> Like I said, a book like that is supposed to be
> kept under seal until release date. Obviously
> the seal was porous, so it'd be interesting to
> know how it happened.
>
> Long ago The Nation got sued for breaking
> an embargo on . . . Gerald Ford's memoirs [by
> quoting in part and discussing Ford's retelling
> of the circumstsances of his pardon of Nixon].
> The suit got thrown out . . . .
Perhaps a small point in the Scheme of Things and also with all due respect, but:
Would that it was so that the lawsuit against the The Nation re. its breaking of the "embargo" concerning the Ford book "got thrown out" was so after the magazine reported the book's treatment of The Pardon - although it appears that D.Henwood's Remembery has temporarily malfunctioned in this connection:
In Harper and Row, et. al v. Nation Enterprises, et al., in the face of an "It wasn't really 'infringement' because it is mostly a 'fact'!" and, anyway, it was "fair use" claims (on "new worthiness" grounds in light of the comparatively small portion of the book quoted from, etc.), the trial court held the magazine liable for copyright infringement and assessed damages in favor of plaintiffs [501 F. Supp. 848 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)].
And although the (divided) U.S. court of appeals did later reverse [723 F.2d. 195 (2d Cir. 1983)] - and so, for time, the case was indeed "thrown out" - in what has become a lead ruling dealing with (mostly by arguably substantially narrowing) copyright "fair use" standards, the Supremes reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court's ruling [471 U.S. 539, 105 S. Ct. 2218 (1985)].