 Welcome to Stanford Law School. My name is Roberta Morris. I'm a lecturer in various subjects like intellectual property. And I have a longstanding interest in keeping the public and public domain. And this is not only Stanford Law School. It's also the first workshop in a series of workshops of law.gov. And as I understand it, although Carl Malamud is about to tell you the truth, but as I understand it, the purpose of these workshops is to come up with a report to give Congress to authorize public access to what the public has, in fact, already bought and paid for. And you might even say created as members of a democratic society. And that is the laws of the country, the federal laws, the state laws, the municipal laws, the county laws, all of those laws. We all learned at an early age that ignorance is no excuse for the law. And yet, nevertheless, if we try to relieve that ignorance, we find a wall of law copyright contract and other rights that are trying to prevent us from relieving our ignorance and therefore from giving us no excuse or something. But the law, we would like the law.gov workshops as beginning here to provide this report to Congress so that we can change how things are. The first speaker is Carl Malamud. He is the president and founder of publicresources.org and the initiator, motivator, and grand pan gendrum of law.gov. And he will tell you what it is. He's actually not a lawyer. His background was in economics. But since then, he's gotten very interested in the rights of the public to their laws. And he holds awards from Harvard, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the First Amendment Coalition. The next speaker going across the table is Anurag Acharya. Anurag was originally a computer scientist, a faculty member at the University of California at Santa Barbara. His undergraduate degree is from the Institute of Technology at Karagpur. And his PhD is from Carnegie Mellon. And his postdoc was at Maryland. But he's really known to all of you and beloved for that reason as the co-founder of Google Scholar and the benefactor of humanity thereby. The next and last speaker today is Jonathan Zittrain, who probably needs no introduction to this crowd. He's well known as the author of the book, The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. His undergraduate degree is from Yale. His law degree is from Harvard. He's a member of the faculty at Harvard. And he's written quite a bit in scholarly publications and not so scholarly publications. And I know him and have been a fan of his for about 15 years when he gave a talk about how you could use the notions of fair use and other copyright ideas to protect the confidentiality of medical records. I thought he was the best speaker a law school had ever seen. And today he's going to get a little competition. But in the 15 years I've known him, there has been no competition. So without further ado, without further ado, I will turn the podium over to Carl Malmudd. Thank you, Roberta. I'd like to thank Stanford for hosting the first law dot gov workshop. As Roberta said, this is a nationwide process that is undergoing. I don't know if you folks know, but in the 1970s, the law began to go online. And that initial impetus actually came from the United States Air Force. They decided, as part of the Adjutant General Corps, the folks that do law for the Air Force, that they needed legal materials on these mainframe computers. And they sat a bunch of flyboys down in front of punch cards. And they started to type in the United States code and court opinions. And that was a system called Flight. And that became a system called Juris, which was actually operated in the 1980s by the Department of Justice. At the same time, the Ohio Bar decided they would also use these new fangled computers. And they began putting information online. And that ended up becoming a company called Lexus Nexus. And what happened in the late 80s is the federal government decided they really didn't need to originate this information anymore. And by that time, they had 2 million pages in their Juris database. It was being used by the Department of Justice. And they deleted all 2 million pages. And this was in the days when 2 million pages was a lot of data. And they ended up cutting contracts with West and Lexus. Now, in the early 90s, there were a few farsighted pioneers, the folks at Cornell, LiI, who you probably use their system for the US code. Tim Stanley founded Find Law. And there were people that decided the internet was a place that legal materials of the United States could become available. And so this is not a new concept. And for the last 15 years, there have been people trying to do things. And for the last three years, that movement, I think, has become national. There is a group called Alt Law out of Columbia and Colorado that put together a beautiful system for navigating codes. The Cornell folks have been moving along. There's an OEA project out of Northwestern that does Supreme Court materials. My organization, Public Resource, has posted about 90 million pages of government documents on the internet. So today, if you want to read a building code or a fire code, or if you want to read a Court of Appeals decision, you just drop the citation in Google and you'll find there's a dozen different places that are available. Law.gov is an effort to bring that effort up to the next level, is to try to see whether we can get the federal government and the state government to originate and digitally sign all the primary legal materials and materials that have the force of law. And you may say, why now? Well, part of it is because this national movement has begun, but also because we happen to have a president who used to teach constitutional law. Our Solicitor General was a dean at Harvard Law School. The head of e-rulemaking in the Office of Management and Budget