text:
August 23, 2008
Linda Grant: The Clothes on their Backs
Being the obsessive type that I am, I ordered all the Booker longlisted titles on the evening of the announcement (other than the two I'd read previously). When they arrived, I saw that ten of the eleven were still in their first printing, and industry sources tell us that most of the books had sold poorly until then, some (such as Michelle de Kretser's The Lost Dog) having shifted just a few hundred copies. I noticed one exception: Linda Grant's The Clothes on their Backs had been reprinted twice since its publication six months earlier. Clearly it exceeded its publisher's expectations. Good: because it also exceeded mine.
I admit that when I started The Clothes on their Backs, I was feeling jaded about the Booker longlist experience, and to some extent just wanted to get it over with. Linda Grant's novel changed that, and gave me the sort of pure reading pleasure that I haven't had since, oh, July. What I welcomed most was that – at last! – here on the longlist was a book which had strong explicit themes and subject matter, vivid characters, good dialogue and a web of interesting storylines. All in all, what we expect from a fine example of a traditional literary novel (and I mean no faint praise by that).
The structure is neat, starting us off near the end of the story and then weaving back and forth through the linked lives of the characters until we end up where we began. The narrator is Vivien Amory, née Kovacs, a middle-aged woman, living in London ("I accept this city, with all its uncontrollable chaos and dirty deficiencies"), of Hungarian stock, who is attempting to get to the bottom of the discord between her uncle and her father.
My father was terrified of change. When change was in the air anything could happen, and he already suffered from an anxiety: that any small disturbance in his circumstances would bring everything down – the flat, the wife, the job, the new daughter, London itself, then England, and he would slide down the map of the world, back to Hungary, clinging on uselessly, ridiculously, with his fingers clutching the smooth, rolling surface of the globe.
Her uncle Sándor could not be more different: "a monster, a true beast," Vivien's parents warn her; "the face of evil," the newspapers say, whose CV would list jailbird, pimp, slum landlord and more besides. Now we're talking. Vivien meets Sándor, and my heart sank a little when Grant used the hackneyed device of Vivien extracting Sándor's past by transcribing his dictated memoirs. Fortunately, this is not the beginning of a book-long entry into wartime Hungary. Grant's skill here is not to dwell on the stories of Sándor's past – and that of Hungarian Jews generally – but to ration them, and thus to avoid diluting their force.
Sándor plays down the effect of life under the Hungarian Fascists, the Arrow Cross – "I was one of the ones who didn't change. I began as a businessman and that's how I continued" – and makes the case that life in anti-Semitic wartime it was, for most of the people, most of the time, literally business as usual. But there are stark memories which cannot be effaced.
After the quarantine camp, they were all taken for a bath, the first in over three years, and their clothes, the ones they had left home in, were boiled and ridden of the millions of lice that had taken up residence there.
In clean clothes they felt suddenly reborn. They examined their rags for signs that they had once been human beings. Might this flap be a lapel, and was this an indication of a pocket? A piece of cloth bore faint traces of once having been tweed. This man's trousers had once been exhibited in the window of a fashionable department store in 1937, with a ticket indicating a high price. But though the slaves were clean and dry, they were also starving. They ripped grass from the earth and ate it. Men were writhing and dying in their boiled clothes.
It is the connection between life in Hungary and life in Britain – a journey made in some cases with only the clothes they stood up in, "the clothes on their backs" – which animates the novel. Vivien's parents have become cowed by their past: "Don't ask questions," Vivien's father tells her when she watches news of Sándor's trial. "No one ever had a quiet life by asking questions, and a life that isn't peaceful is no life at all." Sándor has come out fighting, not always to his or others' benefit ("'Truth?' cried my uncle. 'Miss, people who like to hear the truth don't know nothing about the truth. Truth would make them sick if they knew it. Truth isn't nice. It's for grown-up people, not children'"). The two brothers seem together to make a whole, like the completeness Vivien experiences in adolescence by discovering how to change her appearance. "I found myself in two halves, the interior and exterior of my own head."
Vivien's story is a clamour of details, here there and everywhere, and at times it seems there are too many elements in the mix, some of which are not fully explored, such as Vivien's widowhood and abortion. (I mention these as examples which are raised early in the book, and so shouldn't constitute spoilers.) In the end I felt this fluid approach was justified, as James Salter wrote of his magnificent Light Years:
The only things that are important in life are those you remember. … It was to be a book of pure recall.
So for Vivien, the everyday things – including "the clothes you wear … they change you from the outside in" – are more pressing and worthy of notice than the increasingly distant memories of her very brief marriage. In addition, most of the scattered aspects are revisited with sufficient frequency ("Who can really remember pain? It's impossible, you don't remember it, you only fear it returning") to make it clear that they do form part of a larger pattern. If the story is how the past leads to the present, then it is important to bring to life that present.
I am unsure whether I really can't think of anything I disliked about The Clothes on their Backs, or if I was just relieved to like it after finding so much mediocrity in the rest of the Booker longlist. It's one of those books which makes me frustrated at my own inability to convey why I got so much out of it: suffice it to say that I feel I haven't touched on half the qualities – did I mention the just-so humour in the dialogue? – and ideas – how extremism evolves to fit its society, for example – in the book. Vivien, in a youthful attempt to become a newspaper literary critic ("No one had ever defended literature so honourably from its own practitioners"), is told by the books editor:
Listen, dear, all we want to know is what the subject is, a bit of an idea about the plot, who the characters are and whether the author has pulled off what they set out to do.
Oh. Right. Give me a minute.
17 Comments »
'"Truth?' cried my uncle. 'Miss, people who like to hear the truth don't know nothing about the truth."'
I can't be the only one who read that and thought of Jack Nicholson's line in 'A Few Good Men': "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"
It does sound awfully worthy, John, though that image of the father clinging onto the globe is great.
An excellent review which I think captures the spirit of the book. I will admit that I was not that impressed with this book when I first read it, but having given it a second read I find that various parts of it keep coming to mind — and the overall impression of the book keeps getting better. I fully expect to see it on the shortlist; I think it has more than an outside chance of winning the Prize.
I think John's review captures the very real strength (and perhaps weakness) of this book. Grant does not try to over-achieve or set her sights too high — she wants to tell a pretty tightly-restricted story. In doing so, she creates excellent characters and certainly draws an excellent story line (I'll call it the 1970s immigrant experience). The result, as John's review suggests, is a very rewarding novel.
Part of my (English) dictionary's definition of the word worthy reads: 2. entitled to (esp. condescending) recognition.
Which I suppose is more or less what I meant.
I'm waiting for the short list at this point. The long list has been a bit of a slog so far.
After you read some books on your TBR pile, maybe a revisit of Clothes will help you enjoy it more.
This is the only novel so far really exciting the kind of discussion I was expecting from the longlist, and I note also that a few people have talked about it growing in their memory while most of this year's seem to diminish with time instead.
Hopefully this will make the shortlist, it sounds like one of very few so far which should even have made the longlist.
What a very peculiar year.
Glad you enjoyed this John. Its still standing as my favourite so far. It caught me by surprise, arriving quietly compared to a lot of the bluster surrounding some of the other novels. I like what you said about it being a 'traditional' novel in a complimentary way – sometimes authors try too hard to be different and the story and the telling are weakened for that. I'm now seeking out other Grant novels, wondering if I've overlooked someone I could really like.
Thank you for your support, John (and others.) I'll have a little more to say about the clothes question when the interview goes up on the Perspectives section of the Man Booker website.
I would not describe it as a metaphor, more a way of approaching the human condition of each character. It runs throughout the book, sometimes in the background, sometimes foregrounded, but it's always there, one way or another. It links to novel's main theme, which is the various questions surrounding the nature of suffering and survival, to live and not live, literally and in spirit.
Hope that helps.
[…] Asylum […]
[…] Grant was the surprise of the Booker 2008 season for me: her novel The Clothes on their Backs was the best on the shortlist and, in my opinion, should have won. Inevitably, then, I wanted to […]
[…] Grant was the surprise of the Booker 2008 season for me: her novel The Clothes on their Backs was the best on the shortlist and, in my opinion, should have won. Inevitably, then, I wanted to […]


text:
|3678 North Freeway Blvd., Sacramento
|Monday - Friday 10:00AM-9:00PM
|Saturday 9:00AM-9:00PM
|Sunday 10:00AM-7:00PM
|(916) 419-6808
Beverages and More!, better known as BevMo, is your source for any and all things alcohol. Large beer selection, larger wine selection, and a good selection of other alcoholic beverages. They also have brewing kits if you want to make your own. Throw in a bunch of cheeses, chips, and other snacks and accessories, and you have what the name of the store describes. If you like cigars, they have a few of those as well.
There is another location in Arden, but the Natomas location (linked above) is closest to Davis, just off the Truxel exit of I80.
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2008-07-16 00:52:17 Disney Land for Alcoholics —DavisResident23

