fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) (08/14/88)
The San Francisco Chronicle, Saturday, August 13, 1988: S U P R E M E C O U R T T R I E S M O R E O F C O M P U T E R A G E United Press International Washington Citing its "unique position in the American judicial system," the Supreme Court announced yesterday that it will consider ways to make its opinions more readily accessible to the public by distributing them via computer. James R. Donovan, the court's director of data systems, invited news wires, legal publishers, and legal research data base providers to submit proposals outlining how they would handle the distribution of the court's decisions. "The court tentatively contemplates a one to three year experiment with the period of review based in part on the outside entity's investment," he said. The court, a bastion of tradition, has been reluctant to enter the computer age. It was not until 1981 that the justices switched from typewriters to word processors for writing their opinions. Currently, the only way members of the public may obtain an opinion on the day of its release is to go to the court and pick one up. Wire services report on the opinions the moment they are issued, but the complete text of the decisions are only made available by various legal publishers about a week after their release. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I'd love to see the Supreme court opinions here on USENET. Perhaps this is something that UUNET (or any other capable site) should submit a proposal to do? comments? Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu [followups are directed to news.misc]
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (08/16/88)
Sounds like a good idea for the net software, but I'd think this would
definitely lend itself to another distribution (law. perhaps?) as I
should think most of the net wouldn't want to carry the LARGE volume
of traffic this would generate. That and being of little interest
to the majority of the net.
--
Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan
V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA sullivan@vsi.com
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries! Pbbbt!"gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) (08/16/88)
In article <25634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: >I'd love to see the Supreme court opinions here on USENET. Perhaps >this is something that UUNET (or any other capable site) should >submit a proposal to do? > > comments? > > Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu > I'm for it. I think we could probably do without the _whole_ decision, maybe just the summary. I, at least, wouldn't have any idea of what to do with citations of previous cases, legal traditions, etc. (Well, actually, I do, but I wouldn't do the research, so it isn't worth the bandwidth). -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Still working on _natural_ intelligence. gary@percival
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (08/16/88)
In article <25634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: > Currently, the only way members of the public may obtain > an opinion on the day of its release is to go to the court and pick > one up. Wire services report on the opinions the moment they are > issued, but the complete text of the decisions are only made > available by various legal publishers about a week after their > release. > > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > I'd love to see the Supreme court opinions here on USENET. Perhaps > this is something that UUNET (or any other capable site) should > submit a proposal to do? > > comments? > > Erik E. Fair ucbvax!fair fair@ucbarpa.berkeley.edu I would also. I'm always impressed how many different interpretations I read about what a Supreme Court ruling means -- and I'm sick and tired of not being able to see what the ruling itself says. Remember the Georgia sodomy law? I read at least three significantly different accounts of what they decided, and why. I would love to be able to make up my mind for myself. Are there any law schools on the net? If so, these would be the logical organizations to arrange a feed from "ussprm", or whatever the Robed Ones node would be called. Clayton E. Cramer
dewey@execu.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (08/16/88)
In article <794@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes: > >Sounds like a good idea for the net software, but I'd think this would >definitely lend itself to another distribution (law. perhaps?) as I >should think most of the net wouldn't want to carry the LARGE volume >of traffic this would generate. That and being of little interest >to the majority of the net. > >-- >Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan >V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA sullivan@vsi.com >"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries! Pbbbt!" Another possibility would be archiving. I don't know of anyone here that that would get real benefit from the decisions as they come out, although that could change and it might be a bit different for some sites. It would seem though that having the actual stuff put up and available somewhere so that references could be made MIGHT have some impact on a few of the more legalistic flames. At least, if someone claimed a Supreme Court decision in support (or opposition, I suppose - stranger things have happened! :-) of a particular side of an argument, there would be a way to get the definitive quote! Just a thought. Probably take a prohibitively large amount of disk, lawyers are about the only group that can talk more than me and yet say less... [Feel free to use the last sentence. Heh] Dewey Henize -- =============================================================================== | execu!dewey Dewey Henize @ Execucom Systems Corp 512/346-3008 | | You don't think my employer APPROVES of these ideas, do you?? Sheesh! | ===============================================================================
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (08/17/88)
In article <360@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink (Clayton Cramer) writes: >Are there any law schools on the net? If so, these would be the >logical organizations to arrange a feed from "ussprm", or whatever >the Robed Ones node would be called. i don't know if there are any law-schools *specifically* on the net, but remember that law schools are often affiliated with other institutions of higher education, so legal-types could have access to the net already... actually, scratch that; i know that harvard law has at least one host on bitnet. -- # Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA # {decvax,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry / <henry@uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa>
james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen) (08/17/88)