was a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago. And if you look at the efforts in Washington, things like data.gov, there is obviously an effort to put more information online. And it seemed like the time was right to convince first the federal government and then the states and the municipalities that the time is right for them to create a system that we're calling law.gov. And the point is that government should originate their own data. And now technically what that means is we think government should operate a registry and a repository for bulk access to all primary legal materials in the United States. This doesn't necessarily mean that West and Lexus are going to be replaced. And I think those companies would face what I call an IBM moment in which they can thrive and prosper because huge new markets have been opened up. And access to the primary materials no longer becomes a big impediment to getting into business. So this is partly about innovation. This is about allowing new startups, allowing people like Google to decide to put legal information online and not necessarily have to spend millions of dollars. Now Google can spend millions of dollars, but your average startup in a dot com and your average public interest research group doesn't have access to that material. This is a big business today. Let me give you a couple statistics. The federal government spends $250 million a year just from the executive branch accessing primary legal materials. The PACER system, which is district court documents, is $100 million a year revenue stream. Erica Wayne here at Stanford did a survey of 66 law schools and 63 of them do not allow students to access the PACER system on a regular basis. That means when you're studying the law you can read opinions and if you happen to be a Supreme Court clerk you're gonna know how to write those opinions. But most of you are gonna end up writing briefs. And you can't access our federal trial court system where all those briefs are located. Just as importantly, if you're a public interest group or a legal researcher and you want to download a lot of district court documents it costs a tremendous amount of money at eight cents per page. What my organization found when we were able to access 20 million pages of PACER documents is we were able to audit them for privacy violations. To no surprise there were huge privacy problems in the PACER system. We did an audit of 30 district courts, sent the audits to the chief judges, sent it to the judicial conference and a few months later, after a senate investigation they ended up changing their privacy rules. And so access to the law has effects that are way more than simply allowing a few pro say prisoners to access documents. It's really about the basic functioning of our legal system. It's about equal protection. If you look at court cases that say you can't charge people to vote that's an equal protection issue, right? Charging people to access to the law to me is just as fundamental. It's a violation of due process. It's a violation of equal protection. It's what turns us from a nation of laws to a nation of men where you can only access a law if you have the right pocketbook. Now that sounds a little bit ideological but I think it's a fundamental issue that the government should originate its materials that we all have to obey. So let me tell you a little bit about the law doc of process. This is a year long process and it has three phases. We're beginning with six months of workshops to try to talk about these issues. What would it take to get the government to make material available? What materials are we talking about? We are originating in fact here at Stanford something called the National Inventory of Legal Materials in which librarians across the country are systematically cataloging what are the legal materials? Where are they? Are there copyright restrictions? Are there privacy issues? Are there other things we need to worry about? These workshops are gonna be not only here at Stanford there's one next week at Princeton. There's gonna be one at Columbia University in mid-February that's being hosted by Tim Wu and Clay Scherke. We are currently scheduling workshops at Harvard, at Berkeley, at Duke at the Center for American Progress where my old boss John Podesta is gonna be hosting that one. That's actually kind of a big deal in Washington, D.C. Podesta ran the transition effort for President Obama. We are hoping that having not only people like Professor Zittrain and Professor Lessig and many others from around the country helping us put this together but also having insiders in Washington being part of the process that we will have a chance at least at getting our results heard. So part one of the process are these workshops for six months. Part two this summer is gonna be the drafting of a report with detailed specifications on what it would take for the government to run such a system. It is my belief that if the government had primary legal materials more readily available it would save the federal government a billion dollars over a 10 year time period over access to their own materials and little side effects like democracy and justice and things like that. And so the hope in the summertime is to write that report with detailed specifications, detailed technical specifications as well about how one could build such a system based on open source software and open standards. And what that means is that this registry of the law could live in multiple places. So even if the federal government were to run one registry the states could use that same software and run their own registries as well. Likewise in the federal government if the three branches can't agree on a single place that runs their registry they could run a series of these things. Phase three is very simple. This fall we're gonna hit Washington and