Rick McKinney, Assistant Law Librarian, Federal Reserve Board Law Library, posted the following announcement on various AALL lists:

The Federal Law Librarians Special Interest Section of the Law Librarians Society of Washington, D.C., Inc. is pleased to announce the availability on its website of a new online resource entitled Quick Links and Sources to U.S. Court Opinions. The new website presents quick links to all major sources for U.S. Court opinions including sites for recent years, sites for recent and historical years, and subscription sites. It also presents direct links to court opinion sites of specific U.S. courts such as the U.S. courts of appeals as well links to opinion sites to those courts before the 1990’s.  Each specific’s court’s abbreviation and city location can also be found and there is an example of how new slip opinions can be cited. The new website is also linked on LLSDC’s Legislative Source Book.

Bookmark it. — Joe

The State of Georgia is suing Public.Resources .Org, Inc. and Carl Malamud in federal court for posting copies of the Official George Code Annotated on the Public.Resources.Org.  Georgia contracts with Lexis to create annotated copies of the Code where Lexis fills in the annotated material in what appears to be a work for hire as Georgia claims copyright in the annotations and value-added materials.  In some respects, it explains why Lexis wasn’t a co-plaintiff.  The State does not claim copyright in the text of the Code itself.  The complaint is seeking injunctive relief and requesting that all scanned copies be removed and destroyed, and yes, attorney fees.

I think it would have been much easier for the State of Georgia if copyright remained with Lexis.  The ownership would have been clearer.  It’s a murky situation otherwise.  I guess the question the Court is whether the State can actually claim a copyright in this case.  The United States government, as an example, disclaims copyright in most cases, but there are exceptions.  Two of these indicated at USA.gov are:

  • Works prepared for the U.S. government by independent contractors may be protected by copyright, which may be owned by the independent contractor or by the U.S. government.
  • The U.S. government work designation does not apply to works of U.S. state and local governments. Works of state and local governments may be protected by copyright.

The complaint his available through a link with a story at The Register, which is a U.K. based technology news site.  I’m a big fan of the site due to the somewhat snarky attitude the site takes at tech news.  The story in the Register about this case notes that Georgia effectively calls Malamud a “terrorist.”  Here are the excerpts from the complaint where Georgia makes that claim:

20.  On information and belief, Defendant is employing a deliberate strategy of copying and posting large document archives such as the O.C.G.A. (including the Copyrighted Annotations) in order to force the State of Georgia to provide the O.C.G.A., in an electronic format acceptable to Defendant. Defendant’s founder and president, Carl Malamud, has indicated that this type of strategy has been a successful form of “terrorism” that he has employed in the past to force government entities to publish documents on Malamud’s terms. See Exhibit 2.

21.  Consistent with its strategy of terrorism, Defendant freely admits to the copying and distribution of massive numbers of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations on at least its https://yeswescan.org website. See Exhibit 3. Defendant also announced on the https://yeswescan.org website that it has targeted the States of Mississippi, Georgia, and Idaho and the District of Columbia for its continued, deliberate and willful copying of copyrighted portions of the annotated codes of those jurisdictions. Defendant has further posted on the https://yeswescan.org website, and delivered to Plaintiffs, a “Proclamation of Promulgation,” indicating that its deliberate and willful copying and distribution of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations would be “greatly expanded” in 2014. Defendant has further instituted public funding campaigns on a website http://www.indiegogo.com to support its continued copying and distribution of Plaintiff’s Copyrighted Annotations. Defendant has raised thousands of dollars to assist Defendant in infringing the O.C.G.A. Copyrighted Annotations.

Terrorism, seriously?  Someone explain to me how this adds to the substance of the complaint.  It’s not as if black helicopters will be circling Atlanta at the end of the trial, not over annotations at least.

Mark

There is an interesting article from the CBC called Academic publishers reap huge profits as libraries go broke.  The sub-title is “5 companies publish more than 70 per cent of research papers, study finds.”  There is a constant cry from academic libraries in the United States, and I assume Canada, over the cost increases in scientific, medical, and social science journals.  Harvard University in fact joined that chorus three years ago in encouraging its scholars to publish in open source publications.  Academic libraries in some situations dropped Elsevier subscriptions in protest.  Others joined in as well.