subset: commoncrawl


text:
BUG Community
Log In
Everything else
How To
Want to post in this category?
Top Writers
Popular Development
SWTBot for Eclipse UI Testing
Java 7 (OpenJDK/IcedTea) for the BUG 2.0
BitBake Commander 0.6.8 - Installers!
Java VMs Compared III: Return of the Java VM Comparison
node.js for BUG 2.0
OpenEmbedded Tools for Eclipse 0.6.0
Learning to enjoy writing test cases
BUG + OpenJDK
OpenEmbedded Tools for Eclipse
OpenEmbedded Tools for Eclipse (OTE) 0.4.3 Live
Editors, State, and steb 0.2.0
May 17, 2009
views (346)
Comments (50)
It seems that some Eclipse editors just don't like being instantiated out of the blue. Some editors store global state and other things in a project and expect to get access to that project. So then steb goes to load an editor and ... fizzle, the editor has some kind of error. To get around this problem I added the ability to override various editors installed in your Eclipse instance. Checked editors will not be...
read more
Version 1.3 of Dragonfly, the BUG SDK: Best Release Ever
May 15, 2009
views (739)
Comments (82)
We released the latest version of the BUG SDK today. This has a number of improvements over the last version, and it's our best version ever. I highly recommend upgrading to this version as there are a number of improvements in stability and functionality. To upgrade, I suggest starting with a fresh install of Eclipse 3.4.2, which can be found on the Eclipse Downloads Page . Then follow the directions on our SDK Install Guide...
read more
BitBake Commander 0.6.8 - Installers!
April 21, 2009
views (3023)
Comments (190)
A new release of OpenEmbedded Tools for Eclipse is available that adds the ability to install a flavor of OpenEmbedded via a simple GUI wizard as shown below. Currently available install profiles are OpenEmbedded dev branch, Poky Linux, and BUG-Poky. Other OpenEmbedded distros can be easily added, as the wizard configures itself based on a bash script. Other enhancements include:- UI cleanup - Existing project wizard is now an Import Project Wizard to follow my...
read more
April 14, 2009
views (338)
Comments (30)
The very first thing I noticed when I started to "play" with the bug was that swing library was missing. After a couple of month I just accepted AWT is the best I could do. But a few weeks ago started to see the light at the end of the tunnel thanks to LWUITMB. LWUTMB is a port of LWUIT on top the MicroBackend Library. With some modification I was able to import LWUITMB into...
read more
Learning to enjoy writing test cases
March 30, 2009
views (2446)
Comments (74)
I'm not big on writing test cases. Before joining Bug Labs, I mainly did .NET dev for three years, and "building" a project was sufficient enough to move on to the next item. When I started doing Rails stuff, bballantine told me why I should be writing test cases and so did numerous bloggers/developers. Ok, I get it. But writing test cases was still only a bit less painful than pulling teeth for me."I could...
read more
Beagleboard Touch Ups
March 30, 2009
views (527)
Comments (59)
In a non-bug related news...Last week we got some beagleboards in here to play around with. After been knee deep in u-boot work for quite some time, I noticed two pretty serious (for me at least) short-commings on the beagle's u-boot environment.1) No command history...2) When booting from the mmc/sd card, the Kernel can only boot off fat partitions...Fortunately the first issue is just a configuration file fix. The second issue was also easy to...
read more
Some Javadocs
March 26, 2009
views (452)
Comments (70)
People. Sheesh. You'd think the source code would be enough, but no, they want documentation. Ha!For R1.4 the Javadocs are now available for the BUG Java/OSGi code and for pMEA. If there is some code not contained here that you'd like to get the javadocs for let me know and I'll post them.
read more
BUG Release 1.4 and SDK 188.8.131.52 are now live!
March 13, 2009
views (764)
Comments (149)
Ken Gilmer asked me come out of rebloggerment to post this message. I gave up blogging in in the mid 80's. Oh! Did I forget to tell you that I invented Blogging?Seriously though.. I'm proud to announce that we have released BUG Release 1.4 and SDK 184.108.40.206 for public consumption. Please note that BUG hardware running R1.4 must use SDK version 184.108.40.206R1.4 kernel and rootfs downloads: http://bugcommunity.com/downloads/R1.4 release notes: http://bugcommunity.com/wiki/index.php/R1.4_Release_notesSDK 220.127.116.11 download: http://buglabs.net/sdkSDK Release notes:...
read more
Back in FFFFFreezing NYC
February 23, 2009
views (295)
Comments (34)
Scale was great, a nice little warm break from the freezing winds in NYC. Our session went pretty well, Matt and I talked about the BUG to a fairly packed room of interested folks [Video Part 1] [Video Part 2] [slides]. When polling them, about half had done some embedded development, half had done some Java development, and 1/3 were familiar with OpenEmbedded. I was encourged by these numbers. We went over the BUG hardware,...
read more
Pulling my Funtoo portage tree from 10,000 ft.
February 19, 2009
views (324)
Comments (47)
Matt and I are in the air on our way to LAX for SCaLE. Turns out Virgin America as the internet in the air. Had to give it a try, and found the latency and bandwitdth pretty amazing. Here is me syncing my portage tree somewhere over Indiana. A first?
read more
of 78
BUG Community
Bug Labs
Log In
Powered by
Community Engine


text:
|Last Updated ( Monday, 09 January 2012 14:52 )
|Create Trust By Building Long Term Relationships
A popular question I'm often asked from service providers is how to best gain more clients. Simply, you gain clients by taking the time to build long term relationships. Seasoned sales folks recognize this investment of time and it's not about how fast they can get a prospect to exchange their money for your services and products right this moment. Way too often, the focus is on how we can do business with people, not how can we serve people. See the subtle but clear difference?


text:
Thandie Newtown wore a Stella McCartney shift dress from the fall collection to the Jimmy Choo 'The Season' Dinner Party. Shoefessional
Thandie Newton
Thandie Newton wore a black vintage dress from Gathering Goddess to the premiere of "Rogue" at ArcLight Cinemas in Hollywood, California. Image Getty
Thandie Newton wore a beaded vintage Swee Lo dress from the Gathering Goddess to the "Rogue" Series New York Premiere at Tribeca Grand Screening Room in NYC. Image Getty
Thandie Newton walked the red carpet in a gold Temperley London Pre-Fall 2012 and Jimmy Choo sandals at Tyler Perry's Good Deeds Premiere held at Regal Cinemas, Los Angeles.February 14th, 2012. Image credit Daylife
Thandie Newton wore a blue dress from the Stella McCartney Resort 2012 collection to the world premiere of 'The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel' at The Curzon Mayfair on February 7, 2012 in London, England. Image credit Daylife


text:
0cart: $0.00
Previous Page
[x] Close Window
Send your friend(s) a link to this product along with a personal message!
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
To: (your friend's email)
Your Message:
Cc me
Please enter the text below:
Alternate Images:
Overall Rating:
be the first to write a review
You'll look like an absolute rose in the Golden Betty Kit which includes: A brilliant white wig with voluminous curls, faux pearl necklace and matching earrings. A pair of realistic looking, matured breasts are also included in this white haired maven's style. 4-piece set.
For the complete Golden oldie look apply white powder to the face, red lipstick and a massive amount of mascara (sold separately).
Retail Value: $26.99
Our Price: $22.99
Product ID: #75055
Golden Betty Adult Costume Kit
Select one or more items and submit your email address to be notified when the product is available.
© CelebrateExpress.com. All Rights Reserved.CEWEB01


