Subject: WestLaw vs. Public Domain - please read. 
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 1997 13:47:36 -0500 
From: "C.P. Spight" <jcentury@world2u.com> 
To: citation@teo.uscourts.gov 

     Surely it is not the intent of judges who oppose replacing the 
de-facto WestLaw monopoly on court opinions to keep these important 
documents out of the hands of individual citizens. Perhaps in the 
past it was practical and convenient for one company to reference & 
categorize court decisions in a practical, universal format. The 
digital age affords us the opportunity to adopt a free standard, 
while at the same time making these documents available to the 
general public and little or no cost. The argument that such a 
conversion would cause confusion, or "too much work" is patently 
untrue. Having worked in a knowledge engineering capacity for AT&T, I 
can tell you that the conversion would be simple & automated. Whether 
the source documents are somehow pulled from pre-existing online 
databases or from print, various types of software (including optical 
character recognition technology) can make the conversion quickly & 
efficiently. Adopting a numbering/referencing standard would be 
quite simple; a conversion index could be drawn up (or even better 
implemented by a piece of software) to "translate" WestLaw numbering 
to the new standard. 

     The cost savings aside, publishing these opinions online will 
empower ordinarily citizens, grassroots political groups, small 
business owners, and others. This should be reason enough to convert 
everything to the public domain standard. 

     Surely those who oppose this measure are not attempting to 
deprive ordinary Americans access to information which is rightfully 
theirs, rendered by a system payed for by their tax dollars (the 
court system), rendered by people whom are supposedly their servants. 
WestLaw's opposition to this is obvious and tiresome; they are the 
only ones with anything to lose. Well, WestLaw and the individuals 
who have benefitted from WestLaw's "perks", anyway. That these perks 
(bribes) occur in this manner is deeply offensive to me as an 
American citizen, and I will be sure to make this practice understood 
by the public at large. The only reason there have not been any 
repercussions from these practices is that Americans are sadly 
disinterested and ignorant about our complex "black box" of a legal 
system. This must -- and will -- change. 

     There is positively no reason, practical or otherwise, not to 
convert to the public domain standard. I recommend any Justices who 
oppose the conversion be publicly scrutinized and questioned as to 
their motives or intentions. If they cannot understand the benefits 
of converting to the new internet technology, one must then ask 
whether or not these judges are qualified to judge ANY issue 
pertaining to technology or the Internet. I urge anyone involved with 
this decision to heed the example of the U.S. House of 
Representatives with its Thomas system (which makes all proposed and 
implemented legislation available for free to the public). All that 
is needed to cement the conversion process is public awareness. I 
find it hard to believe that ANYONE in the general public would agree 
with WestLaw's viewpoint. If I must be the one to write letters to 
all of the New York metropolitan newspapers to make people aware of 
this, so be it. 

     Thank you for taking the time to read this. 

                                   -C.P. Spight