the judge said.

In December 2009, Judge Ware denied Spring's motion for a preliminary injunction in the suit, allowing B&N to market the Nook while the lawsuit continued. At the time, the judge found that Spring had not shown sufficient likelihood of success on its merits or that an injunction would be in the public interest."

What will become of all of this? What if B&N couldn't make the Nook anymore? Would they go back to focusing on what they did prior? PRINTED BOOKS? What if what they owed was too great? Can the industry survive without this giant? I know on a personal level I cannot. Hmmm.

My own vote is that the Nook looks far better than Alex design wise. So whether features were taken or not, they definitely improved upon things. And as you know, I'm not a fan of e-readers - but if I HAD to pick one, I would pick the Nook. It looks better. I always go by looks. I would pick the iPad but it's too big/heavy to carry around and therefore doesn't work for reading purposes. It works more as a laptop without the keyboard.

What would you pick?