we're gonna try to sell this idea. We've had very good reaction so far. Senator Lieberman on behalf of the Senate has asked for a copy of this report to be deposited to his committee. I've been in discussions with Speaker Pelosi's staff and several other folks on the relevant committees in the House. People in the White House have been extremely receptive to this idea and are willing to listen. And so we have a unique opportunity in front of us to actually change a fundamental part of our legal system. And we're hopeful that this process at the end of the year will yield something real like legislation introduced into Congress and passed. Even if that doesn't happen, even if we fail I think the year long discussion is a useful one to have. So I wanna turn this over to Anurag now who has taken these legal materials and actually done something with it. And I think he's gonna give you a little demo. I may get up and walk around. That's easier for me to talk to. I'll be talking about the system that we have. The goal, and I'm talking in terms of what goals we had and how we have tried to achieve them. If you can't hear me in the back, say so and I will speak louder. And to some extent not surprising goal given where I work. That's sort of the part that we started out with Google Scholar. Scholar is a little bit different in the sense from what used to be Scholar. Slightly different in the sense that, yes. Significant fraction of the content in the scholarly space is for pay. And free versions do not, they are not available. So the basic premise that we started with was that you should at least be able to find the relevant material. What you are able to read will depend on your relationship with whoever has whatever copies, whatever versions, whatever happens to be available. So everyone, anywhere, no matter where, which organization they are affiliated to, what background they have, it should be possible to at least find everything. The second part is be able to, when I say find, not just find, but find everything that is relevant. In this case, for law it is all case law, all law reviews, all books, all in one place. So that no matter which direction you want to go to, you can understand what this space looks like. Of course there are times when you need to be able to limit the subsets. Law is particularly, not particularly, somewhat unusual in this respect compared to the rest of the legal space. There is motion of jurisdiction. If there's a theorem in mathematics, there's a theorem in mathematics everywhere. Same doesn't necessarily apply here. So being able to restrict is far more important here than a similar ability elsewhere. Normally in scholar before we add to the law for all the other areas, we do not have specific ability to restrict on a sub-area or sub-area basis. We did add the ability to restrict to just broad areas, seven different areas that we identified that people may be interested in using to restrict. We found that over the last four years nobody views them at all. Here of course there's a difference, so we have taken, so there's two, when you say it should work for everybody, what does it really mean? So once it's starting out from people who have the least familiarity, simple queries that an average person would use should just work. You type it in and it goes. You shouldn't have to know which database to go to. You shouldn't have to know which part of the ontology it happens to fall within or to understand what magic terms happen to apply to give you these right answers. So let me go back to, click on the wrong thing. You type in abortion, you should get what are at this point the leading authorities as well as what happened to be the historical authorities. If you type in, well let's stop, you should get Terry versus Ohio. If you type in separate but equal, you should get both Brown versus Board of Education and Plessy versus Ferguson. You shouldn't need to do anything else. You can do just for fun, not really fun, but long it's for Jesus and this is, I don't know if people are familiar with this case, this is the case about free speech on school property. What can you and cannot say when you happen to be on school? So this is, allowing something like this to work makes it possible for people who are not familiar with the intricacies of law to at least begin to explore. If I read something in the news, if I hear something at the water cooler, can I begin to understand, but can I begin to not maybe not understand, can we begin to look? Then the other parts of everyone is, can I make it possible for people who know what they're doing? Somewhat easier without having to fill in the giant search box set, which everybody usually likes to put together and red-band search page with 17 different search boxes, can I make it easy for people, even professionals or scholars or students, to use a service like this without having to think too much about it? So you want Roe v. Wade, you know what Roe v. Wade is, you say it means something to you, and for 10 US 113, you shouldn't have to do anything else, it should just work, you can do by party, to the extent that you can interpret a query. You shouldn't have to say party column, you shouldn't have to put it in a separate box. If I can interpret the query in a mostly unambiguous and most likely to satisfy the user way, then I should. I mean, this is in spirit, this is no different from what Google does. You type in a query and we figure out what is the most likely set of results that you will likely want. They're different, and the kinds of queries you do, to some extent, allows me to do this. If you do for 10 US 113, you are not an average person. That is not negative, that is not negative. You can also do by author. Author is different kinds of author. There's authors of opinions, there's authors of books, there's authors of law review articles. You want to figure