The CBC article documents a study of publishers by Vincent Larivière and others from the University of Montreal’s School of Library and Information Science.  He found that the top five journal publishers held 53% of the academic journal market and had a 40% profit margin.  This sentence explains why that is possible.

“The quality control is free, the raw material is free, and then you charge very, very high amounts – of course you come up with very high profit margins.”

Indeed.  There is a link to the full paper within the article.  Here’s the abstract:

The consolidation of the scientific publishing industry has been the topic of much debate within and outside the scientific community, especially in relation to major publishers’ high profit margins. However, the share of scientific output published in the journals of these major publishers, as well as its evolution over time and across various disciplines, has not yet been analyzed. This paper provides such analysis, based on 45 million documents indexed in the Web of Science over the period 1973-2013. It shows that in both natural and medical sciences (NMS) and social sciences and humanities (SSH), Reed-Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer, and Taylor & Francis increased their share of the published output, especially since the advent of the digital era (mid-1990s). Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers). NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics. The paper also examines the migration of journals between small and big publishing houses and explores the effect of publisher change on citation impact. It concludes with a discussion on the economics of scholarly publishing.

It’s published in PLOS ONE, which is an open source journal.

Mark

I haven’t read the decision yet, so I can’t comment about it yet.  The opinion is here.  The Court’ summary states:

Plaintiff‐appellant authors and authors’ associations appeal a judgment  of  the  United  States  District  Court  for  the  Southern District  of  New York (Harold  Baer, Jr., Judge)  granting  summary judgment  to  defendants‐appellees  and  dismissing  claims of copyright infringement. In addition, the court dismissed the claims of  certain plaintiffs‐appellants for lack  of  standing  and dismissed other copyright claims as unripe. We hold, as a threshold matter, that certain plaintiffs‐appellants lack associational standing. We also hold that the doctrine of “fair use” allows defendants‐appellees to create a full‐text searchable database of copyrighted works and to  provide those works in formats accessible to those with disabilities, and that the claims predicated upon the Orphan Works Project are not ripe for adjudication. We vacate so much of the judgment as is based  on the district court’s holding related to the claim of infringement predicated upon defendants-appellees’ preservation of copyrighted works, and we remand for further proceedings on that issue. Affirmed, in part; vacated, in part.

The American Library Association issued a statement on the case:

Today, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in Authors Guild v.HathiTrust, deciding that providing a full text search database and providing access to works for people with print disabilities is fair use. The court also ruled that the Authors Guild lacked standing, and therefore could not assert infringement claims against the HathiTrust. The Library Copyright Alliance (LCA), of which the American Library Association (ALA) is a member, filed an amicus brief in support of the HathiTrust.

ALA President Barbara Stripling released the following statement in response to the ruling:

“The Second Circuit today affirmed more than a lower court decision—it affirmed that the fair use of copyrighted material by libraries for the public is essential to copyright law. ALA is pleased that the court recognizes the tremendous value of libraries in securing the massive record of human knowledge on behalf of the general public and in providing lawful access to works for research, educational, and learning purposes, including access for people with disabilities.

“The continued acknowledgement of the importance of fair use to enable learning and support for the development of a well-informed citizenry makes the U.S. copyright law unique and well-functioning.”

This decision affirms that libraries can engage in mass digitization to improve the discovery of works and provide full access to those works to students with print disabilities enrolled at the respective HathiTrust institutions.

The general public can search the database using keywords and locate titles held in 80 member institutions. Full text access to the underlying works is allowed only for students with print disabilities enrolled at the University of Michigan and certified as disabled by a qualified expert. Students with print disabilities are blind or have a handicap that prevents them from reading printed text. Because of the full conversion of the texts to digital format that is accessible, these students can use adaptive technologies, such as text-to-speech, to read.

ALA will continue its defense of fair use in the HathiTrust case, should additional appeals be filed.

