Category Archives: Products & Services
The Harvard Law Record published an opinion piece, The Blue Wars: A Report from the Front, by Carl Malamud about the ongoing dispute the Harvard Law Review Association is having with Malamud because of his activities in co-creating and hosting the open-source Baby Blue’s Manual of Legal Citation on Public.Resource.Org. See our earlier post, Is a uniform system of citation an open-source feature of our legal system’s infrastructure? Malamud’s Harvard Law Record article details the history of this dispute. Lawsuit forthcoming? — Joe
In Moneyball for Book Publishers: A Detailed Look at How We Read, New York Times, March 14, 2016, Alexandra Alter and Karl Russell report that Jellybooks, a reader analytics company, is providing statistical analysis of ebook reading behavior to seven unidentified trade publishers.
Here is how it works: the company gives free e-books to a group of readers, often before publication. Rather than asking readers to write a review, it tells them to click on a link embedded in the e-book that will upload all the information that the device has recorded. The information shows Jellybooks when people read and for how long, how far they get in a book and how quickly they read, among other details. It resembles how Amazon and Apple, by looking at data stored in e-reading devices and apps, can see how often books are opened and how far into a book readers get.
Alter and Russell also report that “[f]or the most part, the publishers who are working with Jellybooks are not using the data to radically reshape books to make them more enticing, though they might do that eventually. But some are using the findings to shape their marketing plans.”
Click to enlarge above image to view an example of Jellybooks’ reader analytics. — Joe
Commercializing AI: TR’s Watson Initiative to launch global financial regulation product by year’s end
Among several other product announcements, Thomson Reuters Legal recently disclosed that it will release in beta the first legal product using Watson’s cognitive computing technologies by year’s end. On Dewey B Strategic, Jean O’Grady writes
Ever since TR announced their collaboration with IBM Watson last October, the legal community has been impatient to learn how this alliance will manifest in a legal product. We still don’t know but TR did promise that they will be the first company for built a legal product using Watson technology. The alliance will combine IBM’s cognitive computing with TR’s deep domain expertise. A panel of executives from TR and Watson revealed that there will be a beta product available by the end of 2016. Their first collaboration will focus on taming the complexities of global financial regulation.
Bob Ambrogi adds “The product will help users untangle the sometimes-confusing web of global legal and regulatory requirements and will be targeted at customers in corporate legal, corporate compliance and law firms. Initially, it will focus on financial services, [Erik Laughlin, managing director, Legal Managed Services and Corporate Segment, and head of the Watson Initiative] suggested, but will also address other domains important to corporations.”
Very interesting. Wouldn’t it be something if TR was prepared to demonstrate how this product will work at
AALL ALI AALL in Chicago this year? — Joe
Lex Machina issued a report last Tuesday that analyzes copyright litigation trends over the last five years. The report is impressive for the level of detail in the statistical analysis and charts presented in the 37 page document. The report is designed to highlight legal analytics in copyright litigation. The target audience appears to be plaintiffs with a heavy interest in protecting their media assets, firms that are considering taking on copyright cases, and those with an interest in the mechanics of copyright litigation. As the report indicates, it is the first survey of its kind. I’ve followed file sharing and other IP cases which I have reported on in this forum from time to time. I found the report interesting for its snapshot of how litigation progresses through the courts.
Highlights from the press release include:
- Top plaintiffs include music (Broadcast Music, Sony/ATV Songs, Songs of Universal, UMG Records, EMI, and more), software (Microsoft), fashion (Coach), and textile patterns (Star Fabrics) industries.
- Top defendants include retailers (Ross Stores, TJX (TJ Maxx), Amazon, Burlington Coat Factory, Rainbow USA, J.C. Penny, Sears, Forever 21, Wal-mart, and Nordstroms), music labels (Universal Music, Sony Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings), & publishing / education, (Pearson Education and John Wiley and Sons).
- Doniger Burroughs, a California fashion, art, and entertainment boutique leads among plaintiffs firms with 741 cases, more than double the next firm.