out, you want to follow scholarship. You're a researcher, and your interest spans the entire space. You should be able to do this. The next goal, and this is sort of unusual for us in this space, it should be easy to read. Once you get there, you should be able to, to the extent possible, the thing should be easy to sort of go through and read. Law opinions can be kind of long and kind of structured and involved. So the question is, what can you do to make it somewhat easier? So the first thing is, they are heavily cited. They are based on precedent. They talk about why this is a good argument. You should make it possible and easy to follow the rationale that is being used. So if there are citations within a case, it should be just trivial to click and go. That's the way the web works. It should work here too. It is possible that different versions and different locations have different amounts of information. The version of case law that we make available have no summaries, no head notes, just the opinions. It is possible that some of the other versions have more information, possibly the one at Cornell, possibly some of the older examples at Resource.org. They have additional information. So we're not the only place where you can find this. There are many places where you can find this. So you should make it as easy as possible. You get to every location, every version, readable version of the case. And for the next two, I'll just use this as an example. As you go down, you got footnotes. You should be able to go down. You go back up. It should be easy, because footnotes, originally, what we are presenting here is basically things that were at least at times published in books. Footnotes in books were somewhat easier to follow, maybe not trivial, but somewhat easier to follow. And what you have done to them essentially is to reflow the entire text. So that there is a big, long chunk of things and there's certain footnotes at the end. You could choose to do it differently. You could continue to keep the page the pagination. That, in some sense, makes it harder for you to read a flowing argument. So the idea is to preserve the footnote characteristic. You allow the footnotes to go back and forth. Yes, please. This is a version that we are making available. This is not from scanning. This is not from scanning. We have purchased this. This is not from scanning. And the other is, as you can see, as you scroll down at the top, the context, the case that you're reading is displayed. So you don't lose the context just because you're scrolling. I said the opinions are kind of long. And as you're exploring lots of them, which one? There are many sources of dyslexia. But yes, we could do it with the Wikibings and yet another different set of problems. This is what I was demonstrating. You should be able to quickly get two footnotes, quickly get back so that you can go give me a second, go off when you need to, and continue your reading or in your flow when you want and see the context. Yes, please. Excuse me? At this point, we have only United States law. The next thing is what can we do to help people explore and understand? And once you try to do it for everybody, this becomes surprisingly complicated. So we take baby steps. Some of the steps that are easy given what we have already been doing and some of the things that are unusual that we are doing specifically for case law. So the first is you should be able to get whoever is citing this. If law review is talking about a case, you should be able to get those law reviews. If cases are cited this case for other purposes, you should be able to get that. If books do that, you should be able to do that. So you can see who's citing a relatively recent case which you might be familiar with. This is the case, the manager's case in the California Supreme Court, we said it was okay, manager's okay. That's a very broad way of saying it, but please understand. So you can sort of see quickly. I'm some ways I was very pleasantly surprised that relatively recent opinions are very highly cited. You could... The other thing we do is we try to figure out independent of the direct citations. What are likely related articles, related cases, related documents to any given article or case. So this is basically taking the violence for Jesus' case and saying what's related to this. And you will see a lot of them, of course, are to deal with school districts. We look at what the citation patterns are between the cases, what the text is, to figure out what is likely related. Some of these cite each other, but not all of them do. Because it turns out to not everybody that relies on the same authorities to reach possibly similar conclusions. The next thing, so these two scholars always had. They've always had the ability of being able to find what is cited. They've always had the ability of trying to estimate what might be likely related articles. What we have done special, unusual here for case law is to give users a way of trying to see what, how has this case been frequently cited? What have people used this to argue for, argue against, establish? And it can be surprisingly useful for a person with not as much, I mean it could be very useful for professionals and researchers as well. I'm not able to judge that as well. And maybe one or some of you can tell me. But as a computer science person, which is basically as hopefully one of the educated citizens. For me to be able to click on that and I will show you some examples. It tells me what impact this case has on me, why I should read it, and what is the core of this case. Without having to construct this. Let me show you this. So let's look at what we did. There's the longer version and there's the shorter version. The shorter version is for the first trimester, the right to apportion is absolute. Right or wrong, that's basically what this case has been used to argue. Plus the notion that right or privacy can be derived from the Constitution. This is all done automatically by analyzing how this case has been cited in other cases or in articles or in books. Another one, Terry versus Ohio, when can what is reasonable for grounds for a police officer to stop? And it says pretty much exactly what the Terry stop is. Yes, it's not intended to be structured. I would like to understand what structure would help with. Purpose here is to say what has this been used most often to establish. Now if there is further restriction that would help understand this, we would be happy to explore that. That is not intended. That is probably related to 0.75. That is not intended at all. What 0.1 is the most frequent. 