text:
The Authors Guild et al v. Google Inc.
Filing 209
Objection to Proposed Settlement. Document filed by Arlo Guthrie, Julia Wright, Catherine Ryan Hyde, Eugene Linden. (DeVore, Andrew)
T h e A u t h o r ' s G u i l d e t a lD ov UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- X THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC., ASSOCIATION : : OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS, INC., et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : GOOGLE INC., : Defendant. : : -------------------------------------------------------------- X No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC) OBJECTIONS OF ARLO GUTHRIE, JULIA WRIGHT, CATHERINE RYAN HYDE, AND EUGENE LINDEN TO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DEVORE & DEMARCO LLP Andrew C. DeVore (AD - 3511) Amin Kassam (AK - 7860) 99 Park Avenue, 16th floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 922-9499 Attorneys for Class Members Arlo Guthrie, Julia Wright, Catherine Ryan Hyde, and Eugene Linden D o c k TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 2 I. THE COMPLAINT ................................................................................................................. 2 II. THE PARTIES ........................................................................................................................ 3 III. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ..................................................................................... 4 A. B. C. D. E. I. The Revenue Provisions ..................................................................................................... 4 The Release of Trademark and Other Non-Copyright Claims ........................................... 5 The Release of Future Claims ............................................................................................. 7 The Exclusion of Authors from any Control Over or Revenue from Google's Exploitation of Non-Display Uses of Their Works ........................................................... 7 The Settlement Agreement Deprives Authors of Rights In and Control Over Inserts ...... 9 THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF AUTHORS FAILED TO REPRESENT ADEQUATELY CRITICAL INTERESTS OF THE AUTHOR SUB-CLASS ................... 10 OBJECTIONS............................................................................................................................... 10 II. THE AGREEMENT IMPERMISSIBLY RELEASES BOTH CLAIMS NOT ASSERTED IN THE COMPLAINT AND CLAIMS AS TO FUTURE CONDUCT............................... 13 III. CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE UNFAIR TO AUTHORS AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED BEFORE THE AGREEMENT IS APPROVED .................. 16 A. B. C. D. E. F. The Agreement Strips Authors of Control Over Non-Display Uses of Their Works And Unfairly Deprives Them of Any Revenue From Such Exploitations ............................... 18 The Agreement Strips Authors of Control Over Display Uses of Their Works ............... 21 The Agreement is Unfair to Authors of Inserts ................................................................ 21 The Agreement's Lack of External Controls Fails to Protect Authors from Potentially Discriminatory Practices by Google ................................................................................. 22 Defects in the Database Should Be Corrected Before the Agreement Is Approved ......... 23 The Agreement's Grant of an Irrevocable Perpetual License is Unfair to Authors.......... 24 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 25 i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) .................................................................................................................. 11 Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585 (1985) .................................................................................................................. 24 Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 504 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007)...................................................................................................... 10 City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1974)................................................................................................ 17, 18 County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295 (2d Cir. 1990).................................................................................................... 19 D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78 (2d Cir. 2001)........................................................................................................ 17 FPX, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al., No. 05 Civ. 00142 (E.D. Tex. filed May 11, 2009) .................................................................. 14 In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 Civ. 0648, 2001 WL 170792 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001) ................................... 16, 18, 19 In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768 (3d Cir. 1995)................................................................................................. passim Karvaly v. Ebay, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 71 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) ................................................................................................ 14 Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426 (2d Cir. 1983)...................................................................................................... 17 National Super Spuds v. New York Mercantile Exch., 660 F.2d 9 (2d Cir. 1981) .................................................................................................. passim Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366 (1973) .................................................................................................................. 24 Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009).................................................................................................. 4, 14 Schwartz v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., 157 F.Supp.2d 561 (E.D. Pa. 2001) .......................................................................................... 15 ii The Authors Guild, Inc., et. al. v. Google, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC) ................................................................................................................ 1 UniSuper Ltd. v. News Corp., 898 A.2d 344 (Del. Ch. 2006)................................................................................................... 15 iii Class members Arlo Guthrie, Julia Wright, Catherine Ryan Hyde, and Eugene Linden (the "Objecting Authors"), by their attorneys DeVore & DeMarco LLP, respectfully submit these Objections to the proposed class action settlement reached in The Authors Guild, Inc., et. al. v. Google, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 8136 (DC) (the "Objections"), and to give notice that counsel will appear on their behalf at the October 7, 2009, fairness hearing. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Settlement Agreement 1 would effect an extraordinarily complex allocation of rights and remedies in a digital marketplace that is inarguably in its infancy, strikingly fluid, and enormously valuable. The Agreement would grant Google alone rights in an unequaled repository of some substantial portion of recorded human knowledge, and substantial corresponding rights to exploit and generate revenue from those works. The Objecting Authors do not dispute that the Agreement would provide a public good by making a vast digital library publicly available. But they are gravely concerned that such potential good would come at a disproportionate and unfair cost to authors, and would unacceptably grant Google perpetual, irrevocable rights in their works. The Objecting Authors are therefore compelled to raise the following objections to the Agreement: First, the Representative Plaintiff authors failed to represent adequately core interests of other members of the Author Sub-Class, releasing trademark and other valuable claims, undervaluing Inserts, and stripping authors of both control over and any revenue from Non-Display Uses of their works. Second, the Agreement impermissibly releases claims and authorizes future uses of authors' works that were not asserted in any complaint in this action. And, third, certain aspects of the Agreement � including provisions relating to Non-Display Uses, Display Uses, and Inserts, as well as the absence of controls on potential discrimination 1 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined have the meanings set forth in the Settlement Agreement. against authors, gross defects in the Google Books Database, and the Agreement's grant to Google of an irrevocable, perpetual license � are so unfair to authors that the Agreement should not be approved unless and until they are corrected. The Objecting Authors submit these objections for the Court's consideration as it deliberates the parties' motion for approval and class certification. The Objecting Authors also offer eight Proposed Solutions, listed in Appendix A to this memorandum, that if adopted would substantially ameliorate the concerns the Objecting Authors have identified. STATEMENT OF FACTS I. THE COMPLAINT On September 20, 2005, plaintiffs the Author's Guild, Herbert Mitgang, Betty Miles, and Daniel Hoffman filed a complaint alleging copyright infringement arising out of Google's unauthorized scanning of millions of copyrighted books, inserts, and lyrics. Google continued to scan copyrighted works without authorization, had scanned approximately seven million works as of October 28, 2008, and projects that it will scan millions more over the coming years. (DeVore Decl. � 2, Ex. A.) A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on October 31, 2008, by the original plaintiffs and the Association of American Publishers, Inc., The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., Pearson Education, Inc., Simon & Schuster, Inc., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Paul Dickson, and Joseph Goulden. Like the original complaint, the SAC is grounded solely in copyright infringement and seeks injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief relating only to copyright infringement. (SAC �� 55-71.) Nowhere, in either complaint, did the plaintiffs allege claims for trademark infringement, other Lanham Act violations, state law publicity rights, tortious interference with contract, prima facie tort, or unfair competition. 2 II. THE PARTIES In addition to the publishing houses and associations, the plaintiffs include five individual authors (the "Named Plaintiffs"). The Named Plaintiffs have published approximately 160 works in total, the great majority of which appear to be out of print. (DeVore Decl. � 3, Exs. B1-5.) They do not include any author who writes principally adult novels or short stories. (See SAC �� 12-17.) Yet the Author Sub-Class includes every author in the world who has a U.S. copyright interest in a Book or Insert as of January 5, 2009, (Settlement Agreement ("SA") �� 1.38, 1.42), including such prolific and widely-known authors as Catherine Ryan Hyde, Richard Wright, and Phillip K. Dick. (See Declarations of Catherine Ryan Hyde, Julia Wright, and Laura Leslie.) 2 The handful of Named Plaintiffs thus represent a mere fraction of the millions of authors whose works Google has already scanned. Google operates the most popular search engine in the United States. (DeVore Decl. � 4, Ex. C.) Over the last twelve months, Americans used Google for more than 78 percent of all web searches. (Id.) Google's primary source of revenue is online advertising, which accounted for 97 percent of its $5.5 billion in revenue in the second quarter of 2009. (Id. � 5, Ex. D at 31.) Google has a dominant position in the market for both search engine advertising (accounting for approximately 76 percent of all such revenue), and the overall market for online advertisements. (Id. � 6, Ex. E.) Google derives much of its substantial revenue from its "AdWords" program for online advertising. Under AdWords, advertisers buy "keywords" as well as advertising space from Google to be displayed alongside Google search results. (Id. � 7, Ex. F.) When a user searches for one of the purchased keywords, the purchaser's advertisement is displayed as a The Estates of Philip K. Dick and Richard Wright have opted out of the Agreement. Their Declarations are offered only to provide the Court with additional facts relating to the Agreement and its effects. 2 3 "Sponsored Link" on the same page as the search results. (Id. � 8, Ex. G.) The purchased keyword may not appear in the text of the advertisement, and its use thus may not be apparent to the user. (Id. � 9, Ex. H.) Although the Second Circuit has recently held that the use of AdWords in precisely this manner constitutes a "use in commerce" under the Lanham Act, see Rescuecom Corp. v. Google, Inc., 562 F.3d 123, 127-31 (2d Cir. 2009), Google's policy is to allow trademarks to be purchased and used as keywords by entities other than the trademark owner. (DeVore Decl. � 9, Ex. H.) III. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Since the case was filed, the parties have devoted themselves largely to settlement. (Id. � 10.) The Objecting Authors are particularly concerned about the provisions of the Settlement Agreement described below. A. The Revenue Provisions The Agreement will compensate authors in three ways for Google's past infringement and all future uses of their works in Google Book Search ("GBS"). (SA � 2.1; see generally Art. IV; Attach. C.) First, in compensation for its past infringements, Google will pay each author a one-time payment of $60 per Book, $15 per Insert, and $5 per Partial Insert. (SA � 5.1(a).) These amounts are strikingly small, particularly given the extraordinarily wide range of works covered by the Agreement. Second, Google will pay the Books Rights Registry ("Registry") 63% of gross revenue for certain future exploitations of authors' works, including among other things, Institutional Subscriptions, limited Advertising Uses, and other Revenue Models. (SA � 4.5, 4.7.) From that 63%, the Registry will further deduct an administrative fee, estimated to be between 10% and 20%. (See Notice, question 8.) At 20%, that fee would leave authors with 50.4% to share with their agents and publishers. Insert authors do not share in that revenue, but 4 instead are consigned to accept a small fee, solely for inclusion of their works in Institutional Subscriptions, of "no less than US $50 per Entire Insert and US $25 per Partial Insert" subject to a lifetime cap of $500. (SA, Attach. C � 1.2(a), (b), (h).) This amount is woefully inadequate for authors such as Catherine Ryan Hyde and Eugene Linden, who may be paid as much as $1,000 or $1,500 for the inclusion of just one of their works in a larger work, vastly more than the amount they would get for Google's past infringement and all future uses of their works. (Hyde Decl. � 4(d); Linden Decl. � 3(d).) Third, the Agreement uses this same formula to distribute the revenue Book authors will receive for certain limited Advertising Uses of their works. (SA � 3.14.) These payment provisions are far more limited than they might appear. Book Authors will receive no revenue whatsoever for advertising run alongside their works unless that advertising appears on an Online Book Page, meaning one Web page dedicated to a single Book. (SA �� 1.97, 2.1(a), 3.14.) Thus, unless the ads appear on Online Book Pages, Book authors can expect no revenue from advertising against untold numbers of Snippet views of their works, including Snippet views licensed by Google to appear on untold numbers of third-party Web sites. (SA �� 1.97, 2.1(a), 3.9, 3.14.) Insert authors can expect no revenue at all from advertising against their works. (Id.) Moreover, no author will derive any revenue whatsoever from what may be extremely lucrative Non-Display Uses of their works. (SA � IV.) Thus, for example, despite the demonstrated value of Google's AdWords program, authors will get no revenue from advertisements run against Google search results relating to searches for their works, even if their works are the sole result of such searches. (SA � 3.14.) B. The Release of Trademark and Other Non-Copyright Claims Although this has always been exclusively a copyright case, the Agreement purports to release "each and every Claim of every Rightsholder that has been or could have 5 been asserted in the Action against any Google Releasee (including all Claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or moral rights violation)" that arise out of all future uses of authors' works. (SA �� 10.1 (b), (d), (f), (h), (j), 10.2(a).) As a result, the Agreement strips authors of any ability to protect against damaging future uses of their intellectual property through claims such as trademark, right of publicity, non-disparagement, and tortious interference. This broad release raises substantial concerns for all authors, and particularly for those who have a large and popular body of in-print works and may have trademark rights in their names and titles. For instance, Catherine Ryan Hyde's novel Pay it Forward was adapted and released as a major Hollywood movie, and a film adaptation of another of her novels, Electric God, is currently in development. (Hyde Decl. � 3.) Hyde also has trademark rights in her non-profit Pay it Forward Foundation, which provides grants to schools, churches, and community groups for projects designed to provide learning opportunities for young adults. (Hyde Decl. � 4(f).) In addition, the Estate of Philip K. Dick has worked hard to register and protect its trademark rights in the Estate's works. (Leslie Decl. � 4(d).) Because it is so broad and untethered from the underlying dispute, the release effectively bars authors from preventing objectionable uses of their works and names in connection with GBS. (SA �� 10.1 (b), (d), (f), (h), (j), 10.2(a).). For example, Google may allow advertisements to appear alongside works that are harmful to an author's reputation or contrary to their core philosophical or political principles; bury an author's own web site far down in search results in response to a search for that author's works; allow third-party websites to run Snippets against objectionable content on those sites, (SA �3.9); or make other objectionable uses of authors' works. (SA �� 1.63, 2.2 (authorizing Google to use works 6 "directly or indirectly through third parties") (emphasis supplied).) Stripped of independent legal rights, authors' only recourse would be to Remove or Exclude their works, (SA, �� 3.5(a), (b)), but exercise of that limited right would deprive authors of both the unequaled exposure that Google search offers and potential revenue from Google's digital exploitation of their works. 