Law Librarian Blog

Interesting Note from Football

As I sit on my couch this afternoon I was very surprised to hear the CBS announcers for the Florida - Tennessee football game today throw in the tidbit that Florida kicker, Jonathan Phillips, isn't just enrolled at the University of Florida but is a 1L at the U of F Levin College of Law. Many of this blogs readers experienced the rigors of law school and its crazy first year. This young man is doing that first semester as a 1L while also kicking for the defending National Champions. This shouldn't come as a huge surprise as last year Phillips completed a masters in real estate and 78 extra points for the football Gators. Here is an article from the Palm Beach Post written in late August with a bit more of 1L Phillips story. {BB}

DOJ Opposes Google Book Settlement Terms, Not the Settlement

The Department of Justice has issued their brief in the Google Book Settlement case late Friday.  The United States is opposed to the settlement in its present form.  Compared to some of the commercial critics out there, the brief is quite mild in its opposition.  It states early on that the U.S. has been in constructive talks with the parties on the terms and suggests that the Department would like to see the deal modified rather than killed.  Here are words you wouldn't expect to find in Amazon or Microsoft's filing:

The United States strongly supports a vibrant marketplace for the electronic distribution of copyrighted works, including in-print, out-of-print, and so-called “orphan” works. The Proposed Settlement has the potential to breathe life into millions of works that are now effectively off limits to the public. By allowing users to search the text of millions of books at no cost, the Proposed Settlement would open the door to new research opportunities. Users with print disabilities would also benefit from the accessibility elements of the Proposed Settlement, and, if the Proposed Settlement were approved, full text access to tens of millions of books would be provided through institutional subscriptions. Finally, the creation of an independent, transparently-operated Book Rights Registry (the “Registry”) that would serve to clarify the copyright status and copyright ownership of out-of-print works would be a welcome development.

The brief identifies three areas of concern:

(1) claims that the Proposed Settlement fails to satisfy Rule 23; (2) claims that the Proposed Settlement would violate copyright law; and (3) claims that the Proposed Settlement would violate antitrust law.

In the view of the Department, the class could be a vehicle for settling the rights of non-class members who are absent from this proceeding.  The Department rejects the view that the Settlement should only take into concern past conduct and not future conduct.  Still, the Department has concerns about the exploitation of future rights of of all owners of out-of-print and orphan works.  Since Google and the authors and publishers have indicated they could conceivable limit those rights, the Department will work with the parties on defining those limitations.

The U.S. is also concerned with the class adequately representing orphan works rightsholders, particularly in regard to derivative products that may be developed by Google and the Registry.  There are similar concerns for foreign publishers and authors who's interests are not represented by any party, citing filings by France and Germany.  The Department again believes these issues can be obviated by further negotiations and is willing to participate to that effect.

The biggest objection to the Settlement is the industry-wide pricing granted to publishers that restricts what Google and potentially any else can charge for individual books.  This concern includes the restriction of future pricing for orphan works that may be in competition with other works from plaintiff publishers.  While the Department cannot comment completely on the Settlement until the final terms are set, it identifies the constraints on pricing under control of the publishers as likely anti-competitive without further negotiation.  As written, the Settlement gives defacto exclusivity to Google for distribution for orphan works.  That, the Department says, is a likely violation of the antitrust laws.

While addressing concerns of Google's competitors, the Department is representing its own views.  It doesn't want to stop the Settlement as much as it wants the terms within its view of the antitrust laws.

The brief is here.  [MG]

Google Has Easter Eggs

We've come to love, or at least be amused by Easter eggs in DVD menus.  These are hidden content on a disc that's displayed by following undocumented combinations of navigation steps using a DVD remote.  Here's an Easter egg from The Godfather DVD.  Go to Galleries from the Main Menu and select DVD Credits.  Follow the Next arrow at the bottom of the screen all the way to the end.  You'll see a great clip of the Sopranos cast trying to watch, somewhat unsuccessfully, a pirated advance copy of The Godfather DVD.  Note that the language in the clip is consistent with other Sopranos episodes.  You can find this egg and more at DVDEasterEggs.com.

