Gatehouse and NYT Co. settle

By Joshua BentonJan. 26, 2009  /  9:41 a.m.  

For those who don’t follow our Twitter feed, our Zach Seward reports from the courthouse that the parties in GateHouse v. New York Times Co. (see our previous posts here, here, and here) have settled out of court. Details on the settlement to come as soon as we have them.

So for anyone worried about how a ruling might have legally limited aggregation or linking online, your worries can now officially be…put off until the next time this comes up in court.

This entry was written by Joshua Benton, posted on January 26, 2009 at 9:41 am, and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post. Post a comment or leave a trackback.


7 comments:

  1. Lisa Williams at 12:35 pm, January 26, 2009

    Should it be notable that the links to Gatehouse’s WickedLocal sites are still up on Boston.com’s Your Town sites?

     
  2. Joshua Benton at 12:52 pm, January 26, 2009

    The settlement gives Boston.com until March 1 to pull out all the old links to Wicked Local, it appears.

    http://www.nytco.com/pdf/Agreement.pdf

     
  3. Lisa Williams at 12:53 pm, January 26, 2009

    Oops. Nevermind. Great work on getting the settlement documents so fast, BTW. Would have been there myself, couldn’t go; glad someone was there.

     
  4. Ted McEnroe at 1:12 pm, January 26, 2009

    Not being a legal scholar – I know that this agreement doesn’t set legal precedent. But for the legal minds out there – can it be used in subsequent cases as a guideline? Because it does set a standard…

     
  5. Joshua Benton at 1:28 pm, January 26, 2009
     

Trackbacks:

  1. GateHouse-NYT deal: Bad precedent » Nieman Journalism Lab » Pushing to the Future of Journalism at 2:39 pm, January 26, 2009

    [...] unrelentingly bad. Why? Because while the settlement is not a legally-binding precedent — the one piece of what might be called good news — it still involves the New York Times voluntarily [...]

     
  2. GateHouse-NYT deal: A bad precedent at 4:19 pm, January 26, 2009

    [...] unrelentingly bad. Why? Because while the settlement is not a legally-binding precedent — the one piece of what might be called good news — it still involves the New York Times voluntarily refraining [...]

     

Leave a comment

Check out these related posts