3 (Guthrie Decl. � 4(b), Hyde Decl. 4(g), Linden Decl. � 3(c), Wright Decl. � 3(e).) C. The Release of Future Claims The Settlement Agreement also provides unfettered discretion to Google to make additional exploitations of authors' works, many unknown and undefined, (see, e.g., SA �� 3.7(c) ("Additional Contemplated Rightsholder Services Provider"), 4.1(a)(ix) ("Adjunct Products"), 4.7 ("New Revenue Models")), yet releases Google from any claims based on such future exploitations. It also releases non-parties from future claims. (SA � 3.7(c), 3.9.) Moreover, with the consent of the Registry alone, Google may proceed with those unknown future New Revenue Models even without authors' consent. (Id.) For Inserts, Google is not required to obtain any consent whatsoever. (Id.) The SAC did not allege infringement for any of these uses � nor could it � because they all are future exploitations, many still unknown today. (See SAC � 4.) D. The Exclusion of Authors from any Control Over or Revenue from Google's Exploitation of Non-Display Uses of Their Works The Agreement affords authors no control whatsoever over Non-Display Uses of their works, and no compensation for such uses. (See SA, Attach. C.) Instead, authors' only option is to attempt to prevent Non-Display Uses of their works completely through "Removal." (SA �� 1.124, 3.5(a).) But that option is not available at all to authors of Inserts, (SA �� 3.5(a)), and even Book authors lose that right after April 5, 2011. (SA � 3.5(a)(iii).) Moreover, for 3 These harms would be compounded dramatically if, as widely expected, approval of the Agreement made Google the universal digital marketplace for literary works. (See Section III.D below.) 7 authors who believe that GBS offers a real opportunity to give wide exposure to their works, both "Removal" and "Exclusion" eliminate entirely that potential benefit. (Linden Decl. � 3, Hyde Decl. � 4.) Non-Display Uses are uses that do not involve the display of content from a Book to the public. (SA � 1.91.) Examples in the Agreement include the display of bibliographic information, full-text indexing (without displaying text), geographic indexing of Books, algorithmic listings of key terms for chapters of Books, and internal research and development at Google. (SA � 1.91.) Those examples are non-exclusive, however, and the Agreement leaves Google free to develop and exploit additional, undisclosed Non-Display Uses, all without compensation to authors. Indeed, the only limitation on Non-Display exploitations is that they "do not display Expression from Digital Copies of Books or Inserts to the public." (SA � 1.91.) One obvious example of an undisclosed Non-Display Use might well be sales of book titles, key lines or portions of text, or authors' names in Google's AdWords program. Additional examples might include personalized advertising, which has been described as the "holy grail" of the search industry. (DeVore Decl. � 11, Ex. I.) Google's CEO Eric Schmidt has acknowledged that using data such as this vast database of written works to "get better at personalization" is key to Google's continued growth. (Id.) The Agreement contains no restrictions on Google's ability to do just that through Non-Display Uses of authors' works, or even on the sale of information derived directly from these works. (See Section III.A below.) Google has explicitly acknowledged the value of the Database for such purposes. 4 (DeVore 4 Other tech-savvy industry commentators have also concluded that Non-Display Uses likely "will end up being far more important than anything else in the agreement. Imagine the kinds of things that data mining all the world's books might let Google's engineers build: automated translation, optical character recognition, voice recognition algorithms. And those are just the things we can think of today." (Devore Decl. � 12, Ex. J.) 8 Decl. � 13, Ex. K ("We're not scanning all those books to be read by people. We're scanning them to be read by [our] AI [Artificial Intelligence].").) E. The Settlement Agreement Deprives Authors of Rights In and Control Over Inserts The Settlement Agreement raises particular problems with regard to the treatment of Inserts and Partial Inserts. Inserts include, for example, contributions to books, works in collections, and privately and self-published works. (SA � 1.72.) Serious problems with the Google Books Database (the "Database") make it difficult to determine which Works are included as Inserts and Partial Inserts, and nearly impossible for Authors with many Inserts even to make the initial determination of how much money they will receive for past infringement under the Agreement. (Hyde Decl. � 4(b); Linden Decl. � 3(e); Leslie Decl. � 4(e).) For example, when Catherine Ryan Hyde first searched the Database, she found her works and claimed them per the instructions. (Hyde Decl. � 4(c).) When she went back to the Database a week later, she found nine additional works identified as unclaimed. (Id.) Subsequent efforts revealed between forty-two and sixty-nine works in the Database. (Id.) She has found the Database to include so much inaccurate and incomprehensible information as to be "remarkably burdensome, time-consuming and frustrating." (Id.) Eugene Linden has had similar problems. (Linden Decl. � 3(e).) He has written hundreds of articles and essays which would take him days to identify in the Database and, to the extent he has been able to identify his works, he too has found significant errors. 5 (Id.) Representatives of The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have admitted that the Database is badly and unacceptably flawed. (Hyde Decl. � 4(c).) Rightsholders for other authors of numerous Books and Inserts, such as the Estates of Phillip K. Dick and Richard Wright, have found the Database so unusable that it contributed to their decision to optout. (Leslie Decl. � 4(e); Wright Decl. � 3(g).) 5 9 Moreover, unlike Book authors, Insert authors may only Exclude their works from all, but not less than all, Display Uses, (SA � 3.5(b)(i)), and may not exclude their works from further sales by Google if the author of the Book containing those works agrees to such sales. (SA � 1.131.) OBJECTIONS I. THE REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF AUTHORS FAILED TO REPRESENT ADEQUATELY CRITICAL INTERESTS OF THE AUTHOR SUB-CLASS The Objecting Authors are critically concerned that the Named Plaintiffs failed to represent adequately core interests of other members of the Author Sub-Class, and consequently agreed to terms that unnecessarily and unfairly impair authors' rights and interests. Specifically, the Agreement (a) improperly releases trademark and other claims the Named Plaintiffs did not have, (b) dramatically undervalues the past infringement and future uses of Inserts, and (c) strips authors completely of control over, or participation in the potentially significant revenue Google will derive from, Non-DisplayUses of their works. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) requires that class representatives "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." In considering adequacy, one concern is whether a representative has an interest that conflicts with the rest of the class. Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund v. Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., 504 F.3d 229, 245 (2d Cir. 2007). Such conflicts are most easily identified in the proposed settlement itself. National Super Spuds v. New York Mercantile Exch., 660 F.2d 9, 18 (2d Cir. 1981) ("The inadequacy of the representation provided by the named plaintiffs is apparent from the examination of the settlement itself."). In National Super Spuds, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's class certification decision because the named plaintiffs had not adequately represented the interests of 10 all class members. This inadequacy was apparent on the face of the settlement agreement's release of claims, which related to unliquidated contracts that were not, and could not have been, identified in the complaint because the named plaintiffs did not have such claims. See also Amchem Prods. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 604 (1997) (upholding denial of class certification due to inadequate representation of class members exposed to asbestos but not yet suffering apparent injury, ruling that the interests of the class were not aligned because, as for the currently injured, "the critical goal is generous immediate payments," but the interests of the exposure-only plaintiffs is "in ensuring an ample, inflation protected fund for the future"); In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 801 (3d Cir. 1995) (reversing class certification because named plaintiffs "had no incentive to maximize the recovery" of other class members as reflected in disparity in settlement benefits). While none of the Named Plaintiffs appear to have a demonstrable trademark interest in any of their works, that is not true for many other authors, particularly those who have licensed their works for movies, television programming, charities, and other uses. For example, Catherine Ryan Hyde's novel Pay It Forward was adapted and released as a major Hollywood movie, Electric God has been adapted for film and is currently in development, and she has protectable trademark rights in her non-profit Pay It Forward Foundation. (Hyde Decl. � 4(f).) The Estate of Philip K. Dick similarly has protectable trademark rights in its works. (Leslie Decl. � 4(d).) Yet the Agreement purports to release any and all claims of any rightsholder relating to any use of their work pursuant to the Agreement, including but not limited to trademark claims. (SA, Art. X.) The substantial overbreadth of this release alone demonstrates that the Named Plaintiffs "had no incentive to maximize the recovery" for those claims, In re 11 General Motors Corp., 55 F.3d at 801, and failed to represent those claims adequately on behalf of the Objecting Authors and other class members absent from the negotiations. The Named Plaintiffs also failed to attach meaningful value to the exploitation of Inserts. Under the Agreement, Insert authors are consigned to accept $15 for Google's past infringement of their works, and a small Inclusion Fee of "no less than US $50 per Entire Insert and US $25 per Partial Insert" solely for future subscription uses of those works and subject to a cap of $500 for all uses ever. (SA, Attach. C � 1.2(a), (b), (h).) Yet authors like Catherine Ryan Hyde and Eugene Linden may command as much as $1,000 or $1,500 for the inclusion of just one of their works in a larger work. (Hyde Decl. � 4(d); Linden Decl. � 3(d).) Moreover, Insert authors are afforded merely the right to Exclude their works from all � but not less than all � Display Uses, and have no right to Remove or Exclude them from Revenue Models. (SA �� 3.5(a)(i), 3.5(b)(i).) Because the Named Plaintiffs do not include an author who writes principally short stories, they lacked the incentive to maximize either the recovery for or control over uses of Inserts, and did not adequately represent the interests of absent class members in this respect. The Named Plaintiffs also appear to have ignored both the critical issue of control over Non-Display Uses of their works and the potentially enormous value of such uses. Such uses are at the very core of Google's powerful revenue engine, which produced $5.5 billion in total revenue in the first quarter of 2009, 97% of which was derived from advertising, much of that through the lucrative but "non-display" AdWords program. (DeVore Decl. � 5.) Under the Agreement, authors' only recourse as to Non-Display Uses is to Remove their works entirely from GBS, (SA �� 2.1, 3.5(a)), an option not available at all to Insert authors, (id.), and as demonstrated in Section III.A below, an option that does not appear 12 to prevent Google from making Non-Display Uses of their works. Moreover, the Agreement carefully carves authors out from any participation whatsoever in the proceeds derived from such uses through advertising and other exploitations. (SA � 1.131, Attach. C.) It is a certainty that not only such well-known titles as Pay It Forward but portions of an untold number of other works will be purchased by advertisers for use in the AdWords program. 6 Google can be expected to make many other undisclosed but extremely valuable Non-Display Uses of authors' works as well. (See Section III.A below).) The absence of any compensation to authors for such uses demonstrates that the Named Plaintiffs did not adequately represent the interests of the Objecting Authors and other absent class members in this respect. II. THE AGREEMENT IMPERMISSIBLY RELEASES BOTH CLAIMS NOT ASSERTED IN THE COMPLAINT AND CLAIMS AS TO FUTURE CONDUCT The overbroad release of claims in the Agreement not only threatens serious harm to the Objecting Authors and other absent class members, but is contrary to the well-established principle that a class action settlement may not release claims not asserted in the complaint. "If a judgment after trial cannot extinguish claims not asserted in the class action complaint, a judgment approving a settlement in such an action ordinarily should not be able to do so either." National Super Spuds, 660 F.2d at 18. "An advantage to a class, no matter how great, simply cannot be bought by the uncompensated sacrifice of claims of members, whether few or many, which were not within the claims asserted by the class." Id; see also Karvaly v. Ebay, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 71, 83 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (refusing to certify class action where "expansive general release would extinguish many claims unrelated to the claims alleged in the . . . . Complaint"). The Agreement here requires the release of "each and every Claim of every 6 Indeed, a search for "Pay It Forward" produces several "Sponsored Links" for movie sales websites, demonstrating that Google is already selling that title as a keyword. (DeVore Decl. � 14, Ex. L.) 13 Rightsholder that has been or could have been asserted in the Action against any Google Releasee (including all Claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or moral rights violation)" that arises out of uses of authors' works. (SA � 10.1(f).) This expansive release bars class members from protecting their most fundamental intellectual property rights, including for example the trademark interests of Catherine Ryan Hyde. 7 Such claims simply were not asserted in the SAC. Moreover, the release would preclude authors from pursuing any number of other claims commonly associated with full protection of their intellectual property rights � including for example right of publicity, disparagement, and tortious interference claims � that also were not alleged. This release unfairly limits the Objecting Authors' rights relating not only to the potential uses of their works disclosed in the Agreement, but the unforeseen and undisclosed future uses available to Google and the Registry under the Agreement. 8 The Agreement compounds the harm of releasing claims not asserted in the complaint by further explicitly releasing claims based on unalleged future conduct. Such a release is likewise impermissible. Schwartz v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., 157 F.Supp.2d 561, 578 (E.D. Pa. 2001) (release is impermissibly broad if it "bars later claims based on future conduct"; rejecting proposed agreement releasing defendant from all claims relating to broadcasting NFL games by any means where complaint alleged misconduct relating only to satellite broadcasts); see also, National Super Spuds, 660 F.2d at 17-18; UniSuper Ltd. v. News Corp., 898 A.2d 344, 347 (Del. Ch. 2006). Here, the Agreement releases defendants from any claims based on future sales by Google of Institutional Subscriptions or to individual consumers. (SA �� 3.7(c), 4.1, 4.2.) It It would also remarkably immunize Google from trademark claims by authors of the type currently being litigated against it in this Circuit and other courts. See, e.g., Rescuecom, 562 F.3d at 12731; FPX, LLC v. Google, Inc. et al., No. 05 Civ. 00142 (E.D. Tex. filed May 11, 2009). 8 See App. A � 1 (Proposed Solution 1). 7 14 also remarkably expands that release to free Google from any liability for future infringements or other harms relating to New Revenue Models such as Print on Demand, Custom Publishing, PDF Download, and Consumer Subscription Models. (See SA � 4.7.) Not one of these exploitations of authors' valuable intellectual property was alleged in the SAC, nor could they have been; they are exclusively future exploitations not at issue and not properly subject to disposition in this case. Schwartz, 157 F.Supp.2d at 578. The Objecting Authors' concern about releasing unalleged future conduct is particularly acute here because the Agreement also purports to allow Google to license certain displays of authors' works for third-party use and contains no limitation whatsoever on the right to develop New Revenue Models. Section 3.9 provides that when Google has the right to make any Snippet Display under the Agreement, it "may also allow third parties that have entered into agreements with Google . . . to display snippets served by Google on their websites in response to user interactions on their websites and . . . for future display on their websites in response to user interactions." (See also SA �� 1.63, 2.2 (authorizing Google to use works "directly or indirectly through third parties").) While Section 4.7 lists the future New Revenue Models set forth above, that list is non-exhaustive, and plainly contemplates that Google may offer any other New Revenue Models with the authority of the Registry or Rightsholders. 9 (See SA � 4.7(e).) Because this consent requirement is written in the disjunctive, such that the Registry may consent to future exploitations even without Rightsholder consent, it offers little comfort to the authors whose works will be exploited. This is another compelling example of the severe disadvantages the Agreement would impose on Insert authors. With respect to Books, Section 4.7 would at least constrain Google to obtain the consent of either the Registry or the author to exploit brand-new, undisclosed New Revenue Models. (See SA � 4.7.) That Section contains no comparable limitation with regard to Inserts, effectively leaving Google free to pursue such exploitations unilaterally without consent. 9 15 The Objecting Authors believe that these wide releases as to future conduct � as articulated in the Agreement and as yet undisclosed � would severely prejudice their rights to control their works in this massive but largely unexplored area of electronic commerce. 10 III. CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE AGREEMENT ARE UNFAIR TO AUTHORS AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED BEFORE THE AGREEMENT IS APPROVED The critical judgment a court called upon to approve or disapprove a class action settlement must make "is whether the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable to class members, a standard that includes both procedural and substantive components." In re Auction Houses Antitrust Litig., No. 00 Civ. 0648, 2001 WL 170792, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2001) (citing Malchman v. Davis, 706 F.2d 426, 433 (2d Cir. 1983) and D'Amato v. Deutsche Bank, 236 F.3d 78, 85-86 (2d Cir. 2001)). In making this judgment, the Court "must eschew any rubber stamp approval in favor of an independent evaluation, yet . . . stop short of the detailed and thorough investigation that it would undertake if it were actually trying the case." City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 462 (2d Cir. 1974). Because class actions typically involve monetary compensation for past harms, Grinnell directs the Court to perform that independent evaluation relative to nine factors focusing on the potential risks of the underlying litigation and the sufficiency of the settlement fund to provide fair compensation. 