Google apparently has easter eggs hidden on its sites as well.  You have to type in certain phrases and click on certain things to display them.  The Telegraph UK has uncovered 15 of them.  The list is here via Newsweek.  Have fun.  [MG]

Yikes, Love Affair Between Prosecutor and Judge Not Good Enough Grounds for New Trial for Inmate on Death Row in Texas

The Courthouse News Service is reporting the story. In a 6-3 decision, the highest criminal court in Texas ruled that the death row inmate waited too long to raise the argument that the relationship tainted his 1990 trial. In a terse dissent, one judge noted that the inmate tried to raise the argument earlier, but was unable to prove the rumors true until the September 2008 depositions. [JH]

Two Social Networking Sites for Law Students

Hat tip to Sue Altmeyer, Electronic Services Librarian at Cleveland Marshall Law Library, for calling attention to Advanced Advocates and CaseMakerX. Check out Sue's post for brief descriptions. [JH]

Kudos to University of Montana School of Law and Its Law Library

The University of Montana School of Law will dedicate its new building today. The current building was constructed in 1961, and its last major renovation was in 1978. The $14.8 million addition adds nearly 46,000 square feet to the school's facility, which contained 57,500 square feet prior to the new addition. Construction began in early 2008, and the building was ready for students when classes started Aug. 31.

From the press release:

The new construction added three floors and a lower level, plus attractive new entrances to the facility with overhanging balconies. The addition includes classrooms with better acoustics, current technology and audio-visual equipment. It also provides better access for students and visitors with disabilities, as well as additional small- and mid-sized classrooms to accommodate the increasing number of elective courses needed to prepare lawyers for legal specialties.

More space also is provided for the school’s clinical program, including its land use, Indian law, criminal defense and mediation clinics. This space includes client interview rooms, student workrooms and office space. The revamped building also contains an expanded law library with current technology to serve the needs of students, faculty, the judiciary, lawyers and the public.

[JH]

Friday Fun: Colbert on Citizens United v. FEC

Stephen Colbert breaks down the recently argued Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.  It's Sonia Sotomayor's first chance to show her justice-i-ness in this rare out of session argument.  The case revolves around the Hillary Clinton movie that never aired.  Political speech or corporations buying elections.  Stephen has the answer.  [MG]

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Let Freedom Ka-Ching
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

603(c), 603(d) & Surgery

ABA Approval for Law Schools Standard 603(c) reads, “A director of a law library should have a law degree and a degree in library or information science and shall have a sound knowledge of and experience in library administration.” "Should" needs to changed to "shall" before we start poking around with the rest of 603.

Though I haven't read their CVs to determine whether they may be otherwise qualified, there are too many academic law library directors lacking an MLS (or equivalent).  How many is too many?  One is too many.  For me, working under someone who doesn’t have the same academic credentials that are required for me to hold my position would be unnerving.  I wouldn’t hire someone who never went to law school to represent me in a malpractice suit (or any other case for that matter).  I do look at professionals’ walls when I enter their offices.  And frankly, my problem with the language of Standard 603(c) stems largely from the fact that in order to get a job as a reference librarian, it seemed  that I  had to go back to school for another degree.  Isn’t that what we tell potential law librarians of the future? So why would I work for someone who didn’t have to jump through the same hoops I jumped through?  It is not that I think that non-MLS directors can’t so the job required of them, but the lack of the degree has the potential to attract applicants who may not have the same commitment to our profession as those who jumped through the hoops.

 
I liken it to a dog walker who applies for a job as a veterinarian.  “I’ve worked with animals before.  I like animals.  I even have two healthy dogs at home.  Heck, I even did real good in biology in college (not so good in English). I think I’ll become a vet tomorrow.”  Maybe the dog walker would be a decent vet; I doubt it, but I don’t know.  If I were suffering appendicitis while stranded on a desert island with a guy who watched the Health Channel religiously, and he said, “I think I can remove your appendix; let me get my razor,”  I may well acquiesce because I otherwise might die.  However, if I am sitting in downtown Knoxville with appendicitis and the Health Channel addict made the same offer, I would offer him an appendectomy on my return from the hospital where I will be seeking medical attention from individuals I expect to be qualified.  So in the desert island law school, pull faculty off the shelves and set them up in an office in the library.  I don’t think the law library community is in the same state of emergency at this point, but if there are qualified people (those with both a JD and an MLS) hire one of them to run your library.  In the meantime, hire librarians to run your law schools.