0.2, what the second thing we do is we click on it, we take you to the portion of the case. Excuse me, it's too light here. It doesn't display clearly, it's the way at the bottom. It just takes you to the portion of the case where the citation happens and shows you the context around. So you can say how it is cited and in what context. What else have people said about it around? So what next? I mean, this is all baby stuff to be for some parts of it. Well, one is to increase coverage, especially for older cases. At this point we are for federal cases since 23, for Supreme Court's law everything and state courts since 1950. That's not all of the Islam. The second is what more can we do, and I'm sure there's tremendous amounts of things more we can do to make law accessible. This is sort of the first baby step, making it possible for people to read, making it easy for people to read, making it possible for and easy for them to find. It'll allow people who are really interested to sort of spend enough time to figure this out and you make this even easier. I would love to brainstorm with people, people who have a lot more experience with this area than I do, which is not very much at all. Thank you. Jonathan? So this may be one of those identifiable moments where we are not yet fully penned in by the outcast. Great, because the more you let yourself be penned in by reality, the less likely you are to be able to change them. And Carl has spoken and told us a little bit of some of the top news. They've also talked a little bit about some of the known unknowns, questions we have to answer about why this should happen. Probably unknown unknowns, the Rumsfeldian unknown. It will come up. Whenever you try to do something as profound and revolutionary as what in fact is actually being proposed, one of the great moves is to take something as revolutionary as this is and be able to make it seem and be inevitable, natural, incremental, when in fact it is so much more. So it's great to see so many numbers here today and the energy brought into the room built around the common idea of trying to take this information, as Roberta said, that's already really the public's and make it genuinely so. Now I'm, I study cyber law, whatever that means. Part of what it means is studying the actions and dynamics of just one or two people who have an idea and manage to get it started and within an incredibly short period of time, sometimes have completely transformed the landscape. I study people like Peter Tatum, who is an academic at the University of Tasmania, was a support staff in the psychology department. He was somebody who in the early 1990s was interested in using his Windows machine to get on to the nascent internet. He built something called trumpet windsock to do that. Nobody knows how trumpet windsock actually works. It's just you follow to the letter, the instructions to get it going and you could get Windows 3.0 on the internet. And just I don't know what's going on but somebody in Tasmania has given me shareware to make this happen. And it was only the second release of Windows 95 where Bill Gates thought it worthy enough to build this functionality in on the shoulders of someone like Peter Tatum. In more recent examples, you look at Facebook or Twitter or even Google and you see how just a couple people with an idea, even in a field where people know it's gonna be significant like search and make it happen when the incumbents and the most logical parties to build into it have failed. Even the worldwide web itself fits this template, right? A guy named Tim sets up a server and some suggestions as to how others could set up their own servers and clients making a worldwide web of, right, the guy's crazy. It's just what level of confidence do you need to try to do something like that and name it so capaciously? And we're not talking today about the people who made the waste of the wide area information system or remember Gopher, like that's, there are many fits and starts and it's interesting to me to hear Carl say, you know, it may not work, but even if it doesn't work, it's the fits and starts that later give rise to the thing that does, which is why I am so confident that even if this does not directly result in something comprehensive in a short time, it is a huge building block to that end. Other non-incumbents that come to mind that have managed to really change the way the world works, a guy named Brewster who just decides to start scraping the web and keeping track of everything because we might want it someday. And that's the internet archive, the way back machine. Now, we could actually have an interesting discussion as to whether it's possibly a big copyright infringement or the biggest copyright infringement ever, right? I mean, the Google books folks can tell you what happens sometimes when you start scanning everything and give an opt out as the way of assuming permission. Of course, that's exactly what the internet archive does. It was incredibly vulnerable when it first started, less so now because it's just so damn useful. At this point, if the case were brought, very similar to the template of the Google books case, saying, hello, the internet archive is a rank infringement of copyright. It is scraping entire sites and keeping them forever unless they opt out, that's not allowed, not a fair use, prima facie infringement. But now it's the court that in agreeing with that would be wreaking havoc with the status quo rather than the other way around. An incremental change that turns out to be revolutionary and then just turns out to be the status quo. What a great template to follow. And I see hints of that in the presentation. Some of you may have seen yesterday from Steve Schultz about recap, which is let's get access to this data that is ours through Pacer and then through a plugin, make it available to others to save the money that they won't have to pay to the government and you know the people at Pacer are having a cow. Is it illegal? I don't know, probably not. We'd have to throw a trial to find out. Nobody wants yet to do that and in the meantime the status quo is evolving and every day that recap exists is another day that the Republic has not fallen, at least for that reason. And it becomes part of a status quo from which everybody can benefit. So with the law.gov enterprise, the kinds of issues we have to take up are partly, I guess you might call them evangelical, how to increase the salience and relevance of this project to people that otherwise don't think it bears upon them. How to persuade people in a position to make it happen, including legislators and members of the other branches to be supportive of the vision behind it. But also I think it involves a really frank and detailed discussion about issues like privacy, one of the known unknowns. What happens when you take a huge mass of documents that are nominally public, could go to the basement of the courthouse and get them, but no one does unless there's some particular media interest. And when those are as searchable, as enthusiastically as you know, Anarog will make them, you can just do a search on a name. He's like, well, we assume you want the social security number, right? That's the most salient result. Now, we know that the Google web search, we know that the Google web search actually excludes social security numbers, which is what. And then we add to that, DCC social security, we identify social security numbers and non-public telephone numbers and the case law that we make available, be deducted. In other words, we can fix that. Same with Watson, same with Tim Stanley and all the other folks doing the free law on the internet. We actually all work together on privacy issues, unlike the commercial providers and the courts who do not respond to these types of queries. So as you can see, these are extremely known unknowns for which work is being done to fix it. We also know, certainly to keep the privacy example alive for another moment, that all it takes is one well-positioned oops and the transformation of the landscape towards closed can take place. Those of us who are aware of the hasty passage of the Drivers License Data Protection Act or the Video Rental Protection Act can point to the exact incident that gave rise to it, rather than be curious about how these two things became so singularly important with respect to privacy protection compared to everything else. Then there are, again, the unknown unknowns. There's a stay in effect until tomorrow. Who knows what will happen next there? In the Prop 8 case, which was about to be webcast on YouTube, right? I imagine all of us couldn't wait to see the comments from the YouTube community, LOL, nice tie, as you make this stuff open and truly anything can happen and it's often the thing we didn't plan for or expect that can turn out to be the most useful or interesting. And finding out how to walk through some of the concerns that have been raised at times by one set of parties, at times by another, in cases like the Prop 8 case, these are great and difficult questions. I don't pretend to say that just turning the dial all the way towards let it all out is the way to go and my sense is these guys don't either, but we wouldn't want that to be an argument for status quoism. I remember in the Eldred case, one of Chief Justice Rehnquist's questions to the plaintiffs who wanted to argue about the unconstitutionality of retroactively extending the term of copyright, was he said, let me get this straight, petitioners want the right to copy other people's work for free, right? Now, I think the technical answer to that question is yes. That's the wrong answer, clearly as far as Chief Justice Rehnquist was concerned and as soon as the petitioner said yes, but he was lost and we only got the two rather than five votes we were looking for in support of our view. So figuring out some of the aspects that in 1998 to 2000 when Eldred was being litigated were just distant ideas, well, wait a minute, people might take these works and annotate them and put them into personal digital assistance and once they're free of monopolistic restrictions, all sorts of stuff can happen, believe it or not, at that time, the idea was, well, wait a minute, if there is no monopolist to curate them they will wither on the vine and who were the petitioners there, who were the actual petitioners, people like Eric Eldred, some guy that had a website for which people were typing these works in, that doesn't give you the sense of like the bank vault or the museum, it's some guy typing stuff in. Of course we are now at a later era and that's why when you look at the composition of the people at this table, isn't it a great combination of the visionary, of the personalities that can make this happen and argue and make the case for it and Google is these days an incumbent, let us be clear. I mean, it's not a dirty word, it's just the I word. They're an incumbent but they're saying yes, look, just let