11 Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 462-63. Because this Agreement effects a perpetual future license to allow a dizzying array of future exploitations of authors' works, however, the Objecting Authors believe that the See App. A � 2 (Proposed Solution 2). The nine Grinnell factors are: "(1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation, (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement, (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed, (4) the risks of establishing liability, (5) the risks of establishing damages, (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial, (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment, (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery, [and] (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation." Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 463 (internal citations omitted). 11 10 16 eighth Grinnell factor also easily encompasses their core concern in this case: the fairness of the settlement itself in light of the best possible recovery. 12 Id. Indeed, such essential but nonmonetary factors may well be sufficiently unfair to justify rejection of the agreement. See, e.g., In re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 808-10 (reversing lower court's approval of class settlement because proposed agreement was unfair to certain segments of class). In General Motors, a products liability action based on alleged defects in truck fuel tanks, the proposed settlement offered a $500 coupon and other compensation to each class member to purchase a new truck within fifteen months of the settlement. Id. The Third Circuit reversed in part because the lower court failed to consider that certain class members, such as those who did not have $10,000 on hand to buy a new truck within fifteen months, would be unable to use those coupons. Id. at 808, 810 (ruling that the coupons "simply do not address the safety defect that formed the central basis of the amended complaint"). The court thus concluded that the fact that settlement "benefits certain groups of the class more than others suggests that the district court did not adequately discharge its duties to safeguard the interests of the absentees." Id. at 808. Moreover, in addition to analysis of the Grinnell factors, a court confronted with specific objections to a proposed class action settlement must evaluate the merits of those objections. See, e.g., In re Auction Houses., 2001 WL 170792, at *18 (modifying proposed settlement to address objections); National Super Spuds, 660 F.2d at 19; County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295, 1323 (2d Cir. 1990). The Objecting Authors believe that, if not corrected, the following aspects of the proposed Agreement would violate Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Due Process clause In the typical class action settlement involving payment for past harms, the inquiry into this element measures the value of the settlement "to determine whether the decision to settle represents a good value for a relatively weak case or a sell-out of an otherwise strong case." In re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 806 (citing Grinnell, 495 F.2d at 463). 12 17 of the U.S. Constitution, and the fundamental requirement that the Agreement must be "fair, adequate, and reasonable to class members." In re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 806-10; In re Auction Houses, 2001 WL 170792, at *5-6; see also National Super Spuds, 660 F.2d at 19. A. The Agreement Strips Authors of Control Over Non-Display Uses of Their Works And Unfairly Deprives Them of Any Revenue From Such Exploitations The Agreement grants Google almost unfettered rights to exploit and profit from Non-Display Uses of authors' works. 13 Authors' only recourse to Non-Display exploitations is to remove their works entirely from GBS. (SA � 3.5(a).) As noted above, however, that option is not available at all to Insert authors, (id.), and likely is illusory for Book authors as well because (a) the option terminates even for Book authors as of April 5, 2011, and (b) nothing in the Agreement dictates that removal shall prevent Google from making Non-Display Uses of an author's Book. "Removed" is defined as a process by which "Digital Copies" of a book are rendered inaccessible. (SA � 1.124.) That definition contains no prohibition on Google making Non-Display Uses. To the contrary, since "Digital Copy" refers only to a particular set of "electronic files created by or for Google or provided to Google in connection with GBS," (SA � 1.44), Removal would not prevent Google from generating additional electronic records relating to Books or Inserts (such as word or content analysis or even selected portions of text), and using such records to make Non-Display Uses of those works. Google would never need to access a "Digital Copy" in order to exploit the content of such files. Moreover, because the examples of Non-Display Uses set forth in the Agreement are non-exclusive, (SA � 1.91), the Agreement places no limit on the nature or quantity of such uses Google may exploit. 13 As noted in Section I above, the Named Plaintiff authors appear to have missed the issues regarding Non-Display Uses entirely. Regrettably, these issues may have largely escaped public scrutiny as well, perhaps due to the fact that "Non-Display Use" � a term meaningless to all but those steeped in the language of the Agreement � is once defined but never analyzed in the Notice. 18 The risk of unchecked and uncompensated Non-Display Uses has enormous consequences for authors. In perhaps the most obvious example, the Agreement places no limit on Non-Display Uses of authors' works in Google's lucrative AdWords program, and affords authors no compensation for such uses. Given the fact that AdWords generated some substantial portion of $5.5 billion in total revenue for Google in the first quarter of 2009 alone, that omission is plainly to authors' substantial financial detriment. But the real harm of such uses may be even greater, as the absence of any right to control such uses might well result in advertisements being positioned next to or associated with authors' works in ways that are objectionable, offensive, or harmful to the author. For example, Catherine Ryan Hyde's non-profit Pay It Forward Foundation would be substantially harmed if advertisements for groups alleging charity fraud appeared alongside Snippets or any other displays of her book Pay It Forward. (Hyde Decl. � 4(g).) Or authors and estates associated with issues of racial equality such as Julia and Richard Wright would be harmed if advertisements for groups expressing contrary views, or for groups attempting to create a false appearance of endorsement, appeared alongside their works. (Wright Decl. � 3(e).) There are numerous other powerful examples of Non-Display Uses that could cause substantial harms to authors. Personalized advertising has been characterized as the "holy grail" for the search industry, and Google's CEO has confirmed that improving personalization is essential to Google's continued expansion. (DeVore Decl. � 11.) Absent any constraint on NonDisplay Uses, nothing in the Agreement could stop Google from analyzing the entire works of a particular author then selling those analytical results to third-party behavioral advertisers so that they could direct ads to people running searches for that author's works. Nor could anything stop Google from analyzing all books in the database and selling the right to advertisers or others 19 to run searches for authors associated with particular topics or points of view. Or, more chilling, Google could analyze and sell data regarding who is reading which works by what authors or relating to which subjects. 14 The risk that authors' works might be put to such uses is not speculative, but real; as another Google employee has acknowledged: "We're not scanning all those books to be read by people. We're scanning them to be read by [our] AI [Artificial Intelligence]." (DeVore Decl. � 13.) Google may well maintain that it would not engage in any one of these objectionable uses; if so, it should not object to making that commitment binding in the Agreement. The Agreement also deprives authors of any compensation for Non-Display Uses, even for plainly compensable and easily tracked uses such as AdWords. Worse, the Agreement dangerously compounds each of these serious potential harms by stripping authors of any right to sue Google for any reason in connection with such uses. (See SA �� 10.1, 10.2.) In short, granting Google an irrevocable license to exploit such uses � particularly in a market that is in its infancy with regard to both how authors' creative works will be exploited and how authors will be compensated for those uses � is grossly unfair to authors. 15 (See Hyde Decl. � 4(h).) Moreover, "opting out" is not a meaningful response to this or the other Objections. Opting out deprives authors � who typically simply do not have the resources to take Google on in independent litigation � from participating in any of the potential benefits of having their works appear in Google's dominant search engine, including increased exposure and potential revenue. Indeed, were the Settlement approved, Google may well become the only place to go for digital book search. In any event, the right to opt out "does not relieve the court Given the substantial risks such privacy concerns pose, the Objecting Authors join in, and hereby incorporate by reference, the objections filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation addressing these concerns. 15 See App. A � 3 (Proposed Solution 3). 14 20 of its duty to safeguard the interests of the class and to withhold approval from any settlement that creates conflicts among the class." In re General Motors, 55 F.3d at 809. B. The Agreement Strips Authors of Control Over Display Uses of Their Works In a related concern, the Objecting Authors further object because the Agreement would allow Google to sell advertising objectionable to authors against Display Uses of their works. (See SA � 1.48.) Other than a limitation on pop-up and pop-under advertisements, (SA � 3.10(c)(iii)), the Agreement places no limits on the kinds of advertisements run next to authors' works. As demonstrated above, such advertising might be offensive to authors and damaging to their rights and reputations. Unlike Non-Display Uses, authors can prevent all advertising against particular works by Removing or Excluding those works from Display Uses. (SA � 3.5(a)(i), (b)(I).) As discussed above, however, doing so would eviscerate the principal benefits of remaining in the Settlement, including increased exposure through Display Uses of an authors' works � the demonstrated power of Google search � and sharing in revenue generated from associated advertising. 16 (See Linden Decl. � 3.) C. The Agreement is Unfair to Authors of Inserts As demonstrated in Section I above, the Agreement is unfair to authors of Inserts such as Catherine Ryan Hyde and Eugene Linden. The $15 for Google's past infringement of Inserts, and the small "Inclusion Fee" of "no less than US $50 per Entire Insert and US $25 per Partial Insert" in subscriptions, (SA Attach. C, � 1.2(a), (b), (h)), are mere fractions of the more than $1,000 or $1,500 such authors may be paid for their works. (Hyde Decl. � 4(d); Linden Decl. � 3(d).) And there is no justification � other than the further devaluation of Insert authors' works � for allowing Book authors to Exclude their works from "any one or more, or all" 16 See App. A � 4 (Proposed Solution 4). 21 Display Uses, Revenue Models, or the Book Annotation feature, while denying comparable rights to Insert authors. 17 (See SA � 3.5(b)(1).) D. The Agreement's Lack of External Controls Fails to Protect Authors from Potentially Discriminatory Practices by Google Google currently dominates the market for Internet search. It controls 78% of the web search market and receives 76% of all Internet search advertising revenue. (DeVore Decl. �� 4, 6.) Given that dominance, and the fact that the Agreement would grant Google an exclusive license to the world's orphan works in which there is a U.S. copyright interest, the Agreement would secure dominance for Google in the market for book search as well. Yet the Agreement includes no constraint on Google's potential abuse of that monopoly power in ways that might cause serious harm to authors. For example, many authors promote their works directly through their own websites or other on-line sources. (See, e.g., Hyde Decl. � 2; Linden Decl. � 2; Guthrie Decl. � 2.) Because Google exclusively controls its search algorithms and AdWords prices, however, it could, for example, discriminate against those authors by dropping their sites from the first page to the fifth or eighth page of Internet search results produced in response to a search for them or their works. Doing so would effectively make such sites "disappear" from Google's search rankings and eliminate the chance that a user might click on or buy a work through such sites. (Wright Decl. � 3(f).) Or, if an author sought to purchase Keywords in Google's AdWords program to promote such alternative sites, nothing in the Agreement would prevent Google from arbitrarily increasing the price for those Keywords. While in most circumstances a private firm is free to deal with its customers and competitors as it sees fit, under certain conditions a refusal to cooperate with rivals can constitute anticompetitive conduct prohibited under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Aspen Skiing Co. v. 17 See App. A � 5 (Proposed Solution 5). 22 Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 603 (1985). Such a circumstance occurs where a company uses its market power to discriminate against competitors in an effort to further monopoly power. Aspen Skiing at 605 ("If a firm has been `attempting to exclude rivals on some basis other than efficiency,' it is fair to characterize its behavior as predatory."); Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 377 (1973) ("Use of monopoly power `to destroy threatened competition' is a violation of the `attempt to monopolize' clause of � 2."). The Objecting Authors thus are concerned that the Agreement would leave Google free to discriminate against authors who elect to opt-out, Remove, or Exclude their works � or for any other reason � by altering its web search or AdWords algorithms in a manner that harms them and their ability to promote their works through alternative channels. Either action would impose a severe disadvantage on authors in the Internet marketplace. 18 E. Defects in the Database Should Be Corrected Before the Agreement Is Approved Persistent defects in the Database also unfairly prejudice authors as they attempt to analyze the Settlement and its potential impacts on their rights. For example, when Catherine Ryan Hyde first searched the Database she identified and claimed all of her works she could find. (Hyde Decl. � 4(c).) When she went back into the Database a week later, however, she discovered nine additional works identified as unclaimed. (Id.) Upon repeatedly accessing the database over the past several months, she has found anywhere from forty-two to sixty-nine of her works listed and, compounding that confounding variability, has found those listings to reflect little decipherable information about how those works have been categorized and significant inaccuracies in the information that is available. 19 (Id.; see also Linden Decl. � 3(e).) See App. A � 6 (Proposed Solution 6). For authors with large numbers of Books and/or Inserts, these problems have rendered the Database effectively useless as a tool to attempt to manage their works, contributing to their determination that they must opt-out of the Settlement. (Leslie Decl. � 4(e); Wright Decl. � 3(g).) 19 18 23 Because authors consistently have found their attempts to use the Database to be "remarkably burdensome, time-consuming, and frustrating," (Hyde Decl. � 4(b); Linden Decl. � 3(e); Wright Decl. � 3(g); Leslie Decl. � 4(e)), the Database at present provides an inadequate foundation for authors to enter into, and attempt to manage their rights under, the Settlement. Indeed, even representatives of The Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers have admitted that the Database is badly and unacceptably flawed. 20 (Hyde Decl. � 4(c).) F. The Agreement's Grant of an Irrevocable Perpetual License is Unfair to Authors Against the backdrop of each of the foregoing concerns, it is both unfair and unacceptable to the Objecting Authors that the Agreement grants Google an irrevocable, perpetual license to exploit their works in the digital world. The digital marketplace is inarguably immature, enormously fluid, and extremely valuable. Yet the Agreement leaves authors with the sole remedy of Removing or Excluding their works in response to future exploitations � known and unknown � that they may disagree with, that harm their substantial intellectual property and other rights, and for which they should receive compensation but will receive none. Moreover, as demonstrated above, the Removal option will terminate forever as of April 5, 2011, leaving both Book and Insert authors only the Exclusion right to attempt to address all future exploitations of their work. (See SA� 3.5(a)(iii).) But Exclusion is a limited right, and affords authors no control whatsoever over undefined, undisclosed, yet potentially lucrative Non-Display Uses of their works. (See Section III.A above).) And, again, both Removal and Exclusion effectively eliminate the principal benefits of staying in the Settlement at all. 21 20 21 See App. A � 7 (Proposed Solution 7). See App. A � 8 (Proposed Solution 8). 24 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Objecting Authors object to the Agreement and respectfully request that the Court revise the Agreement to address those objections. New York, New York Dated: September 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted, DEVORE & DEMARCO LLP By: /s/ Andrew C. DeVore Andrew C. DeVore (AD � 3511) Amin Kassam (AK - 7860) 99 Park Avenue, 16th floor New York, New York 10016 (212) 922-9499 Attorneys for Class Members Arlo Guthrie, Julia Wright, Catherine Ryan Hyde, and Eugene Linden 25 APPENDIX A � PROPOSED SOLUTIONS (1) Narrowly tailor the releases in Article X to include only copyright claims and trademark claims relating to trademarks apparent on any work as seen in any Display Use, (see Objections �� I, II); (2) Require both Book and Insert authors to consent to future exploitations of their works by Google or any third party, (see id. � II); (3)(i) Obligate Google to notify authors of all Non-Display Uses made of their works, (ii) require their affirmative consent to such uses, and (iii) fairly compensate them for uses as to which they do consent, (see id. �� I, III.A); (4) Provide a mechanism for authors to object to advertising run against Display Uses of their works, (see id. � III.B); (5) Grant Insert authors control equal to that of Book authors to Remove and Exclude their works, and allow them to negotiate Inclusion Fees individually, (see id. �� I, III.C); (6) Include an express undertaking in the Agreement that Google shall not discriminate in any way against authors, including specifically in search and AdWords, and provide for ongoing antitrust oversight by appropriate government agencies with recourse to the Court, (see id. � III.D); (7) Obligate Google to correct and improve the Database as a mandatory pre-condition to approval of the Settlement, (see id. � III.E); and (8) Provide that the rights and obligations contained in the Agreement relating to all works claimed pursuant to the claiming process shall terminate after a fixed five-year period, subject to renewal for subsequent five-year periods by the affirmative consent of the authors of those works. (See id. � III.F).


