November 1, 1994
Response to Jamie Love
RE: TAP's Still Not Answering West's Questions
Jamie, Your campaign of disinformation continues. The other
day, in your answer to my question #1, you said "Clearly, it
is fairly cheap to collect the new opinions from the Federal
Supreme Court and circuit courts."
If this is true (and it is not), why don't your cohorts and
competitors or even the Department of Justice simply go out
and do it? Why do they need the taxpayers to do it? You also
said, "John Lederer says it would cost the state of Wisconsin
about $50 a year to create a database (archive) of its state
court decisions." I think you better investigate that. I
can't imagine how usable a $50 a year database would be or how
accessible it would be to the general public. I don't know
how long John has been collecting and publishing opinions;
perhaps that's why he thinks it would not be a major task.
We've been doing it for 120 years and I think we have a better
perspective.
As to Mr. Acton's product, it is not "all opinions from the
Federal Supreme Court and circuit courts" and you know that
very well, as you later state. People who have looked at LLR
realize that they get what they pay for. It's a slip opinion
service, it's not full case law research. I would also note
that Mr. Acton recently notified his subscribers that he was
going to be dropping a couple of libraries because they were
just too much work to keep up. Dependability in publishing
hasn't been discussed yet. Perhaps it should be.
You later note that "Clearly DOJ would want access to a large
database which contains many additional items, and would also
want sophisticated searching tools." That's interesting. Not
only are you asking the Justice Department to spend millions
of dollars to create a database, you're now saying that
they're also going to have to go out and spend additional
taxpayer dollars in the private marketplace. That's great
news for taxpayers, we get hit twice! The one thing I would
note is that you're finally coming clean with your statement
that "the availability of a public database would make it
easier for new firms to enter the market..."
Finally, you have a grain of truth in what you're saying. The
public database is for new publishers. My question is why is
a so-called public interest group helping publishers? Where's
the public interest? Your EDGAR example is rather amusing,
particularly since NYU/IMS has just announced that they won't
be continuing that project and have had no takers. You better
start checking your dates. FLITE was not created in 1964. We
have provided complete information on FLITE in the past. You
are well aware of it and, for whatever reason, choose not to
believe the facts.
Your statement that "It isn't necessary to get everything" (in
talking about case law), once again points out your total lack
of understanding of the American Judicial System, it's basis
on precedent, and why collections of case law must be accurate
and reliable and complete. This seems to be a case of first
you say you do and then you say you don't. First you say you
need everything and then you say you don't. Which way is it?
And as I recall, the private contractor, Tax Analyst, which
has offered to key in federal case law had some interesting
ways of doing that...everything from foreigners to felons.
Again, taxpayers, "good news" for us!
You said "We are missing something and that's in the
understanding of how opinions are disseminated now." I would
beg to differ. West Publishing has been collecting and
disseminating opinions, providing access to the law for 120
years. What's your experience? And by the way, that is not
what is currently being done in Louisiana; again, incomplete
information and a disinformation campaign.
Since the government "already archives the paper versions,"
why don't these competitors simply go out as West has done
over the years, and collect the cases archived in paper,
saving taxpayers millions of dollars and creating a database
for themselves from which to create products. It's
interesting that you have talked to Lexis. Also, rather
ironic that a company that claims to be the dominant player in
the CALR market is looking for government assistance to allow
competition.
Finally, we stand by Professor Berring's study which, by the
way, was commissioned by Congress, not by West as you
continually insinuate. I know I promised to answer your
questions and we have, we're still waiting for you.
Dorothy Molstad
West Publishing
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03/09/00 PST