Perhaps the major difference here is that the public doesn’t really care if the man behind the reference desk ever even went to college, no less did extensive graduate work.  Sure, graduate work in Library Science isn’t that intellectual taxing, but we do walk out of the program with knowledge we had not previously attained.  For some, law school might be a breeze, but that doesn’t mean that in most jurisdictions, a lawyer doesn’t need a JD to be a lawyer.  “You seem smart enough. You don’t really need to go to law school.  I think you’ll make a great lawyer; have at it” (Which leads to another question I will not attempt to answer: Are great lawyers made in great law schools?) 

So I think all law school library directors need a graduate degree in Library Science.  And because of that I don’t care about Standard 603(d) which states, “Except in extraordinary circumstances, a law library director shall hold a law faculty appointment with security of faculty position.”  I especially don’t care for it when the Interpretation 603-3 states, “The granting of faculty appointment to the director of the law library under this Standard normally is a tenure or tenure-track appointment. If a director is granted tenure, this tenure is not in the administrative position of director.”  If we’re looking for well qualified library directors (who in my opinion need both a JD and an MLS or equivalent) why would we care if they have tenure as faculty and not as a library director?  I want my director to direct.  I don’t care what he does as a faculty member.
So suppose I work for the best director a law library ever had and she has tenure. 

Suppose the law school decides they want a different director.  Well, my director who has been working wonders for the library, the law school and the profession itself gets booted as director, but gets to stick around and teach Conflicts of Law.  And instead of finding a librarian to direct the library, the tenured legal historian on the faculty who doesn’t even know how to check his email is made director of the library.  Legal Historian doesn’t need to be a librarian to be the library director, but he sure needs faculty security under 603(d).  Why would anyone except directors care about 603(d)?  There is no standard that I know of insisting that other professional library staff members be tenured (which is also something I do not particularly care about).  603(d) provides job security to people in a certain position, but not necessarily for the position for which they were hired.  So while my director remains employed, I get to work under someone who may very well have no idea what it is I do.

So the status of 603(d) means nothing to me until the “should” in 603(c) gets changed to “shall.”  Otherwise, tomorrow I might decide to become a surgeon. (DCW).

Friday Fun: Quiet Please, Don't Be a Grover

Another Sesame Street classic, Grover in the Library. [JH]

Creative Commons Publishes Findings of Survey on What “Noncommercial Use” Means to the Online Community

Creative Commons has published Defining “Noncommercial”: A Study of How the Online Population Understands “Noncommercial Use.” The report details the results of a research study launched in September 2008 to explore differences between commercial and noncommercial uses of content found online, as those uses are understood by various communities and in connection with a wide variety of content

Excepted from the Executive Summary

The empirical findings suggest that creators and users approach the question of noncommercial use similarly and that overall, online U.S. creators and users are more alike than different in their understanding of noncommercial use. Both creators and users generally consider uses that earn users money or involve online advertising to be commercial, while uses by organizations, by individuals, or for charitable purposes are less commercial but not decidedly noncommercial. Similarly, uses by for-profit companies are typically considered more commercial. Perceptions of the many use cases studied suggest that with the exception of uses that earn users money or involve advertising – at least until specific case scenarios are presented that disrupt those generalized views of commerciality – there is more uncertainty than clarity around whether specific uses of online content are commercial or noncommercial.

Some stats excerpted from the press release:

Creative Commons noncommercial licenses preclude use of a work “in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation.” The majority of respondents (87% of creators, 85% of users) replied that the definition was “essentially the same as” (43% of creators, 42% of users) or “different from but still compatible with” (44% of creators, 43% of users) theirs. Only 7% of creators and 11% of users replied that the term was “different from and incompatible with” their definition.

Other highlights from the study include the rating by content creators and users of different uses of online content as either “commercial” or “noncommercial” on a scale of 1-100, where 1 is “definitely noncommercial” and 100 is “definitely commercial.” On this scale, creators and users (84.6 and 82.6, respectively) both rate uses in connection with online advertising generally as “commercial.” However, more specific use cases revealed that many interpretations are fact-specific. For example, creators and users gave the specific use case “not-for-profit organization uses work on its site, organization makes enough money from ads to cover hosting costs” ratings of 59.2 and 71.7, respectively.