text:
Metropolitan by COMO, London
A cool, contemporary central London luxury hotel, Metropolitan by COMO combines accurate service, sophisticated design and a vibrant Park Lane location. There are 144 rooms and suites as well as 19 long-stay apartments, Nobu for Japanese-Peruvian cuisine, a lively Met Bar and Asian-inspired therapies from COMO Shambhala Urban Escape.
Address & Map:
Metropolitan by COMO
Old Park Lane
London W1K 1LB
Contact Details:
Tel +44 (0) 20 7447 1000
Fax +44 (0) 20 7447 1100
Email: email@example.com
For those looking to hold a winter event that stands out from the rest, our party package offers the solution. Read More
What better way to bond with your team or catch up with friends than over a delicious cocktail you made with your own fair hands? Read More
Enjoy the delectable selections of Metropolitan London's Festive Afternoon Tea. Find out more.
The perfect solution to freshen up when travelling long distances. Find out more.
2012 World's Best Hotels, Institutional Investor's annual ranking of elite establishments. View other awards
Book online with COMO Hotels and we will guarantee you the best rate. Find out more.


text:
- Exynos Quad-Core 1.4GHz Processor
- 16GB Internal Memory
- 10.1" 1280x800 Capactive Touchscreen Display w/ 1.9MP Front Camera & 5MP Rear Camera
- 7000mAh Li-ion Battery
- Android 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich OS
We've heard your feedback and are continuing to build a better Slickdeals. Click here to check out the updated site.
Frontpage Deal
16GB Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1" WiFi Android 4.0 Tablet in White (Refurbished) $245 + Free Shipping (expired)
Sorry you missed this deal! Add Alert For "Galaxy Note"
Newegg has 16GB Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1" WiFi Android 4.0 Tablet (Refurbished) in White for $265 - 10% off with promo code SAVETENOCT18Q = $245. Shipping is free. Thanks Y4NK33S
Original Post
Y4NK33S ( ) Oct. 15, 2013 at 5:36pm
Newegg [newegg.com] has refurbished Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 16GB for $264.99. This is $20 cheaper than the last deal they had for refurbished Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1.
Great for people who don't have to pay tax.
Special savings ends 10/21 or while supplies last.
You can use code: MBLEMC10 for another extra $20 off from ordering through your mobile device on m.newegg.com or newegg app, making the deal even better.
For those that don't want to use the mobile coupon. Alternatively use code: SAVETENOCT18Q for $20 off. Today only. Oct. 18
Wiki Community Board
This can and should be used by you to post updated deal information.
Be sure to read this because it may contain answers to your questions!
For everyone looking for cases for your purchase....
Groupon [groupon.com] has Samsung Magnetic Book Cover Cases for Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 or Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1 for $9.99.
Gray covers for Galaxy Note 10.1 are sold out.
View Forum Thread
98 Comments
thysduque ( ) Oct. 16, 2013 at 12:31pm
SO if you really want the 8'' one, wait a little bit and I am sure you
will be able to get it for cheaper than this.
I myself have been debating between getting this or waiting for the
new nexus 10 and getting either the new one or the old one.
The nexus 7 can be found for 130 now that the new nexus 7 came out,
so if the old one was available for less than 300 would be nice deal.
davlee88 ( ) Oct. 17, 2013 at 7:39am
MeatCatalog ( ) Oct. 17, 2013 at 8:11am
I'd grab one if the resolution wasn't absolute and total SHIT.
Rubicon_Joey ( ) Oct. 17, 2013 at 8:19am
Total Amount: $244.99 (with the 10% mobile code which is only gor for $20 & no tax)
Resolution is just fine, it's the regular cell phone apps that are scaled up to fit tablets that are crap. If you don't believe me next time you see one, pull up a high res movie (or even a photo) and tell me it looks bad. On a screen that small its more than enough. No other tablet on the market you can buy for $245 is going to be better.
And for anyone looking for a good cheap case: I bought one of these and couldn't tell it from new other than packaging.. $21.19 after tax with free in store pickup...or you can ship for free with orders over $25...
Popular Deals (By Votes)
Use Coupon Code: HOLIDAZE
at American Eagle Outfitters


