Re: Hyperlaw on open access to district court filings

[Carl Malamud <xxxx@media.org>]

I stay out of their way.  Sugarman has a big problem feeling he has  
not received his proper due or proper financial rewards, and for some  
reason he seems to blame me for part of that.  (For example, Markoff  
said his first attempt at cracking case law "failed" and Alan seemed  
to think I was responsible for that assessment.)

Their argument is an interesting one.  It is like using FOIA to get a  
big product.  I don't think it is effective ... draining pacer and  
getting an installed base gives you standing.  Just whining about what  
they should be doing makes you a supplicant.  I'd much rather have  
eyeballs and a big archive and then wait for the right moment to  
engage their bureaucracy.

I don't the FOIA/public right approach is going to work with the  
Judicial Conference.  It doesn't address the existing mentality, which  
is that PACER costs money and therefore they need to charge.  It is  
like using the Rules Committee of the Judicial Conference to address  
the issue.  It just doesn't take into account the real institutional  
structure, which is a subcommittee of judges on the IT subcommittee  
who have a whole lot invested in this big arcane system they built.

But, some low-level harassment like this is ok.  I just won't go  
anywhere near anything Alan is doing because he is so volatile.

Carl

On Sep 12, 2008, at 1:43 PM, Stephen Schultze wrote:

> I am not a fan of Hyperlaw, given their position in the Jurisline  
> case, but this back-and-forth is very interesting:
>
> http://www.hyperlaw.com/topics/2008/2008-08-19-comment-judcial-conference-to-consider-archive.html
>
> See, in particular, their initial letter (which is linked from the  
> above).
>
> Carl, do you have opinions on the arguments presented here?
>
> --
> Stephen Schultze
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet and Society
> xxxxxxx@cyber.law.harvard.edu