In article <1320@percival.UUCP>, gary@percival.UUCP (Gary Wells) wrote: > I'm for it. I think we could probably do without the _whole_ > decision, maybe just the summary. What you're thinking of as the summary is the part copyrighted to West Publishing. Important stuff can be in the body of the decision. As I've said many times now, a recent 5th circuit appellate decision void contract clauses preventing modification of programs. Someone in comp.sys.sequent recently complained of a bug granting root access surrounding the user-limit (how many users are licensed to be on at once): he knew a way to fix it but thought that Sequent's license forbade manipulation of that code. But towards the end of the Vault v. Quaid decision from the appellate court, you can see that in fact he may change the user-limit at will, to any degree useful (even removing the limit altogether). This was the most significant part of that decision to me, and it wasn't even in West's footnote (West mentions that disassembly restrictions are unenforcable, but not the part about modification restrictions). > I, at least, wouldn't have any idea of what to do with citations of > previous cases, legal traditions, etc. (Well, actually, I do, but I > wouldn't do the research, so it isn't worth the bandwidth). Some decisions are worse than others (I hate the footnotes). However, the citations of previous cases can be interesting, as can discussions of congressional intent. Recently four or five copies of the SEA filing in the SEA v. PK lawsuit were posted in comp.sys.ibm.pc. This kind of thing really is worthless. You'd practically have to be an expert to get useful information from that - it represents the loony claims of whoever wrote the filing. The US Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts of Appeal are the important ones because the decisions cover the entire country (circuit decisions are only binding in that circuit, but the other circuits almost always go along). I would argue that computer industry cases from the appellate courts should be included too. Now does someone have an optical reader or what? West Publishing and crew have an monopoly on getting decisions from the court directly from the court in a useful form (electronically), last I heard. -- James R. Van Artsdalen ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746
sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) (08/17/88)
In article <283@execu.UUCP>, dewey@execu.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes: > > Another possibility would be archiving. I don't know of anyone here that > that would get real benefit from the decisions as they come out, although > that could change and it might be a bit different for some sites. It would > seem though that having the actual stuff put up and available somewhere > so that references could be made MIGHT have some impact on a few of the more > legalistic flames. At least, if someone claimed a Supreme Court decision in Nah. That's what law libraries are for. This idea couldn't replace those and it shouldn't even try. -- Michael Sullivan {uunet|attmail}!vsi!sullivan V-Systems, Inc. Santa Ana, CA sullivan@vsi.com "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of eldeberries! Pbbbt!"
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (08/19/88)
In article <798@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes: >In article <283@execu.UUCP>, dewey@execu.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes: >> >> Another possibility would be archiving. I don't know of anyone here that >> that would get real benefit from the decisions as they come out, although >> that could change and it might be a bit different for some sites. It would >> seem though that having the actual stuff put up and available somewhere >> so that references could be made MIGHT have some impact on a few of the more >> legalistic flames. At least, if someone claimed a Supreme Court decision in > >Nah. That's what law libraries are for. This idea couldn't replace those >and it shouldn't even try. Smilies omitted? It sounds like a great idea: online law libraries would allow instantaneous subject and keyword searches. It would keep the overhead on law firms lower (depending on how much you charge for access) since they have to pay all those clerks etc. to dig in musty tomes for obscure precedents. It would allow someone who knows as little of the real law as I do to dig around and get a little educated; then I'd have to spend a lot less time with my lawyer-proper. Supreme Court decisions' being based on the constitution itself, other Supreme Court cases, and little else, are therefore easy to argue about with your congressman. They're also more important politically than most other court decisions. Ergo they're more interesting than most court cases, and therefore the most likely choice for the start of the online library. Anyone who wants to start a Supreme-Court-decision online library has my vote. --Blair
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (08/20/88)
In article <859@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >It sounds like a great idea: online law libraries would allow instantaneous >subject and keyword searches. It's such a great idea that there already is at least one such service. I think the name of the system is Lexus. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) (08/20/88)
In article <859@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: > It sounds like a great idea: online law libraries would allow instantaneous > subject and keyword searches. In article <26092@think.UUCP>, barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes: > It's such a great idea that there already is at least one such > service. I think the name of the system is Lexus. This service is available from Mead Data Central in Dayton Ohio (+1 513 865 7810). They have rows and rows of very big very fast Amdahl mainframes that provide Nexis (news) and Lexis (legal) online database services. -- Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl ---------Nancy Reagan on the Three Stooges: "Just say Moe"---------
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (08/20/88)
In article <26092@think.UUCP> barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <859@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >>It sounds like a great idea: online law libraries would allow instantaneous >>subject and keyword searches. > >It's such a great idea that there already is at least one such >service. I think the name of the system is Lexus. Close, it's Lexis. And as soon as I read the kind letter from the nice person whose kind letter I unfortunately have deleted, I slapped my head. I _do_ remember reading a few years ago about Lexis. But can _we_ get into it? --Blair
henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) (08/21/88)
barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) wrote:
->In article <859@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
->>It sounds like a great idea: online law libraries would allow instantaneous
->>subject and keyword searches.