text:
bell and howell solar animal pest repeller with strobe light
Your Price: $29.98
solar pest repeller deluxe
$29.98 - $39.98
light and barking pest deterrent
Your Price: $39.98
bell howell solar powered animal repeller
Your Price: $39.98
squirrel feed guard
Your Price: $49.98
slug trap
Your Price: $29.98
decorative mosquito deterent
Your Price: $24.98
9 ft umbrella table screen
Was $59.98
Your Price: $44.98
Protect your family from irritating insects and other pests with pest control products from Taylor Gifts. With a great selection of handy, odorless insect repellants, all at affordable prices, your family can bid farewell to the scourge of itchy mosquito bites. Banish burrowing rodents and nibbling pests from your vegetable garden permanently with safe and eco-friendly pest deterrents. No matter what kind of pests you need to manage, Taylor Gifts has got the goods. Shop TaylorGifts.com today and take care of season pest problems, period.


text:
Love this rug. Looks great in my family room. Colors are vibrant. So many colors to choose from that you can't go wrong trying to coordinate. Glad that this has built-in no-slip underside. Super glad that it doesn't shed like some other rugs. Absolutely delighted with my purchase. And it was so affordable :) Thanks Overstock for making this available.
The rug looks really great on my office floor. If you have hippie-like taste, you'll love this rug!
Very pretty rug. Looked just like the picture. Thicker than what I expect. Overall I am totally pleased.
Very glad I decided on this rug. When I received the rug it looked just like it did on line. It really completed our family room. I love the colors and designs in the rug. (Other reviews said it was really orange. To me it's more burnt orange, not bright orange, and there is so much more to look at than just orange) The rug stays in place and the corners lay flat. Not to worried about getting a stain because it would blend.
Great rug! Looks good, stays in place without rug pad and standing up well to the kids.
Nylon was very shiny. Paid to return it.
Very bright colors and a wonderful rug for the price..I love it!....Very pleased that I decided to get it..
After buying the runner I got this rug and love it! Great colors bring in all my golds, reds, greys and blues!
I love the pattern on this rug! I would definitely recommend buying a pad while purchasing. We bought this rug for our 6 month old to crawl around on, the rug is a little rough and needed the pad. Overall I would purchase the rug again. It was a great value while other rugs this size are ***-*** dollars
The colors in this rug are beautiful. Packaging was great and the rug unrolled to a flat position. It is fairly thick and there is no need for an extra pad beneath it. When walking on it, the rug does not move around. Reasonably priced!
Usually leaves our warehouse in 1-2 business days. *
Items must be returned in new or unused condition and contain all original materials included with the shipment. More details
FINAL SALE EXCLUSION: Items marked as FINAL SALE are not returnable unless the problem you experience is the result of our error.
Our standard shipping method is ground shipping. We also offer expedited shipping for most items. Your final shipping cost and estimated delivery timeframe will be available at checkout.
Standard shipping details
Expedited shipping details
* For your protection, all orders are screened for security purposes. If your order is selected for review, our Loss Prevention Team may contact you by phone or email. There may be a two business day delay to process your order.
** Most Oversize orders are delivered within 1-4 weeks. Some orders may take 6 weeks to be delivered.