I expect that some of the reasoning in this case may affect the Guild’s case against Google.  We’ll see.  — Mark

The federal government wants to make its physical scientific collections accessible through consistent policies that are used to manage those collections.  A memorandum to that effect was issued yesterday by the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John P. Holden.  I’m quoting part of the directive:

a) Develop and clearly describe procedures for making scientific collections more accessible to educators and researchers, including non-Federal scientists, to maximize public benefit.

b) Work with the Smithsonian Institution to ensure that information on the contents of and how to access the agency’s scientific collections is available on the Internet in a central Federal clearinghouse and to maintain participation in the Federal clearinghouse once it is established.

c) Use machine-readable and open formats, data standards, and common-core and extensible metadata for all new information creation and collection to facilitate search and discoverability and provide clear public guidance for accessing collections materials, consistent with the Executive Order on Making Open and Machine Readable the New Default for Government Information.

d) When available and where not limited by law, make freely and easily accessible to the public all digital files in the highest available fidelity and resolution, including, but not limited to, photographs, videos, and digital 3D models, and associated records and documentation, describing or characterizing objects in government-managed scientific collections.

e) Associate digital files describing or characterizing scientific collections with the agency’s collections catalog and the central Federal clearinghouse referenced in Section 3(b) of this memorandum. By default, this information should be in machine-readable and open formats.

The complete memorandum is here.  A press release from the OSTP describing the memorandum is here. – Mark

Another frigid day with spotty train service means another day browsing the legal news and commentary.  There are several stories worth reading.  The first is the National Law Journal’s report about the AALS panel discussion on the ABA’s proposed standards.  Naturally, the standard eliminating tenure as a requirement for accreditation got significant discussion.  Faculty members on the panel as well as those in the audience were overwhelmingly against the proposal.  Their argument was that removing tenure would weaken academic freedom, among other negative outcomes.  This position is reflected in the published comments (scroll down to Terms and Conditions of Employment) to the draft of Standard 405 at the ABA web site.

The proposal was explained by Saint Louis University Professor Jeffry Lewis and ABA committee chair revising the accreditation standards.  He noted the text contains several options for job security and protection of academic freedom that can replace tenure.  The proposed ABA standards would require schools to have job restrictions in place that would attract competent faculty by having effective rules that provide provide job security and protect academic freedom.  The draft options and interpretations of the proposed standards are here

I wonder just how far schools will go in defining the faculty relationship if this is approved.  It will be pretty interesting to see what the employment contract’s terms sans tenure will be for new professors.  Will they be largely standardized or will they be negotiated individually?  How will publication reflect advancement?  Really, it could be the world turned upside down if this is approved.      

Publishers Weekly has a review of the top 10 library stories of 2013.  The items include the decision in the Google book scanning case, somewhat more liberal terms for libraries to lend e-books, and the emergence of the Digital Public Library of America.  The story nicely sums up the legal and technological issues affecting libraries in the last year.

Wandering over to the New Yorker finds two stories of interest.  One details the dismemberment of antiquarian books to sell parts to collectors through various exchanges, including eBay.  Everything is for sale these days.  Historical objects are obviously no exception.  The other story concerns the fight Apple is having with the court appointed compliance monitor over his rate (Apple is footing the bill, and it is large) and the level of access to executives and board members.  Apple filed objections in Court over the issues.  The story details the background to this particular aspect of the case.

Getting back to the tenure issue for a moment, I was reminded of the Pretenders’ song Brass In Pocket.  Or should the musical moment be Back On The Chain Gang?

Mark

“If you live in Canada, January 1st 2014 would be the day when the writings of Robert Frost, W.E.B. Du Bois, C.S. Lewis, Sylvia Plath, and even Aldous Huxley enter the public domain. “O Brave New World, that has such treasures in’t!” In Europe, the works of Fats Waller, Nikola Tesla, Sergei Rachmaninoff, Elinor Glyn, and hundreds of others will emerge into the public domain – where they are freely available for anyone to perform, translate, or republish. All of these public domain works can be freely digitized and archived, so that anyone can find and use them. Canadians can stage their own Chronicles of Narnia, and Europeans can set Tesla’s autobiography to Rachmaninoff’s most intricate passages, all without asking permission or violating the law.”

And what if you live in the US? See Duke University’s annual report, Public Domain Day: January 1, 2014 — The Road NOT Taken, for the answer. — Joe

Yesterday, the first issue of the Journal of Open Access to Law was published. The journal is edited by Tom Bruce, Ginevra Peruginelli, Enrico Francesconi, and Pompeu Casanovas. From the JOAL announcement:

This is the first issue of the Journal of Open Access to Law – JOAL, the open-access, peer-reviewed journal for the promotion of the international research on the topic of open access to law. JOAL provides an international forum for academic researchers as well as for practitioners of open legal publishing.