- Copyright litigation is heavily concentrated in the Central District of California (2,496 cases, 26.2% of all since 2009) and the Southern District of New York (1,061 cases, 11.1%).
- Fair use is usually decided on summary judgment.
- The majority of infringement findings happen as a result of default, and almost all default findings are for infringement.
- Top parties winning damages include companies in movies and entertainment (Disney, Twentieth Century Fox, Columbia Pictures, Warner Brothers, Universal, Paramount Pictures, and more), software (Quantlab, Foundry Networks), and music (UMG Recording).
- In file sharing cases, about 90% of cases settle. Top plaintiffs include movie production companies. And an erotic website leads the list of Internet file-sharing plaintiffs with 4,238 cases – about 15 times as many cases as the next most litigious plaintiff.
The report registration and download link is here.
I should mention that there is a Windows 10 upgrade scam going on. There is an email going around that offers an upgrade but instead encrypts a hard drive for ransom. The details are at ZDNet.
I installed Windows 10 as an upgrade to my Windows 7 machine over the weekend. I wasn’t expecting to do that. Even though I had not reserved a copy, I discovered Windows Update began downloading the program, all three Gbs of it. This was one of several contradictions to stories I had read up to now. Microsoft was sending out copies in waves in that people who had reserved a copy would get the free download at different times. Oh well.
The upgrade went smoothly. The new operating system booted for the first time and allowed me to custom configure how Windows would perform. Customizing the system is not recommended as Microsoft has designed Windows to be as cloud centric as possible. I think I should take a moment here and state that while I appreciate the value and convenience of cloud computing I would like to have as much control over it as possible. In other words, I prefer managing the experience instead of allowing Microsoft to do it for me. In that regard, I encountered several more contradictions.
I had read that Microsoft would override defaults on the target system forcing users to reconfigure their machines after the fact. Mozilla chief Chris Beard had written an angry letter to Microsoft for making the new Edge browser the system default despite the pre-upgrade settings. I don’t use Firefox and have Google Chrome as my default. It was acknowledged and accepted as the Windows 10 default browser without any hassle. Several other programs I used for media remained the defaults despite modern apps from Microsoft that managed this material. I could still use the venerable MS Media Player to play back WMV/A files by default. The player, by the way, is now nothing more than that – a player. The libraries for media are now managed by the photo, movie, and music apps. These will scan the local drive and automatically add what they find.
It does not appear possible to stop this collection unless one manipulates the search locations in the app settings to a location where there is no media. Media in the app library can be removed, though unlike the old Media Player library, it is also removed from the drive to the recycle bin. There doesn’t appear to be an option to delete content from the app lists only. It’s also possible to remove the apps from the start menu by right clicking on the tile and selecting the appropriate option. Built in apps cannot be deleted from the system, only disabled.
Logging into Windows 10 is easy. There are multiple options. My default in Windows 7 was a simple boot to the desktop with no password. I’m the only one who uses the machine in any event and I find that convenient for my use. Windows 10 can preserve that though it really does not want to. Anyone who logs into the Microsoft store with a Microsoft account will find that Windows will require that account to log into the system. That can be changed back to a local account by digging into the system settings and changing it back. Microsoft even then will want to associate a local account with a password with no apparent option to change that. There is a way to eliminate the password requirement by running a command line entry. The instructions are here if anyone wants to do that.
Search in Windows 10 is a bit different. Microsoft has brought the Cortana personal assistant to the desktop. Cortana can be disabled through settings accessed from the Start Page. I did this as I do not have a camera or microphone attached to my desktop. It’s possible to use Cortana by typing in the search box located in the taskbar. There are a few settings worth mentioning. Cortana is designed to improve by learning about an individual over time. That information is stored in the Cloud which is one reason why a Microsoft account is preferred. There are options settings that can clear that information and stop the collection if one wants to do that. Microsoft will tell you that this is not recommended for obvious reasons. Nonetheless, these settings can be changed.
Cortana as well as system search and built in apps is powered by Bing. The default here is to search the machine and the web simultaneously. Using Bing cannot be changed, but as with other settings, it can be turned off. There are options in settings to turn off web search when doing a system search. Microsoft prefers that you not do that.