On the same scale, creators and users (89.4 and 91.7, respectively) both rate uses in which money is made as being commercial, yet again those ratings are lower in use cases specifying cost recovery or use by not-for-profits. Finally, both groups rate “personal or private” use as noncommercial, though creators did so less strongly than users (24.3 and 16.0, respectively, on the same scale).

Hat tip to Digital Koans. [JH]

Suggestions Wanted for ABA Journal's Next 100 Best Law Blogs by October 2

The ABA Journal wants to know which law blogs should be included in its annual list of the 100 best law blogs. The list will be published in December. Suggestions should be made by October 2. This would be a great way to increase the visibility of a hidden gem in the law librarian/law library blogosphere. The ABA Journal's blog directory lists 55 blogs in the field. Bonnie Shucha's list, recently updated with Michael Robak's help, is much better. As of August 18th, it lists 195 blogs. [JH]

Hints That Web 2.0 May Alter Long-Standing Patterns of Civic Engagement Based on Socioeconomic Status According to Pew Internet Survey

"Contrary to the hopes of some advocates," writes the authors of the Pew Internet's September 2009 survey findings in The Internet and Civic Engagement, "the internet is not changing the socioeconomic character of civic engagement in America." Higher income, higher educated citizens are more likely than the less well off to participate in online political activities. However, "there are hints that forms of civic engagement anchored in blogs and social networking sites could alter long-standing patterns that are based on socioeconomic status." [JH]

A Few More Comments on the ALL-SIS Task Force's Recommendations

I would like to add some thoughts to Joe Hodnicki's excellent post on the ALL-SIS Task Force's Recommendations for ABA Standards Revision Relating to Academic Law Libraries.  The Task Force is content to leave the standards for job security in place and cites a number of past situations where library directors were under attack on academic freedom grounds.  These are located on page 12 in appendix 2, the AALL Statement of Faculty Status, July 2009.  The report duly notes "Law library Directors must have the guarantee of academic freedom." 

There is another set of circumstances which is a thornier issue and not really addressed by the report.  I'll call it administrative freedom for lack of a better term.  I remember a statistic from years back that the average tenure of a law school dean was three years.  I'm not sure if that is still accurate.  The regular turnover in the top administrator suggests that when law school administrations change it can affect the operation of the library.  A new and potentially inexperienced dean can undermine an otherwise competent library director in many ways.  There can be personality conflicts, disagreements with policies that were in place under a predecessor dean, or a lack of understanding of how a library is administered.  It may be simple enough to say that the library and the director simply conform to new policies.  The reality is not that simple. 

Academic law libraries operate under professional standards.  Deans are aware of this, but for whatever reasons, their concerns are not always in concert with that of the library director.  The inevitable conflict can lead to a lot of unpleasant circumstances where the director is the one to suffer more than a dean.  In over 30 years of experience I've seen first hand or become aware of situations where good directors had to deal with resources shifted away from the library, positions left unfilled, or library services curtailed because of law school administrative decisions.  It's the director who typically has to deal with the brunt of the political fallout When this happens. 

One might label this as the vagaries of employment law.  It works that way in professional positions outside of academia.  Contract terms rule and one hopes the term of the employment contract protects the signatories.  The academic director, however, typically holds faculty rank in most law schools and can be subject to treatment that would not fly against the most obnoxious tenured member of the full-time faculty.  I'm not aware of any dean who ever told a contracts instructor he or she was was going to bring in a consultant to evaluate the effectiveness of contracts instruction.  When this happens to a library director it's usually code to suggest that the director start looking for another job.  It's one thing to cull dead wood from the law librarian profession.  It's quite another to compromise someone's career for just doing their job.

The ABA standards as they exist do not account for this situation.  Maybe they should, and maybe AALL can address the same issue at some point.  [MG]

Pace Law School To Admit First Midyear Class in January, Students to Graduate in 2.5 Years Instead of 3

Pace Law School will launch of a new program for candidates seeking to start law school in January rather than September and to reduce duration of attending law school by one-half year. According to the press release, the inaugural class will start in January 2010, completing the first core semester of law school during the spring and the second semester during a new 13-week summer session. The students will then join their second-year law student classmates in fall 2010 and graduate in two and one-half years rather than the traditional three-year path. [JH]

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly in ALL-SIS Task Force's Recommendations for ABA Standards Revision Relating to Academic Law Libraries

The ALL-SIS Task Force on ABA Standards Review has submitted its Recommendations for ABA Standards Revision Relating to Academic Law Libraries to the AALL Executive Board. In several but not all respects, I think most law librarians would agree with many of the recommendations.

