Author: James Love (by way of van@wordsys.com (Claude Van Horn)) at ~Internet Date: 3/14/ 0 10:47 AM Priority: Normal BCC: citation at AO-OCPPO TO: citation@ao.uscourts.gov at ~Internet Subject: Public Domain Cite Letter from UPD Claude Van Horn 1519 W. Allison Rd Cheyenne, WY 82007 van@wordsys.com ABA Citation Resolution Suite 4-512 Administrative office of the U.S. Courts Washington, DC 20544 via Internet: citation@ao.uscourts.gov Dear members of the U.S. Judicial Conference: I am on a computer mailing list which sent me a copy of the "Union for Public Domain" comment concerning public domain citations. I write to urge the United States Judicial Conference to adopt a public domain citation system for judicial opinions. I have been following this important topic for more than five years. I have read how one "for profit" business has stated that it (in effect) owns the people's law. That anyone who wants to cite a court case must pay it money in order to reference a judicial opinion. As a businessman, I would like to be in the enviable position as West Publishing. Publishing opinions (as do many other companies) and charging for them (as do other companies) is a viable business. The problem, for me, is that while it is illegal for AT&T to have a monopoly on long distance telephone traffic, and West Publishing to be able to have a monopoly on case law citations. There must be competition in telecommunications, in automobiles, in cerial, in steel, in everything . . . but we must buy back our own law from West Publishing. The federal government is the people's property. We gave it the constitutional right to exist. Now, parts of the people's government have grown to the point where our own creation has gotten away from its owner (rather like Frank Buck being devoured by one of his own lions). Still, the constitution was designed by the people to set limits on the government. The people own the law. The people own those judicial opinions. The people paid for the air force typists who did the original work in presenting to West Publishing the transcripts it used to start its service. In the early days, West provided a valuable service to the people and the law by providing a reference. They made money doing this, which is their right. But in order to research the law, the public had to go to law libraries during restricted operating hours -- or hire a lawyer or researcher to do the digging for them. And to cite a case in court, the classification system "owned" by West Publishing HAD to be used. There was simply no choice. Now, in the electronic age, other companies wish to catalog the law for the people. Universities wish to place the people's law on the internet for free (horrors!!) so that the ordinary student or businessman can research points of law at midnight or three in the morning. Electronic publishing is alive in this country, and since the people pay for the universities, and the Internet, and own the law, this is fair and right. But this system is tragically flawed. For no matter when or where the law is published, when WEST comes out with its published volume, those are the citation data that MUST be used in the people's courts. True, it gives a nice standard reference. It makes citations easy to look up in a standard way. But since West lays claim to the system itself, it argues that anyone using the system must pay them a royalty. They hold universities and publishers hostage simply because they thought of a system. I agree that if people use West's system that West is due just compensation. However since the law is in the public domain, why is their not a classification system that is in the public domain? I understand that there are several proposals that would make the law as easy to catalog as the West system. These public domain systems would enable the opinions to be given appropriate classifications by the courts, and be used by any publisher and refferenced by any other court. Using a public domain system, the electronic publishers would have a citable refference immediately. The people would be able to research and cite from that system. Numbers and refferences would not change at the whim of one giant company. University Webmasters would not have to count how any times a person looked at a refference on the World Wide Web and fork over $8 a "hit". It brings the law back to the people. It aids in competition. It speeds publication of the people's law. I feel it is important to adopt and support a public domain system of judicial opinions. Thank you. Claude van Horn.