One pleasant feature of the upgrade is that all of my desktop shortcuts were preserved. That was nice as I like to go straight to the desktop and click on an icon and start working. I know this makes me sound as if I haven’t progressed since XP was released. Far from it. I can appreciate what Microsoft is doing. It’s a connected world out there where people stay in touch with each other and share news, photos, video and the like, all in real time. I think that’s great. I’m not into it at all, but that’s me. What I appreciate the most about Windows 10 is that I can still configure it so I don’t have to use these features. It may be a little bit of work to do that as Microsoft really really wants everyone to be online and constantly connected and tracked to make Windows customized for a better computing experience. I’ll turn all of those features back on if I ever needed that kind of connectivity.
One last thought, Solitaire on Windows 10 is terrible. It’s bare bones as local game. Similar features to the game in Windows 7 are only unlocked through a Microsoft account:
“Sign in with a Microsoft account to get achievements, leaderboards, and have your progress stored in the cloud!”
Oh yay. Not everything needs to be social. I guess I’ll be sticking with the game as it appears on my Android tablet.
UPDATE: Windows Media Player does indeed have a library associated with it. I was wrong about that. I discovered it last night after I played a video with Media Player. It doesn’t appear to sync up with the other media apps in one shared library. That may be because Microsoft really wants people to use a Microsoft account to sync up their media libraries. It’s either that or I managed to turn off all known syncing options (finally!). I even managed to delete OneDrive out of the File Explorer windows. I want to say again that I’m not paranoid about being tracked online. I do have a Google account after all, and Google is the Supreme Emperor of tracking. My goal is to have as much control of my system as possible. If you want paranoia, especially healthy paranoia, this article from RPS puts Microsoft’s tracking of consumers via Windows 10 into perspective.
Windows 10 is available for download today. If anyone had noticed, there is a link in the notification tray for systems running Windows 7 and 8/8.1 offering a free upgrade that’s valid for a year. I wasn’t part of the Windows Insider Program though I followed the news on developments. A modified version of the Start Menu is back that combines search, applications, and the Start Page from Windows 8. Aside from the deeper integration to OneDrive, Windows 10 gets Cortana, a virtual personal assistant that learns more detail about a user over time in order to be more helpful. Personal assistants are all the rage these days with Apple’s Siri, Google Now, and Amazon Echo. As John Lennon sang in I Am The Walrus, “Ompa Ompa Everybody’s got one.”
I’m not personally a fan talking to a computer though I can see the utility in integrating this technology into operating systems, especially mobile. I’m a desktop guy through and through. I have an Android tablet that I use to play solitaire when I’m on the train. Other than that, all my real work is on the desktop. It’s nice that Microsoft doesn’t force this kind of interactivity on people as it is possible to turn Cortana off and/or clear the accumulated information. My biggest question about this data is how secure it will be? Hackers might find it interesting. I’m going to wait for that story to break.
Windows 10 has had favorable reviews given the reception to the radical change Windows 8 brought to computing. A lot of people felt that the changes were forced on them with no regard as to how they actually used Windows. The Windows blog entries by former head of Windows development, Steve Sinofsky basically stated that features and design were driven by telemetry from people who used Windows 7 and the test versions of Windows 8. He left the company shortly after Windows 8 went public. I wonder why.
This version of Windows, suggested to be the last, took into account tester comments as well as a more detailed look as to how people used the system. Thus there are a lot of familiar features with new that are for the most part customizable. I can appreciate that. My desktop in Windows 7 looks an awful like XP even down to the bland task bar and desktop shortcuts. What can I say, I’m a sentimentalist.
I plan to upgrade my two desktop computers, though not immediately. I just want to make sure that the mass upgrade process goes smoothly. Any bugs or annoyances should work themselves out in the next month or so. I’m looking forward to the upgrades in any event. I’ll report more on the experience once I get the software on my machines. A guide to Windows 10, features, and the upgrade process is available here from Microsoft.