Curriculum & Law Library Services. Certainly most would agree that the Curriculum Standard, specifically Standard 302(a)(2), needs to be revised to include a requirement that law schools adopt minimum information literacy standards for law students. The Task Force offers The Boulder Statement on Legal Research Education as guidance for developing stronger standards for legal research instruction, certainly a good starting point.

Most law librarians would also agree with the Task Force recommendation that Standard 601 (General Provisions) "should be revised to reflect the reality that academic law libraries do more than just support and respond to the law school’s teaching, scholarship, research and service programs. Law library services often are based on the most advanced technology applications in the law school, and are drivers for the adoption of enhanced instructional and support technology. Library services frequently anticipate faculty and student needs, and instructional and research services are put in place before the rest of the law school community knows the need exists. The Standard should recognize the integral nature of law libraries in legal education." For more on Standard 601, see Brooklyn Law School Library Director Victoria Szymczak's LLB post, Musings on the ABA Questionnaire.

About Standard 605 (Services), the Task Force recommends new language  for mandating law library involvement in all facets of law schools programs:

605 – A law library shall provide the appropriate range and depth of reference support, information literacy skills training and research instruction, access to resources, and bibliographic and other services to meet the needs of the law school’s teaching, scholarship, research, and service programs.

This is the accrediation standard that identifies the value-added services provided by academic law libraries to advance the mission of legal education. Here, I think the Task Force has missed an opportunity to identify and specify quantifiable metrics. I'm not suggesting maintaining silly reference desk stats but the time has come to advance the cause of advance legal research courses by metrics that monitor credit hours and courses taught by academic law librarians.

Collections. Where I and a "strong minority of the Task Force" disagree with the Task Force is its failure to support format neutrality in Standard 606 (Collections). From the recommendations:

The Task Force supports the language of this standard where it approves the development of information resource collections that support the particular requirements of the law school’s curriculum, scholarship, programmatic and service objectives. However, the Task Force urges the Standards Review Committee to reconsider the ‘one size fits all’ approach of the language concerning core collections, and modify it to allow greater discretion in the development of information resource collections.

All members of the Task Force support the following proposed language.

606 (a) – The law library shall provide a core collection of essential materials available in the law library through ownership or reliable access. The choice of ownership or a particular means of reliable access for any type of material in the core collection shall effectively support the law school’s curricular, scholarly, and service programs and objectives.

Quoting from the recommendations:

A strong minority of the Task Force believe that the Standards should be format neutral. These members believe that the language of the Standards requiring a collection to support the various missions of the school is sufficient to guide format choices. These members recommend, in addition to the following proposed language, that Interpretation 606-2 be removed or edited to make it format neutral. This could be achieved by removing the last sentence of the Interpretation which reads, "A collection which consists of a single format may violate Standard 606."

So it goes Gordon, one day format neutrality won't be read as "OMG, everything will be digital only." Meanwhile, more and more legal resources are becoming digital only.

Law Library Administration. Then there is Standard 603 (Director of the Law Library). The Task Force supports the existing standard regarding the employment status of the law library director, namely job security grounded largely on academic freedom principles that echo in the provision of information. This is the sort of thing ALA promotes for public libraries but it's hardly the best or strongest argument. See LLB's post, Should Academic Law Library Directors Be Tenured Law Faculty? (Citing Spencer Simons's What Interests are Served When Academic Law Library Directors are Tenured Law Faculty? (Academic law library directors should have all the rights and privileges but not the job security afforded by tenure because "deadwood" directors cannot be removed once they have tenure.) And deadwood directors should be removable. But unqualified directors should not be appointed.

The Task Force fails to take a firm stance on ABA Standard 603(c) which states: "The director of the law library should have a law degree and a degree in library or information science and shall have a sound knowledge of and experience in library administration." "Should" should be "shall" and shall have "a sound knowledge of and experience in library administration" should be enforced. This is a no-brainer but the Task Force refused to seize the moment. See Victoria Szymczak's LLB post, Another Director Named Jim: SUNY Buffalo appoints new law library director.