This issue delivers authoritative thought-leadership in governance of new models of legal publishing, projects in open access to law, technical challenges and economic opportunities created by open access to law as well as trends and changes suggested by the globalization of access.

View the TOC here. Hat tip to Ken Hirsh’s Ipso Facto post. See also Tom Bruce’s post. — Joe

Larry Lessig writes

I am completely embarrassed by my google-induced ignorance. And I’m completely committed to tying Bing now that it makes permissions so simple. I’m hopeful they can think more about whether “license” is the right word here. But regardless, Microsoft has taken an important step to make easier for users to use the content they are free to use, and respect the rights of copyright owners who don’t want their content reused.

For more see Lessig’s From now on, I’m “Bing-ing It!”. — Joe

If anyone thinks that the paper industry is dying a slow death because of electronic information replacing printed information, well, this article in the Los Angeles Times should dispel that notion.  One statistic cited is the $27.8 billion in 2012 sales by International Paper.  That was an increase of $1.8 billion over the previous 12 months.  Paper is still essential for everyday conveniences.

I suppose that we get horrified when the NSA tracks us, but it’s cool when Apple does it, right?  See this story in ABC News.

Old school publishing and open access tussle in this story of the conflict between Elsevier and Academia.edu over posting academic papers.  Thanks to DMCA takedown notices, guess who is winning for now?  The story is in CNET.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is telling us that the average debt at graduation for undergrads is $29,400.  If that’s the average, then Mamas don’t let your babies grow up to be law students.  That’s where tens of thousands of more get piled on.  Someone should sell bumper stickers that read “law school is for trust funders.”  Some 18.5% of Ph.D graduates have $30,001 or more of debt according to another story in the Chronicle.  It was 16% in 2002.

One law school is actually responding to the debt crisis by (gasp!) lowering its tuition.  The University of Iowa is lowering its tuition by 16.4% for both in- and out-of-state students.  That’s a drop of $4,300 and nearly $8,000 less per year respectively for these students.  The drop kicks in starting with the fall 2004 semester.  How can they do it? Volume, volume, volume.  The school can make up the financial difference with just about 20 or so additional students.  Read about it in the Huffington Post.

Joe wrote about the Arizona State University announcement for its new law school home in downtown Phoenix.  There is a picture of the planned Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at the KTAR web site.   It looks pretty impressive. I wonder how it’s going to be financed.

Mark

Last week, ANSI launched its Incorporation by Reference (IBR) Portal. The website “provides a one-stop mechanism for access to standards that have been incorporated by reference in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These standards incorporated by the U.S. government in rulemakings are offered at no cost in ‘read only’ format and are presented for online reading. There are no print or download options.”

OK, it’s a “one-stop mechanism” to do one thing, namely read online. Apparently the sky will fall if ANSI offered free print and download options. Quoting from the Oct. 28, 2013 press release:

“In all of our discussions about the IBR issue, the question we are trying to answer is simple. Why aren’t standards free? In the context of IBR, it’s a valid point to raise,” said S. Joe Bhatia, ANSI president and CEO. “A standard that has been incorporated by reference does have the force of law, and it should be available. But the blanket statement that all IBR standards should be free misses a few important considerations.”

As coordinator of the U.S. standardization system, ANSI has taken a lead role in informing the public about the reality of free standards, the economics of standards setting, and how altering this infrastructure will undermine U.S. competitiveness. Specifically, the loss of revenue from the sale of standards could negatively impact the business model supporting many SDOs – potentially disrupting the larger U.S. and international standardization system, a major driver of innovation and economic growth worldwide. In response to concerns raised by ANSI members and partner organizations, government officials, and other stakeholders, ANSI began to develop its IBR Portal, with the goal of providing a single solution to this significant issue that also provides SDOs with the flexibility they require to safeguard their ability to develop standards.

IBR standards hosted on the portal are available exclusively as read-only files. In order to protect the intellectual property rights of the groups holding these standards’ copyrights, the portal has built in security features that prevent users from printing, downloading, or transferring any of the posted standards; in addition, screenshots will be disabled and the standards will contain an identifying watermark.

Do note the following registration requirements:

You must register to view READ-ONLY documents posted on this site.

Please note that registration is for a single browsing session. Users who return to the site in another session or on another day will need to fill out the registration form again.

