More here. (I will try to get my hands on the 12-page response to analyze it.)
UPDATE: Google/YouTube’s Answer (link below in comments) is pretty bare bones — which is fairly typical for an answer. Besides the first paragraph, the Answer is pretty rudimentary, if not downright boring. Mostly pro forma denials, sprinkled in with a few admissions of facts by Google/YouTube. Google/YouTube will (of course) be making the DMCA safe harbor the center piece of its defense. Here are a couple things to note:
1. I’m a little surprised there’s no mention of the Netcom type defense, although it may not be an affirmative defense that has to be plead (I’m not sure).
2. Also, the biggest surprise was that Google’s enlisted trial attorney Philip Beck from the Chicago firm of Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, who last year successfully defended Merck in four of five cases last year in the Vioxx trials (he also represented GW Bush against Gore in the 2000 election fiasoc). Beck’s known for knowledge of technology and his use of technology and visual aids in the courtroom, which may be another reason Google liked him. More about Beck here.
Jonathan Jacobson from Wilson Sonsini’s NY office or David Kramer from Wilson’s home office in Palo Alto appears to be lead counsel. Only Kramer is a copyright specialist; Beck (who has done patent litigation as well) and Jacobson are there because they are heavyweight trial attorneys with a track record of defending high profile cases.
Analysis: One thing is for sure about this case. The lawyers on both sides will benefit, while Google/YouTube and Viacom continue to disagree about a deal.
Here is the URL to Google’s answer: http://news.justia.com/cases/viacom-youtube/337988/21/0.pdf
You can get the other documents and track new documents filed in the case here: http://news.justia.com/cases/viacom-youtube/337988/
http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2007/070430_Google_Viacom.pdf
Enjoy
Thanks, guys! I will review this today and update the post.