However, the fact that some authors are satisfied doesn’t mean that the deal is a good deal for the public at large. The point of anti-trust law is to prevent groups from colluding (to their mutual benefit) in a way that harms the public. Take an example in another industry: If Ford and GM were to collude to raise prices, they would both be satisfied. But that doesn’t mean that it would be a good deal for the public, or that the deal would pass anti-trust muster.

The problem here is that Google and the auhtor’s guild appear to be using copyright law to violate important anti-trust principles and create an unhealthy monopoly.

This too-simple opinion –without reference to the substance of the settlement– obscures more than it clarifies. The settlement agreement (between the Authors Guild, Association of American Publishers and Google) has its critics, but importantly, it satisfied the plaintiffs.

When dealing with complex issues a failure to respect their complexity (or even name the parties) can’t add anything useful to public discussion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Book_Search_Settlement_Agreement
A useful first stop for well-sourced information about this issue.