->
->It's such a great idea that there already is at least one such
->service. I think the name of the system is Lexus.
the only problem with this suggestion is that i don't think people
want to actually *PAY* for the service ... they just want to have it!
# Henry Mensch / <henry@garp.mit.edu> / E40-379 MIT, Cambridge, MA
# {decvax,harvard,mit-eddie}!garp!henry / <henry@uk.ac.sussex.cvaxa>dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (08/23/88)
In article <798@vsi.UUCP> sullivan@vsi.UUCP (Michael T Sullivan) writes: >Nah. That's what law libraries are for. This idea couldn't replace those >and it shouldn't even try. Law libraries, maintained with tax money, are seldom for the benefit of the public at large. The law library in the Indianapolis supreme court building is open only to attorneys. -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee,uunet}!bsu-cs!dhesi
is813cs@pyr.gatech.EDU (Cris Simpson) (08/23/88)
In article <894@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >Close, it's Lexis. >But can _we_ get into it? > --Blair You can if you have lots of money. It takes a lot to maintain a system like that. The other on-line system is WestLaw, which is far superior (IMHO) to Lexis. Most college law libraries get free access to them, as a way to hook the students before they head out to the larger world. Some slack libraries may let you use them. The really slack ones tape the login and password on the terminal. Caveat: Lawyers think a 1200 modem is amazingly fast. The Mead terminals are so bad.... You really need to see one to believe it. The keyboard makes the PCjr look like a Selectric(tm). You'd be offended by what they'd get as a jury of your "peers". -- ||...despair! Despair I can handle, it's the hope... J.Cleese,Clockwise || Cris Simpson is813cs@pyr.gatech.edu GA Tech Atlanta,GA ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!is813cs
mark@intek01.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (08/24/88)
> Close, it's Lexis. And as soon as I read the kind letter from the > nice person whose kind letter I unfortunately have deleted, I slapped > my head. I _do_ remember reading a few years ago about Lexis. > But can _we_ get into it? Sure! One person at a time, for just $14 to $27 per search, plus $32/hr. connect time. Looks like there's a market niche (although "canyon" might be a more appropriate word in this case) for somebody to put this stuff onto CD-ROM. I borrowed a lawyer's magazine from a friend and didn't see any ads, though. -- Mark McWiggins UUCP: uunet!intek01!mark DISCLAIMER: I could be wrong. INTERNET: intek01!mark@uunet.uu.net (206) 455-9935
bph@buengc.BU.EDU (Blair P. Houghton) (08/24/88)
In article <2950@mit-amt> henry@garp.mit.edu (Henry Mensch) writes: >barmar@kulla.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) wrote: >->In article <859@buengc.BU.EDU> bph@buengc.bu.edu (Blair P. Houghton) writes: >->>It sounds like a great idea: online law libraries would allow instantaneous >->>subject and keyword searches. >-> >->It's such a great idea that there already is at least one such >->service. I think the name of the system is Lexus. > >the only problem with this suggestion is that i don't think people >want to actually *PAY* for the service ... they just want to have it! You mean, (pardon me, just looking over my shoulder) like USENET? --Blair
mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (08/26/88)
In article <360@optilink.UUCP>, cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > In article <25634@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, fair@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Erik E. Fair) writes: >> I'd love to see the Supreme court opinions here on USENET. > I would also. So would I. > Are there any law schools on the net? I'm sure there are, but the first thing that comes to mind is lsuc, the Law Society of Upper Canada. Perhaps we could get the Canadian courts' opinions online too? der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu