 West Publishing. It's truly a pioneer in putting the law online, and this has been his full-time avocation and vocation since the very early 90s. Justia is a very strong participant in law.gov. I think they've been to pretty much all the workshops at this point. Our next speaker after that is going to be Mike Walsh, who is the president and CEO of the US Legal Markets, Legal Solutions for Lexis-Nexis Group. Lexis-Nexis has also been a strong participant in the law.gov process. Their chief architect participated in our Cornell workshop. He was at the workshop at Google recently. Michelle Vovoma has been a strong participant in several of the workshops. And so it's good to see them participating as part of the conversation. And then finally, Ed Walters, the CEO of Fastcase. When we first began looking at the law at public.resource.org, one of the very first things we did is we went after appellate decisions because they were not available on the internet. And it was Ed Walters that sold us 50 years of circuit court decisions that we were able to put online, which made a dramatic difference in the accessibility of federal law at the appellate and Supreme Court level. So all three participants have been part of the law.gov process. And I've asked them to speak for 10 minutes each about their involvement in the process, what they see, what they want out of government, what they think should happen. So Tim, why don't we start with you? OK. Give this a little bit farther. So I think one of the core things for us at Justia, and I think with law.gov as well, is that it's not just getting the information out there just to get information up. We want to get it out there so people can see what the government's doing, can see how the government operates, and really start participating with the government, both on either new legislation that's taking place, which I think the government's done a pretty good job on. But also how past decisions have been made, or what rules were looked at to make decisions, especially in things like court cases, which is one of the segments of information that we're looking at getting online for free. I sort of break down what we do. We do a lot of aggregation of stuff. It's not our real revenue part of our business, but we are trying to build up a lot of free information, both here in the United States and abroad in Mexico, Central and South America as well. And there's a lot of different steps that we have to look at in terms of trying to get this information and putting up and, of course, sharing it with others. The first big thing that we always face is, is the information even available electronically? I mean, that's like the biggest item. And there's lots of things you'll find that aren't available. For example, the US Supreme Court briefs, you can't get online right now or get them all available. Every once in a while, the ABA will get some back in the day when Mike and I used to work at fine law. We hired someone to actually go down to the court and make copies of those when we put them online. They're no longer doing that now. But we'd like to see some of that information up. Things like the California Code. Rob's done a great job with the Oregon laws, but as he pointed out, he liked to do California as well, but California doesn't even have the headings on the section numbers of the California Code that you see online. Or they're missing certain sections, like the building codes just don't show up. I mean, you feel like you're searching a complete set, but then you aren't. Although sometimes they'll tend to put that back up later. Different things like just getting the official text of the opinions of the Court of Appeals decisions. I mean, if we could just get the actual final texts of these sort of very high level decisions, that would be great. I mean, forget about the citations and all the page numbering. Just the final version of the text, which is again, something that we can't get right now, and which is, I think Ed spends quite a bit of time making sure it's right on Fast Case, for the Bar Associations as well as PLOL, his free resource that he has at Fast Case. And then some separate sort of secondary items, which will periodically show up, but things like the Congressional Research Service Reports, which the government pays for, puts online, and that like other government documents information that appear every once in a while, you have to wait for WikiLeaks to put up, and someone puts that up and then you can get them that way, but ideally the government would put that, put that information up itself. Great secondary materials of very high value research, which we're paying for as tax payers, the marginal cost of putting up electronic copy when it's already electronic version, zero. The second item I would say is the copyright item. Copyright and sort of different legal issues, licensing issues. One thing I think we faced, again, I'm going back with Rob Stoff in Oregon, is that some states are claiming copyright to their codes or their revised statutes, saying it's not the same as session laws and understand the difference there, but even if that copyright's not going to be enforced in a court, it still puts a sort of entry-level barrier of entry, because a lot of people are just afraid to go ahead and grab it or to challenge the state, like Carl did up in Oregon, so that's one issue, and that's really sort of a state-based type of thing. The second one is sort of licensing restrictions that are placed. A lot of states will have free information online, but they'll partner with a private publisher like Lexus, and you'll see the California cases will be up online since the 1850s, but there's really a licensing agreement for you to actually use them, and you're not allowed to republish them in different items like that, so that's sort of a secondary restriction that we face. Different items, which is slightly different is there's some private groups, such as building codes that are claiming copyright on codes that they're actually pushing the states to adopt or pushing different municipalities to adopt, and yet they're sort of trying to get this, it's certainly helpful to get these codes in place, but they're also doing it as a way to produce revenue. They know once they get it into a state and once they get it into a municipality, they also have a brand new revenue source of all the contractors and all the developers out there that need to get a hold of these codes. And then the sort of side issues, which just periodically pops up, are things like legal briefs or legal contracts. So legal briefs, you'll see some lawyers now claiming copyright on the briefs that they're filing with the courts, and again, it's sort of up in the air issue, and some of them were just actually upset that West and Lexus are selling these briefs, which is probably one of the things that's driving them on it, but there's also a question, who owns that copyright on those materials? Or just attachments to certain filings. For example, the first Superman comic is actually an attachment to a filing in a case in the federal district courts. So there's obviously a copyright in the Superman comic, or you could do the same thing, you could put the whole Harry Potter series, making an attachment, is it then part of legal proceeding or is there a copyright in it? And then things like contracts and like SEC documents, you'll often will see major contracts filed there, which some of the companies or corporations have claimed copyright on, even though it's part of an official government filing. And then sort of stepping back, so can we get it, can we get through the legal restrictions? Then we sort of come to the technical issues in terms of grabbing stuff, the XML bulk downloads, and that's really sort of a third type of issue. Probably the first one there to me is, can we actually crawl it and get it? There's, a lot of times it'll be up there, but it'll be very hard to crawl. For example, New York State Code, you won't get the New York State Code, they have a little JavaScript, it'll stop every once in a while, they'll lock out your IP address, look, we can figure out how to get it, that's not that hard to do. But it is an additional barrier of actually getting this, be nicer if they just put up a large XML file and say, hey, it's gonna be up there for free. I mean, granted, we're gonna get it, we're gonna put up as a big file, they could just do that ahead of time, there's no reason not to. Things like just getting the Pacer stuff, it'd be obviously nice if Pacer was consistent among the courts. It'd also be nice when the Pacer updates the individual court that they actually tell you they're updating it and that the documentation actually matches which is up there. So it's just trying to get some systems in place, which is much, much harder to do when you're running 98 different district courts and a bunch of bankruptcy courts and sort of standardizing on a core system for all the courts. And I think that, as Stephen mentioned, that we'd be much better off, well, I think they're both the courts and the people would be better off if they sort of pull the resources together and really tried to work on standardizing the overall Pacer system, the overall court filing system. But it is an issue. We spend at least one person a day a week just fixing Pacer scripts that have been changed by different courts. And we have to triple check the data because we can't trust the sort of what we're told that's coming in place. It doesn't always match up in order to bring it into our system. And I know we've had some issues with the recap where we put in bad information before because we weren't quite checking stuff enough, but we've obviously been spending a lot of time on putting those things in place. And then two, again, a sort of a separate item is obviously if we can get the documents down, can we get them in a nice format that we can sort of scan and get them nicely marked up and sort of clickable in a way so we can sort of click and sort of link between documents. That sort of always a nice thing. And then, given all that, I think one of the stuff, one of the items that we're really working on at Justia as well as with Stanford and the ABA and a bunch of other folks is trying to allow different third parties start annotating this. So whether it's students in classes or whether it's bloggers wanting to sort of use cases linked to them. And again, this I think is relatively important because you've got a lot of people that will produce a lot of really good secondary materials if they can have access to the primary materials. And I know a lot of people say, well, the primary materials are here, the secondary materials they could still use, but you see situations where this doesn't happen. And again, there was a blogger recently who had access to some cases and those cases were withdrawn from him from his use and he actually took down his whole blog. It was a relatively high-ranked blog by the ABA. So there are certain things where if we can actually work together to make these things available to people, they will build on top of it. And I think we see the engineering and sort of the tech folks here from, you know, GovPulse and Rob and the folks down in the government, there's a lot of people that will work hard on this, but we need to get just sort of that baseline set of materials so they can sort of use that and sort of make that part go. And the final thing I'll quickly mention is I do think there are certain privacy issues, especially when it comes to cases and briefs. And one thing is I don't think the courts can just push it on the lawyers because this has been mentioned a few times in these seminars. A lot of the people filing these briefs are individuals. They aren't lawyers and they're gonna put in their social security number and they're gonna put in their driver's license number and they don't know any better. And so just punishing lawyers and saying it's your issue is not gonna solve most of the situations. But more importantly, cases and lawsuits and briefs, they're really sort of stories and they're very much about people, about situations and you know, you'll see court cases, citing briefs, you know, assuming these facts are true, but then people think those facts are true but it's really just for a point of law. And I think if these things get indexed by Google especially, what you're finding is that a lot of people aren't even searching for legal materials or information, they're just searching someone's name. And the only thing that shows up for that person's name is this particular story, which may or may not be true as part of a lawsuit. And so that's something I think we need to think about going forward. I mean, you wanna do certain things and make it open for everybody. But there are other places where people don't have, 100 pages about them like Carl does, or a million pages on Google. So something mentioned, one more thing mentioned about Carl in a lawsuit, not a no big deal. But for a lot of these individuals, this is all that people know about them. This is it. So that's just something I think we need to think about going forward as a group.