Date: Wed, 14 Sep 1994 22:19:19 -0700 Subject: GovAccess.056: Net action cracks caselaw monopoly! Maybe. WEST PUBLISHING'S INJUNCTION PROHIBITS COPYING "THEIR" FEDERAL-COURT CASELAW >From: Gregory Miller JD >Date: Sat, 3 Sep 94 08:42:50 -0700 >To: tech-law@techlaw.TechLaw.Com >Subject: West Publishing Obtains Permanent Injunction Regarding Legal Text >Comment: Marger Johnson et al -- Law & Technology Discussion Forum > >Friday morning, Minnesota Public Radio reported that West Publishing Co. >of Eagan, Minn. has obtained a permanent injunction against On Point >Solutions, Inc., a CD-ROM producer. According to the sound bite by a West >attorney, OPS had produced CD-ROM's from what West claimed were >copyrighted materials. > >According to the atty, OPS had obtained copies of West publications then >tore the pages from the spine then scanned in the printed matter. OPS, >apparently, deleted any material copyrighted by West then made the >CD-ROM's from what was probably public domain material. > > >West's argument seems to have been that if the scanned matter included any >copyrighted material, no matter how small a part, such scanning amounted >to an "unfair practice". The Court agreed and granted the injunction. > >If the news report is accurate, those of you attempting to sway Atty Genl >Reno and others in this battle over who owns public domain material (Yes, >I wrote that as I intended :-) have another point to raise. It seems that >West is now claiming that its addition of copyrighted material to P.D. >material makes _all the material West's. As to the scanning issue, is >that really distinguishing because scanners do nothing that cannot be done >by typists. Will West's next move be to seek injunction against typing >from its books even if all but a miniscule amount of the material is P.D.? > >Does this presage an attempt by West to claim that it can control even >quotation of cases in briefs, etc., if the cases are from books, etc. that >contain even a tiny fraction of West copyrighted matter? Just where are >the limits of West's claims? > > >If anyone has more info on this matter, please post. We do not entirely >trust news reports, even from public radio, especially where the radio >station is in the hometown of one of the litigants and the only sound bite >came from the hometown atty. > > >INHERENT TECHNOLOGIES INC. > Legal Information Systems & Internet Consulting >2130 SW Jefferson Street Suite 300 >Portland, Oregon 97201 > > Telephone: + 1 503-224-6751 > FAX: + 1 503-224-8872 > Internet: info@inherent.com > Http: //www.inherent.com &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& DEPT OF JUSTICE *MIGHT* FACILITATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO PUBLIC'S JUDICIAL RECORDS >From tap-info@essential.org Thu Sep 8 16:34:35 1994 From: James Love To: jwarren@autodesk.com Subject: DOJ Press Release, Reno supports public domain citation Distributed to TAP-INFO, a free Internet Distribution List (subscription requests to listserver@essential.org) TAXPAYER ASSETS PROJECT - INFORMATION POLICY NOTE September 8, 1994 The following is a very important press release from the Department of Justice regarding an annoucement by Attorney General Janet Reno that DOJ will support much broader public access to federal judicial opinions, and will take steps to support the establishment of a public domain system of citation to federal caselaw. While the press release also states that DOJ will continue with its plans for a computer assisted legal research (CALR) procurement, the annoucement is a huge victory for those who seek to end the West monopoly control over citations to federal caselaw. The annoucement from DOJ credits the new policy initative to the large number of letters received from the public over this issue. Nearly all of these comments were generated by messages circulated on Internet Discussion Lists. Your participation in these matters does indeed make a difference. Thanks to everyone who wrote letters to the Department of Justice or Congress on this issue. James Love (jamie@tap.org; 202/387-8030 or 610/658-0880). Department of Justice FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JMD FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 1994 (202) 616-2765 TDD (202) 514-1888 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SEEKS IMPROVED PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT RULINGS WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Justice Department today said it would explore ways to improve public access to federal court opinions, especially by computer, to make legal research more affordable for scholars, public interest groups and users of electronic information. Currently, most electronic research is done by leasing access to privately owned systems, such as WESTLAW and LEXIS, that electronically search through data bases of federal cases and other materials. Attorney General Janet Reno said that the Department had received considerable correspondence from members of the legal community concerned about the high cost of electronic access to judicial opinions and the present propriety [sic] system most often used to cite federal cases. Reno said the Department is evaluating various existing non- proprietary methods of citing cases to develop a unified, comprehensive approach acceptable to federal and state courts, attorneys and legal researchers. The Department is also exploring the possibility of a public-domain data base of federal and state judicial opinions. Comment and suggestions from the public are invited, and should be directed to Kent Walker, Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Justice Department, Washington, D.C. 20530. At the same time, the Department said it would shortly solicit bids for a computerized legal research system for its own lawyers. The prospective contract would last one year, with four annual options to renew the contract. Because of the relatively short contract periods, the Department expects that the prospective contract would not delay a decision on a new public citation system. --------------------------------------------------------------------- TAP-INFO is an Internet Distribution List provided by the Taxpayer Assets Project (TAP). TAP was founded by Ralph Nader to monitor the management of government property, including information systems and data, government funded R&D, spectrum allocation and other government assets. TAP-INFO reports on TAP activities relating to federal information policy. tap-info is archived at ftp.cpsr.org; gopher.cpsr.org and wais.cpsr.org Subscription requests to tap-info to listproc@tap.org with the message: subscribe tap-info your name --------------------------------------------------------------------- Taxpayer Assets Project; P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 v. 202/387-8030; f. 202/234-5176; internet: tap@tap.