Smells like tracking usage of online IBR standards that have the force of law by specific users to me. Perhaps the SDO business model should be changed. — Joe

From the article abstract for Contreras and Hernacki’s Copyright Termination and Technical Standards [SSRN], (University of Baltimore Law Review, Vol. 43, 2014, Forthcoming):

Section 203 of the Copyright Act permits authors to terminate any grant of rights in a copyright between 35 and 40 years after the initial grant was made. In this article we analyze the application of Section 203 termination to technical standards documents, focusing in particular on the exclusion of works-made-for-hire, the treatment of joint works and derivative works. We conclude that, although Section 203 is theoretically applicable to technical standards, several statutory obstacles would impede the wholesale termination of standards-related license grants. Nevertheless, in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation, we recommend that Congress or the courts explicitly acknowledge the inapplicability of Section 203 to technical standards.

Hat tip to Christine Corcos’ Media Law Prof Blog post. — Joe

From the press release:

The Open Data Index is a community-based effort initiated and coordinated by the Open Knowledge Foundation. The Index is compiled using contributions from civil society members and open data practitioners around the world, which are then peer-reviewed and checked by expert open data editors. The Index provides an independent assessment of openness in the following areas: transport timetables; government budget; government spending; election results; company registers; national map; national statistics; legislation; postcodes / ZIP codes; emissions of pollutants.

Countries assessed (in rank order): United Kingdom, United States, Denmark, Norway, Netherlands, Australia, Finland, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Iceland, Moldova, Bulgaria, Malta, Italy, France, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Israel, Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Isle Of Man, Japan, Serbia, Russian Federation, Ecuador, South Korea, Poland, Taiwan R.O.C., China, Indonesia, Hungary, Brazil, Germany, Mexico, Jersey, Guernsey, Slovak Republic, Bermuda, Romania, Costa Rica, Bangladesh, Tunisia, Singapore, Lithuania, South Africa, Cayman Islands, Egypt, Nepal, Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Gibraltar, Belgium, Hong Kong, Barbados, Bahamas, India, Bahrain, Yemen, Burkina Faso, Kenya, British Virgin Is., Saint Kitts & Nevis, Cyprus.

Full results of Open Knowledge Foundation’s assessment and graphs of the data. — Joe

Hat tip to Slaw’s Monday’s Mix for information about the following University of Ottawa Press book.

The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law, Edited by Michael Geist.

Description

In the summer of 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada issued rulings on five copyright cases in a single day. The cases represent a seismic shift in Canadian copyright law, with the Court providing an unequivocal affirmation that copyright exceptions such as fair dealing should be treated as users’ rights, while emphasizing the need for a technology neutral approach to copyright law.

The Court’s decisions, which were quickly dubbed the “copyright pentalogy,” included no fees for song previews on services such as iTunes, no additional payment for music included in downloaded video games, and that copying materials for instructional purposes may qualify as fair dealing. The Canadian copyright community soon looked beyond the cases and their litigants and began to debate the larger implications of the decisions. Several issues quickly emerged.

This book represents an effort by some of Canada’s leading copyright scholars to begin the process of examining the long-term implications of the copyright pentalogy. The diversity of contributors ensures an equally diverse view on these five cases, contributions are grouped into five parts. Part 1 features three chapters on the standard of review in the courts. Part 2 examines the fair dealing implications of the copyright pentalogy, with five chapters on the evolution of fair dealing and its likely interpretation in the years ahead. Part 3 contains two chapters on technological neutrality, which the Court established as a foundational principle of copyright law. The scope of copyright is assessed in Part 4 with two chapters that canvas the exclusive rights under the copyright and the establishment of new “right” associated with user-generated content. Part 5 features two chapters on copyright collective management and its future in the aftermath of the Court’s decisions.

This volume represents the first comprehensive scholarly analysis of the five rulings. Edited by Professor Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, the volume includes contributions from experts across Canada. This indispensable volume identifies the key aspects of the Court’s decisions and considers the implications for the future of copyright law in Canada.

You can download the complete book as an open access PDF from the above link. — Joe

— in order to begin to address domestic concerns that laws are being implemented in ways beyond what was thought allowable and to rebuild faith with our international partners?