One point that seems minor because the alternative rarely exists in the legal academy, the Task Force supports the proposition that law libraries should be administered by law schools and not the university library system. See Interpretation 602-1, Standard 602 (Administration). The Task Force writes

The academic law library director who reports to another university department, or whose staff report to another university department, or whose budget is derived from another university department, will be challenged unnecessarily to administer a law library that provides quality services that meet the needs of the law school.

There is absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion fear unless you want to point when Tulane's law library was run by Lance Query,  Dean of Libraries and Academic Information Resources, for three years because no permanent law library director was on-board. See On the Current (and Future) State of the Tulane Law Library and Damage Control at Tulane Law Library.

By my count only about three academic law library directors report to university deans of libraries and even those work side-by-side with their law school deans. I wouldn't expect the Task Force to recommend a change in position on this issue but this alternative model of administration ought to examined more closely.

In addition to offering stability in law library leadership (read as in protecting law library directors and their law library's mission from the vulgarities of the revolving door that is law dean offices), economies of scale can be achieved by off-loading many tech services operations to the university library system, licensing online services, and providing information services to library patrons. While some of this can be partially achieved by tenure for qualified directors and is being achieved informally with respect to library operations and contracting, a better understanding of this alternative administration structure (read, time for annual meeting sessions), might eventually lead to a neutral position in some future review of the ABA's Standard 602.

The Task Force offers the following proposed language:

602 (d) – The budget for the law library shall be part of, and administered in the same manner as, the law school budget.

Which of course means that the law library director will be subject to the whims and fancies of law school administrators who may have more clout in grabbing pieces of the ever smaller pie. No problem when slices are portioned out proportionally. Big problem when they are not.

All in all, some good recommendations made by a task force that had to grapple with significant issues but more could have been done in several important respects. As stated in an earlier LLB post, the ABA-AALS cartel needs all the nudging it can get so don't let AALL be the only voice the ABA's accreditation review committee hears. [JH]

What Happens to Law School Graduates That Fail the Bar Exam?

In contrast to the rich body of literature examining the long-term outcomes of lawyers, we don't know much about what happens to law school graduates who fail to pass the bar exam. The legal academy prefers to hid them under the rug of whatever success stories they can promote but bar-failers are part of on "invisible population" that makes up a significan portion of each year's graduating class. Jane Yakowitz's The Marooned Law School Graduates: An Empirical Investigation of Law School Graduates that Fail the Bar Exam is the first serious attempt to understand the costs imposed by bar failure. From the paper's abstract:

Law school graduates that never succeed in passing a bar exam have a very difficult 'first term.' Five to ten years out of law school, they lag well behind lawyers on every measure - earnings, employment stability, even marriage and divorce rates. Moreover, as a group, bar-failers fare worse than college graduates despite having left college with better-than-average grades. But after an initial adjustment period, they spring back and out-perform the average college graduate for the second half of their careers. Though they never catch up to the prosperous outcomes of their lawyer peers, the earnings of the median bar-failer does catch up to the 25th percentile lawyer, which might have been about the center of their distribution if the group had passed the bar exam.

Hat tip to LLB contributing editor Jim Levy (Nova) on Adjunct Law Prof Blog. [JH]

Hello Words and Phrases Online, Goodbye Words and Phrases in All Formats

Citing West Librarian’s Relations Newsletter (9/2/2009) the Cocky Law Blawg provides the following except reporting on a new Westlaw database for the Company's long-running print Words and Phrases title.

On August 24, a new WORDS-PHRASES database was released that permits searching of words and phrases, without using the caselaw or statutes databases. The new database contains more than 1 million judicial definitions and references from published and unpublished opinions of state and federal courts, including almost 70,000 historical references that have not previously been available on Westlaw.

Great...ah, frankly I don't know if this is new Westlaw database or a re-do of some earlier version of Words and Phrases online. (Does the database graphically map language use?) It's been decades since I've had any real need for the title. I doubt Word and Phrases is needed in either print or digital except as an instructional device to teach online searching (read I hadn't thought about adding this title to my Shed West list until reading Cockly Law Blawg's post).