us loose on this stuff and really cool things will happen and by the way, Chrome is a great browser, right? That's the message from Google and of course, if they can't get it, for free, I'm sure these guys have thought about how much would it cost to buy West? How many nanoseconds of the stream of revenue rushing by Mountain View called Search? Right, how big a ladle would you need to buy West? It depends on how fast you ladle out. Yes, yes. But right, this is like peel off a couple billion dollar bills off the wad and they could buy this stuff if that's what they wanted to do and then be the next monopolists of it. They're actually looking because of their ethos, their particular orientation coming down from the founders and just the mode of the company to find a way to just be the best among a whole bunch of other companies that might do it and when you see him presenting, right, especially for those who do information science or legal research and have just been under the yoke of West Law and Lexis for so many years, it's just you get this feeling of like, you know the 10 years that MapQuest squandered as the people that were the maps people, right? You'd go to MapQuest and it was crappy but they had the maps and then one day in beta comes maps.google.com and you're like, why have we been using MapQuest all these years? I think they've improved since then but I haven't been back to check. So I'm excited about the prospect of a generative platform for which that information that uniquely emanates from our sovereign is available to all, whether it's the person that wants to type it in in some cottage or the huge incumbent that wants to mix and make it or the Jimbo Whales or others of the world who think of uses that aren't just the current uses but disruptive uses, annotation, commentary, relationship to other materials. All of that can happen if the vision that Carl and others are articulating is realized. So I'm delighted to have lined up the technology that we know can really make hay out of this, the visionaries that can push it forward and evangelize for it and the other entities that are ready to invest the money and the time and the sheer PhD engineer-ness to make it all happen. It's a really tough question when we're in these beginning stages, when to be thinking and workshopping, when it's time to reach consensus, when it's time to say screw consensus, this is how it's gonna be, when to build something, whether it's a pilot or not, when to be negotiating and even when to be litigating if that time comes. And I see uses for all of these strategies as this movement takes off. And with luck, movement is such a loaded word. Success will be realized when, of course, it's not a movement anymore. It's just the air we breathe. It's just the obvious, inevitable thing. Of course this was going to happen. How could it not? Thanks. Thank you. Just a quick note as I go around and talk to Juris, to Chief Judges and members of the Judicial Conference and folks in the White House and members of Congress, one of the reactions I'm beginning to get is this is obvious, why aren't we doing this? And so I'm hoping that we're gonna make it over that hump and turn something that is somewhat radical into something that's real. So thank you very much. I think we got time for maybe one or two very quick questions. We're gonna have to break it at two sharp, however. So we got one question over here. There are many ways to interpret what you just said. One is to just say, can I give you a red line? But that's not a useful way of interpreting, I guess. I'm guessing you mean, can you figure out what it is going to impact? Yes. That would be lovely. And I think I will have to just say that. Well, which pieces of it can just be sheer computing power and magic to make it happen? Which pieces might need to be explicitly crowd sourced when I look at the Sunlight Foundation and the prospect that they can actually try to take the law, which is incomprehensible, including to the people who write it. I mean, I remember as a congressional staffer, we would write what we wanted to have happen in the world and then send it to an office whose denizens I never met, whose purpose was to turn it into where as, and we hear by a man, it would be incomprehensible when we got it back and then you stick it in the statute. That would be amazing to be able to reverse engineer the object code of the law back to the commented source code, including who was the one who snuck that provision in. We're also looking at a variety of crowdsourcing solutions. The workshop at Columbia is co-hosted by Tim Wu and Clay Scherke, and we're hopefully gonna get some progress on how much can we do to bring in labor from the net and the legal profession as well. So one more question, and then I think we're gonna have to break. So the charitable answer is that it would have been really hard in the late 80s and early 90s to do a comprehensive registry of the law. Computers seemed to be harder than disk space was much, much more expensive. There was a lot more manual intervention. And the times have changed. So maybe 50 years ago, it made sense to print books and have one vendor printing the books. Maybe 10 years ago, it made sense to have a somewhat centralized mainframe-based system, although I think one could have probably done better. But certainly today, the opportunity is in front of us. And I think what's happened with the legal profession is we've lost a decade of innovation. Legal is the last big bastion of closed on the internet. If you look at medical, financial, many other segments of information, scholarly information, that has opened up dramatically and there's been good effects and bad effects by opening up. But in the case of the law, it has remained closed and I think that has hurt the legal profession and I think it's hurt our system of justice. Thank you very much.