The point is seems that your invitation to Vance Opperman was a "West"
invitation, not a "Vance" invitation. Seems to me that if he did not
wish to show so as to answer questions such as "Are the first page
citations of West Reporters in the public domain ... do you stand behind
the statements of your counsel to the Wisconsin Supreme Court", then what
is the point of having another West lawyer with plausible deniability.
I guess Vance backed out when he saw Jamie on the panel --- a wise decision.
Anyway, you have on your panel, three academics, one public intrest rep,
and a lawyer representing a party with a considerable interest and in
litigation with a number of publishers.
Only one of the above has posted on law-lib in the last year on the issues.
Only one publishes case law.
Alan Sugarman
HyperLaw
sugarman@panix.com
On Mon, 27 Mar 1995, Heller James S wrote:
>
>
> I believe I was the first to organize a debate on "Who Owns the
> Law? (and Other Copyright Issues)", which will, ironically, be the
> last of the three scheduled debates. This one will be held during
> the Naitonal Conference on Legal Information Issues at the AALL Annual
> Meeting in Pittsburgh. It was accepted as a program by the
> Education Committee and the National Conference Task last September.
>
> I invited Vance Opperman, but West suggested Donna Bergsgaard
> instead. Also invited were Jamie Love, Lolly Gasaway, and
> Carol Risher of the Assoc. of American Publishers. Within the last
> few weeks both Donna Bergsgaard and Carol Risher withdrew. In their
> places we have Jim Schatz (from the Schatz Paquin law firm) and
> copyright professor Trotter Hardy (William and Mary).
>
> I never felt intimated by anyone or any organization in selecting the
> debaters. Y'all can hypothesize as much as you want as to why I
> invited these people to participate. The answer is very simple --
> they know and can present the issues well.
>
>
> Jim Heller
> William and Mary
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST