e-Law — Meeting No. 2

I. Vision set out in the Wisconsin Bar report

• Public ownership of the law
• A level playing field with minimal barriers for private sector redistributors/value-adders
• Realizing the potential of digital distribution to make things faster, better, cheaper
• Public provision of a functional collection of primary law (case law plus), accessible to public sector workers and the public - e.g., ND, OK, LOVDATA, JURIS, LegalWA.org
• What happened to that vision in WI (neutral format without the archive of final, revised decisions) - e.g., Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129
• Jurisdictions that joined the neutral format honor roll, but did even that without realizing any (significant) effect - e.g., CO, WA

II. The framework for units 2-4

• The spectrum of structural arrangements for case law publication
• Supreme Court of the United States
• State with a "reporter" who supervises production of a set of "official reports"
• Hypothetical state, heavily reliant on the Thomson/West NRS
• Selective publication versus comprehensive distribution

III. Copyright as a barrier

• The situation in 1994
• The situation today (the Delaware and Federal Circuit problems)
• Difference between federal decisions and state decisions
• Behavior today
• ND Web site - e.g., Trautman v. Day, 273 N.W.2d 712 (N.D. 1979)
• VersusLaw ($13.95 / mo.) - e.g., Torgerson v. Rose, 339 N.W.2d 79 (N.D. 1983)
• LOISLAW (single state - >$1,000/year; national - >$3,000/year) - e.g.,

IV. Citation as a barrier

• Practical even if not legal barrier
• Value of source-specific citation? (the Delaware and Federal Circuit problems)
• VersusLaw as an illustration - e.g., Monthie v. Boyle Road Associates, LLC, 281 A.D.2d 15, 724 N.Y.S.2d 178 (N.Y.App.Div. 04/30/2001)

V. The necessity for final revised version as a barrier

• How much revision, in fact, occurs? (Delaware as an example. Question of Web site updates. See, e.g., NYLRB site - People v. Van Deusen, 7 N.Y.3d 744 (2006).)
• LEXIS as an illustration (Communication from Tim Fuller.)

VI. The need for legacy data as a barrier

• Practical even if not legal barrier

VII. Next week (state contracted for "official reports")

• Readings
• Assigned: Jensen, Fuller, one "official report" contract together with the statutory (and constitutional?) provisions under which it has been let (CA, GA, NH, NY, OH)
• Suggested background: Williams, Cole, additional "official report" contracts, Muller dissent from AALL committee report on neutral format citation
• Questions to consider in your discussion submission about your assigned contract:
• What is the core transaction (what is the state paying, what goods and services does it receive)?
• To what extent is the state outsourcing editorial functions (from headnote creation to cite and quote checking)?
• To what extent does the contract bring the state a better price for certain legal information (what legal information, in what formats) than the public will have to pay for the same information?
• To what extent, if at all, does the contract cover electronic versions of the reports?
• Does the state end up in possession of and with extensive IP rights in the final version of the reports, in digital format?
• Any other provisions that strike you as noteworthy?
• Our discussion
• Compare and contrast
• Relate to such state background variables as seem relevant (e.g., NY versus NH)
• Degree to which relationship is etched in state law
• Degree of resistance against the "Wisconsin package" likely to flow from the relationship