I guess we will have to wait ‘n see. Quoting from OpenGovernment.org’s Oct. 29, 2013 newsletter article, “US to Outline New Commitment​s at the Open Government Partnershi​p Summit”:

Later this week the Obama Administration is scheduled to announce the US’ new round of commitments to make the government more open and accountable during the meeting of the Open Government Partnership in London. Due in part to complications created by the government shutdown, the US will not be unveiling its full action plan (the full plan will be released in early December), but US officials will be presenting an outline of what they consider to be ambitious commitments. The commitments that will be discussed during the meeting are expected to be related to modernizing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), spending transparency, and open data.

A recent letter coordinated by OpenTheGovernment.org and signed by 45 organizations that work on a variety of issues urged the President to take advantage of the Summit’s international stage to commit to curbing secret law. As regular readers know, secret interpretations of the law have been at the heart of recent controversies ranging from opinions by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel memo authorizing interrogation techniques that many say equate to torture to opinions by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that allowed for massive expansion of the National Security Administration’s surveillance programs. The most recent revelations regarding surveillance have raised serious concerns about what the government is doing in our name and the extent of violations of American’s privacy and civil liberties, and critical questions about whether the US’s programs breach international law. We intend to continue to raise these issues with the Obama Administration, and push for concrete commitments.

The embedded link in the above quote sends one to the press release for the Oct. 21, 2013 open letter. Here’s the list of signatories:

  1. American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression
  2. American Civil Liberties Union
  3. American Library Association
  4. American Society of News Editors
  5. Arab American Institute
  6. ARTICLE 19
  7. Bill of Rights Defense Committee
  8. Brechner Center for Freedom of Information
  9. Californians Aware
  10. Center for Democracy and Technology
  11. Center for Effective Government
  12. Center for Media and Democracy
  13. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington – CREW
  14. The Constitution Project
  15. Council on American-Islamic Relations – CAIR
  16. Electronic Frontier Foundation
  17. Electronic Privacy Information Center – EPIC
  18. Essential Information
  19. Federation of American Scientists
  20. First Amendment Foundation
  21. Government Accountability Project – GAP
  22. Human Right Watch
  23. iSolon.org
  24. James Madison Project
  25. Just Foreign Policy
  26. Liberty Coalition
  27. National Coalition Against Censorship
  28. National Freedom of Information Coalition
  29. National Security Archive
  30. No More Guantanamos
  31. OpenTheGovernment.org
  32. PolitiHacks
  33. Project On Government Oversight – POGO
  34. Public Citizen
  35. Public Knowledge
  36. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
  37. Reporters Without Borders
  38. Society of Professional Journalists
  39. Sunlight Foundation
  40. Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University
  41. Understanding Government
  42. Vermont Coalition for Open Government
  43. Vermont Press Association
  44. Washington Civil Rights Council
  45. Win Without War

Yup, AALL is not a signatory. — Joe

A new gold rush has come to California, with the state’s massive legal system open for mining as courts and lawyers move to new technology. Investor Warren Buffett’s right hand man has joined in the race along with enormous software and publishing companies from around the nation. “It’s truly the wild west here in California,” said an industry insider, “a land grab.”

They are scrambling for a mother lode of multi-million-dollar contracts for software and licensing, vast additional sums for upkeep, and the right to set up a toll booth on Court Road for 38 million people. — Maria Dinzeo, Courthouse News Service

Why? Dinzeo explains that “the rush of deal-making follows the collapse of a half-billion-dollar, ten-year state project to develop a Court Case Management System for all California’s 58 trial courts. Widely savaged by judges as a ‘fiasco” and a “boondoggle,’ the software developed by Deloitte Consulting was abandoned last year.” For much more see Tech Gold Rush Strikes CA Courts. — Joe

Hat tip to DigitalKoans for calling attention to Jingfeng Xia’s The Open Access Divide, Publications 2013, 1(3), 113-139; doi:10.3390/publications1030113. Here’s the abstract:

This paper is an attempt to review various aspects of the open access divide regarding the difference between those academics who support free sharing of data and scholarly output and those academics who do not. It provides a structured description by adopting the Ws doctrines emphasizing such questions as who, what, when, where and why for information-gathering. Using measurable variables to define a common expression of the open access divide, this study collects aggregated data from existing open access as well as non-open access publications including journal articles and extensive reports. The definition of the open access divide is integrated into the discussion of scholarship on a larger scale.

— Joe