text:
Eliza Jane Nicholson
5:07 minutes (4.69 MB) Download
The News-Star's Kathy Spurlock reads excerpts from "Eliza Jane Nicholson: New Orleans Publisher" by Patricia Brady.
River Reads selections are adapted with permission from Louisiana Women: Their Lives and Times edited by Janet Allured and Judith Gentry, published by the University of Georgia Press.
More information about the Ouachita Parish Public Library's River Reads program is available at www.oplib.org/riverreads.htm.
Air Date: Tue, 06/15/2010


text:
Education in the basic and advanced elements of real estate development and finance from a trusted industry source.
For more than 25 years, the ULI Real Estate School has set the standard in continuing education for land use professionals. ULI assembles some of the most experienced instructors and professionals in the country who bring materials, research, and case studies drawn from their own classrooms and professional experience.
Emphasizing a real-world perspective, each of the Real Estate School's courses is designed to provide students with practical, hands-on knowledge and information. From understanding of the development process to advanced financial analysis, the ULI Real Estate School gives you insights into today's real estate industry. The interdisciplinary approach taken by the ULI Real Estate School offers students balanced and effective knowledge of the real estate business from multiple perspectives. The courses encourage interaction among participants and faculty to foster a more complete understanding of the development process and the wider real estate industry.
A continental breakfast and a luncheon are provided each day to give attendees the opportunity to interact with fellow students and faculty members to share their various areas of expertise with one another. In addition, a networking reception is offered at the end of the first day of each course.
2015 Course Schedule
Real Estate Finance I (Santa Monica, California)
January 26-28, 2015
Real Estate Development Process: Part I (Santa Monica, California)
January 26-28, 2015
Real Estate Finance II (Santa Monica, California)
January 29-31, 2015
Real Estate Development Process: Part II (Santa Monica, California)
January 29-31, 2015
Advanced Real Estate Finance: Capital Sources and Deal Structures (Santa Monica, California)
February 2-4, 2015


text:
Follow us:
Click below to filter your search results
Number 572
ABSTRACT: Adolescents make up an increasing percentage of the U.S. population with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Adolescent-focused care is critical to identify and reduce at-risk behavior, comorbidities, and partner transmission. Optimal medical and reproductive health care, both now and in...
September 2013
Number 558
ABSTRACT: Given demonstrated vaccine efficacy, safety, and the large potential for prevention of many infectious diseases among adults, newborns, and pregnant women, obstetrician–gynecologists should embrace immunizations as an integral part of their women's health care practice. To provide direct...
April 2013
American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
409 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024-2188 | Mailing Address: PO Box 70620, Washington, DC 20024-9998
Copyright Terms of Use


text:
Before upgrading to Windows Service Pack 3, Leo Notenboom of Ask-Leo.com recommends doing a complete virus and spyware scan, backing up your computer, and verifying that you have at least 1.5 gigabytes of available disk space. To learn more, read these two articles from Microsoft and Ask Leo.
Cite This Page
Feldman, Barbara. "Before Upgrading to Windows Service Pack 3,." Surfnetkids. Feldman Publishing. 19 Aug. 2008. Web. 29 Nov. 2014. <http://www.surfnetkids.com/tech/322/before-upgrading-to-windows-service-pack-3/ >.


text:
Coupon Codes for College Basketball
Listed below you'll find some of the best college basketball coupons, discounts and promotion codes as ranked by the users of RetailMeNot.com. To use a coupon simply click the coupon code then enter the code during the store's checkout process. Learn moreMore »« Less
Current Top College Basketball Coupons
Get $24 Off College Basketball Referee Jacket with CCA Logo.SAVE COUPON
50% offSale
Save 50% Off Circus Circus Vegas Hotel Rooms. Book Just In Time For Nascar, College Basketball and St. Patricks Days!SAVE COUPON
$6 Off T-ShirtSale
Save $6 on Marquette Golden Eagles 2012 NCAA Mens Basketball Tournament Sweet Sixteen Net Long Sleeve T-Shirt - Navy BlueSAVE COUPON


text:
The Center for Sharing Public Health Services is a place for communities to learn how to work across jurisdictional boundaries to deliver essential public health services. Known as "cross-jurisdictional sharing," this approach involves public health officials, policymakers, partners and other stakeholders interested in improving effectiveness and efficiency. The Center is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and is managed by the Kansas Health Institute. learn more ›
The Center has two main goals. Its first goal is to build evidence related to cross-jurisdictional sharing. It does that, in part, by working with the Shared Services Learning Community. These 16 teams in 14 states act as a learning laboratory by providing real world experiences that the Center can collect and analyze. Its second goal is to use that evidence to produce tools, methods and models to assist public health agencies and policymakers as they consider and adopt CJS approaches. learn more ›
The Center's Roadmap to Develop Cross-Jurisdictional Sharing Initiatives is a guide for public health officials and policymakers who are considering or adopting CJS arrangements. The experiences of the demonstration sites, along with other research and expert opinions, provide the knowledge and insight that is the foundation of the Roadmap. Visit our Roadmap to learn more ›
When it comes to working across jurisdictional lines, partners come from many walks of life. Policymakers at the local and state levels, public health practitioners and public health administrators are key players in successful cross-jurisdictional sharing. If you represent one of these sectors, we offer a "Quick Links" section designed specifically for you and the unique role you fill in this journey. learn more ›
The Shared Services Learning Community (SSLC) team of Horizon Minnesota hit a milestone in spring 2014 when the five counties that make up the Horizon Community Health Board approved a proposal to fully integrate the three existing health departments that serve their counties. Their goal is to make public health in their region more efficient and effective with greater capacity to meet the current and future challenges facing their communities. learn more ›


text:
3 comments:
Oh my goodness I love all of this! Especially the plaid plates, fortune cookie and Chitchat iphone case!ReplyDelete
Rachel Ashley
I LOVE LOVE LOVE your gift guides! You always think of the cutest things :). Keep them coming please! :) xoxoReplyDelete
Love the Jennifer Meyer wishbone bracelet. So simple, beautiful and delicate.ReplyDelete
Happy Holidays!
Brooke du jour


text:
Use code HA9MWXdetails >* To Save 10% on orders $249 or more. Use promotion code HA9MWX during checkout. Discount does not apply to shipping charges, delivery surcharges, duties or customs fees and cannot be combined with any other offer. Promotion cannot be used on previous orders. This promotional offer may be modified or terminated at any time. Offer expires 12/27/2014 at 11:59pm ET.
Personalized the Lollipop and Gumball Candy Bars for prom.This Lollipop and Gumball Candy Bar has a fun design of polka dots and lollipops. Add your own whimsical message to both sides of the 5 1/4 inches long x 2 inches wide Lollipop and Gumball Candy Bar to create a unique favor for your next event or party. The 1.5 ounce Personalized Lollipop and Gumball Candy Bar is available in milk chocolate, dark chocolate, mint chocolate or milk chocolate crisp.