With full-text searching online Words and Phrases is a relic. In the print-only days, the research tool was an editiorial attempt to provide what good pinpoint online seaching can now do; it was great and useful product once upon a time. Just another West invoice few law libraries need to pay these days. The current budget crunch has some pluses, one being a close examination of long standing purchasing decisions that need to be reversed. Goodbye Words and Phrases in all formats. [JH]

New Law Titles from the University of Chicago Press

The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It
Dan L. Burk and Mark A. Lemley

From the Blurb: According to Dan L. Burk and Mark A. Lemley in The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It, courts should use the tools the patent system already gives them to treat patents in different industries differently. Industry tailoring is the only way to provide an appropriate level of incentive for each industry.

Burk and Lemley illustrate the barriers to innovation created by the catch-all standards in the current system. Legal tools already present in the patent statute, they contend, offer a solution—courts can tailor patent law, through interpretations and applications, to suit the needs of various types of businesses.

The Death of the American Trial
Robert P. Burns

From the Blurb: The American trial looms large in our collective imagination—witness the enormous popularity of Law & Order—but it is, in reality, almost extinct. In 2002, less than 2 percent of federal civil cases culminated in a trial, down from 12 percent forty years earlier. And the number of criminal trials also dropped dramatically, from 9 percent of cases in 1976 to only 3 percent in 2002. In The Death of the American Trial, distinguished legal scholar Robert P. Burns makes an impassioned case for reversing this rapid decline before we lose one of our public culture’s greatest achievements.

Madison's Nightmare: How Executive Power Threatens American Democracy
Peter M. Shane

From the Blurb: The George W. Bush administration’s ambitious—even breathtaking—claims of unilateral executive authority raised deep concerns among constitutional scholars, civil libertarians, and ordinary citizens alike. But Bush’s attempts to assert his power are only the culmination of a near-thirty-year assault on the basic checks and balances of the U.S. government—a battle waged by presidents of both parties, and one that, as Peter M. Shane warns in Madison’s Nightmare, threatens to utterly subvert the founders’ vision of representative government.

Tracing this tendency back to the first Reagan administration, Shane shows how this era of "aggressive presidentialism" has seen presidents exerting ever more control over nearly every arena of policy, from military affairs and national security to domestic programs. Driven by political ambition and a growing culture of entitlement in the executive branch—and abetted by a complaisant Congress, riven by partisanship—this presidential aggrandizement has too often undermined wise policy making and led to shallow, ideological, and sometimes outright lawless decisions. The solution, Shane argues, will require a multipronged program of reform, including both specific changes in government practice and broader institutional changes aimed at supporting a renewed culture of government accountability.

Polyphonic Federalism: Toward the Protection of Fundamental Rights
Robert A. Schapiro

From the Blurb: This groundbreaking volume contends that contemporary views of federalism are plagued by outmoded dualist notions that seek to separate state and federal authority. Instead, Schapiro proposes a polyphonic model that emphasizes the valuable interaction of state and federal law, one that more accurately describes the intersecting realities of local and national power. Through an analysis of several legal and policy debates, Polyphonic Federalism demonstrates how a multifaceted government can best realize the potential of federalism to protect fundamental rights.

[JH]

A possible solution to illegal downloads - France considers cutting off internet access

Talk about a deterrent!  There's legislation pending in France that would cut-off internet access for up to a year (as well as impose substantial fines and possible jail time) for anyone caught illegally downloading content from the web.  According to SiliconValley.com, the bill has garnered a lot of attention outside of France by media executives looking for ways to better protect their revenue:

The measure passed Tuesday in the [French] National Assembly following approval by the Senate in July. It must clear another hurdle to become law, gaining approval from a small committee from both houses of parliament.

Under the bill, pirates who ignore e-mail warnings and a registered letter could see their Internet connections cut for up to a year. They could also face up to 300,000 euros ($435,000) in fines or jail time.

Hat tip to BNA's Internet Law News.

(jbl)

If you've ever wondered how West creates headnotes and key numbers . . . .

Then this is the video for you.  A behind the scenes look at how the editorial staff at West takes a case (here, it's the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller) moments after it's decided and then adds headnotes as well as assigning digest topics and key numbers. 

To think that the staff at West is responsible for reading, analyzing and indexing every appellate decision (as well as many trial court opinions) decided by every court in the land, is truly fascinating.  And the fact that West has created such a powerful company by merely adding value to public information has to be one of the great, untold stories in the history of American business.

Enjoy!

Hat tip to Rob Hudson

(jbl)