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& LAW LIBRARIANS REMAIN CONCERNED ABOUT PUBLIC ACCESS TO CASELAW [It'd be nice if Washingtoontown wonks could write with the brevity customary in online communications; could probably pay off the national debt. However, the reality is ...] >From tap-info@ESSENTIAL.ORG Fri Sep 9 18:05:48 1994 <**excerpted**> From: James Love The following is a letter from Robert Oakley of the American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) to Attorney General Janet Reno regarding the Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed procurement of computer assisted legal research (CARL). AALL asks DOJ to support a vendor neutral system of citation and to require the bidders to provide public access to an "unenhanced" database of the judicial opinions at the marginal cost of dissemination. The letter follows. September 1, 1994 Ms. Janet Reno Attorney General of the United States United States Department of Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Attorney General Reno: I am writing to you on behalf of the American Association of Law Libraries concerning the Department of Justice's imminent Request for Proposals (RFP) for the procurement of computer assisted legal research (CALR). ... In view of the controversy surrounding the issue, we do believe that it is appropriate for the Department to issue a Request for Comment before going forward with the actual RFP. Such an opportunity to comment will ensure that everyone has had a chance to state their views and to bring all the issues to your attention. In my letter to you of August 30, 1993, I outlined AALL's interest in ensuring public access to the public domain portions of the original JURIS database. Our continuing interest in the issue stems from our long-standing commitment to public access to public information of all types. This information includes not only the caselaw which is discussed at some length in this letter, but also includes such public information as is created by the Department of Justice itself. ... Unlike some of the others who have written to you, we do not believe that the government should own its case law. The copyright laws of the United States clearly preclude Federal government ownership of its information. ... ... Regrettably, the assertion of ownership of some parts of the published caselaw together with the requirements of courts and others to cite to certain privately published versions of the caselaw, have, in practical effect, given one publisher substantial control over the legal information market. The Federal government does not itself publish most Federal caselaw in any permanent usable form. Only the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States and some specialized courts are published in a permanent form by the government. Slip opinions are issued by the Federal District Courts and Courts of Appeals, but the permanent record of those opinions is available only from private sources. Similarly, many states have turned over the publication of their opinions to the West Publishing Company. AALL does not wish to minimize in any way the important role that the West Publishing Company has played in the publication of legal information. ... However, West's claim of copyright in the numbering and pagination of its volumes together with the requirements of the courts and traditional legal citation manuals that pinpoint cites be provided to West products gives West near monopoly-like power and severely limits the ability of others to enter the market and compete effectively. ... There appears to be two parts to the solution to this problem. First, some mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that this important material remain publicly accessible in the public domain. We do not contend that West does not and should not have a right to its editorial enhancements and the other creative elements of its work. But we believe that such enhancements should not have the practical effect of withdrawing the underlying material from the public domain. Second, if the use of such public domain legal information is to be effective, then a citation system must be developed that does not rely on the volume and page numbers of the West Reporters. Such a system must gain a high degree of acceptance within the legal community ... With regard to the second of these points, several jurisdictions have experimented with alternative citation systems. Both the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the state of Louisiana have adopted non-proprietary means of citation. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts developed a similar proposal a few years ago. Although that proposal was never mandated for the Federal Courts, it did become the basis of the system now in use in the Sixth Circuit. The Board of Governors of the Wisconsin State Bar Association has recently completed a thorough review of the issue and has recommended a new system for use in the state of Wisconsin. ... In an effort to harmonize these systems and perhaps develop one that could be more universally adopted, the American Association of Law Libraries has appointed a Task Force that will be reviewing all existing systems and proposals and making a recommendation by the middle of next year. With regard to the need for a public domain version of Federal caselaw, it is our understanding that both WESTLAW and LEXIS receive the opinions directly from the Federal courts without any charge (not even a charge for the cost of dissemination as would be permitted under the principles of Circular A-130). This information is very valuable, and the companies make a great deal of money by selling the same basic information (with value added, of course) back to the government. ... The availability of a a public domain version of the caselaw would not interfere with the market for a more sophisticated version from the private sector. ... Private sector companies would, of course, still add their own value to the data and make the enhanced version available to attorneys and others able and willing to pay the price for the added value. ... After the issuance of the RFP, the Department of Justice may well sign a contract worth millions of dollars with one or both of the major legal information vendors. Together with similar contracts in other parts of the government, the total amount of Federal money being spent on these services will be significant. Yet the vendors receive the information from the government without any charge. AALL believes that under such circumstances, it is not unreasonable to request as a condition of granting the contract that: (1) On a regular basis a compiled (but otherwise unenhanced) version of the final opinions be made available for public distribution at the marginal cost of dissemination, and (2) The vendor agree to use such public domain citation systems as may be developed and implemented in courts around the country. ... Robert L. Oakley Washington Affairs Representative &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& "A popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." --James Madison [from Bruce R Koball ] --jim GovAccess is a series of postings and a distribution-list maintained by Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 jwarren@well.com -or- jwarren@autodesk.com [James Madison Freedom-of-Information Award, Soc.of Prof.Journalists - Nor.Calif., 1994; Hugh Hefner First-Amendment Award, Playboy Foundation, 1994; Pioneer Award, Electronic Frontier Foundation, 1992 (first year); founder, Computers, Freedom & Privacy confs, 1991; InfoWorld founder; blah blah blah] >> Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation.<< >> Past postings are at ftp.cpsr.org:/cpsr/states/california/govaccess << >> To add or drop the GovAccess list, email to jwarren@well.com . <<