Your smart TV may be spying on you if it’s manufactured by Vizio. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of the brand. I’m on my second set, a 65 inch E Series. That doesn’t mean I like the creepy fact that the set apparently sends back details of what I’m watching regardless of source. That little tidbit came in a story in Fortune about Vizio’s upcoming IPO:
Vizio uses technology integrated into its televisions to determine what a user is watching, regardless of the source. In other words, Vizio knows what you’re watching even if it’s a DVD being played on a gaming console or show being watched via cable TV.
Vizio offers what it calls “smart interactivity.” It’s all in the name of customization that alleges to cater to the individual customer. Fortunately, there is a way to turn it off. Vizio instructions to that effect are here. I can understand (although not approve of) a cable or satellite provider tracking its shows, but DVDs and other delivery mechanisms?
It reminds me of the story about Samsung smart TVs actually listening in on conversations through a digital assistant. Anyway, I’ll be disconnecting my set later on this evening. Any libraries or organizations that use Vizio TVs as displays should take note.
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.
There is an interesting discussion going on at my library. As others may be doing, we are considering the proper mix between print and online resources. ABA law school accreditation Standard 606 now allows for “a core collection of essential materials through ownership or reliable access.” It’s that last part, “reliable access,” that triggers deep soul searching of what to buy in print or what to buy as an electronic subscription. Tempering the rule are other qualifications that state the core collection should support faculty scholarship and the curriculum, and that a collection that consists of a single format may violate Standard 606.
In this context I’ve recommended that we drop the National Reporter System, ALRs, CJS, multiple state codes, and selected treatises that are online. This may sound radical to some. I know that law schools and libraries are experiencing budget cuts due to lower enrollment. That drives part of the analysis. Another factor that bears thought is what we teach these days. The legal writing program at DePaul started teaching all electronic research. We experienced a drop in library visits as a consequence. No more treasure hunts, no answering the same questions over and over at the reference desk.
I can remember how far we’ve come in electronic access. We used to teach print resources because that’s what the legal market had out there. Now electronic access to case law and other primary sources is ubiquitous. At one time it was viable to teach print because the databases were based on print. Understand the organization of print and the online version would make more sense. That’s not so true anymore. Online database providers no longer think in terms of echoing print other than citation and star paging. Certainly there was a time when case law on Westlaw was organized by reporter. Not anymore. It’s all jurisdictional, and that seems natural now compared to looking for a database containing the Northeastern Reporter.
Look at how citators have changed. There was a time when Shepards online would be no more current than the latest print update. Even the CD-ROM product mirrored print. Now everything is dynamic. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to subscribe to the print edition at this point. We cancelled our print copies years ago. If anything was made easier by online access, Shepards, KeyCite, and citators in general are it. They are more complete, can be filtered, and everything is spelled out instead of interpreting symbols attached to citations.
Then there are law reviews. I have to say how much I like Hein Online when it comes to law reviews. Everything back to day one is there in PDF format more or less. We still get paper copies of law reviews but discard them once they appear on Hein. No more binding these books for the collection. Google Scholar works as a handy index to Hein content as well as other scholarly databases.
So now the next question is what is the proper mix for print and online? I know that some libraries have already dropped major primary resources such as reporters. In one sense, we are behind the curve on making that set of decisions. Never in my career had I thought I would be part of this kind of decision. Times change. I find that I’m not very sentimental about physical materials that no one uses at my library.
I came across an interesting feature in the case law portion of Google Scholar. A non-law student asked me for help in locating three cases that she couldn’t find through LexisNexis Academic. She explained that she also tried using Google Scholar. I expanded the information about each by doing a few web searches as well as to verify the accuracy of the case names she gave me. Two of the three were ultimately available through LNA. The third was not.
I searched Scholar with the information I had located about the case and found an opinion with the right caption. I opened the document and noticed that the docket number was a hyperlink. I clicked on it and discovered that there were actually seven opinions issued in the case, at least at the federal District Court level. I remember back when Google Scholar added the case law database that the engineers in charge said it would be easy to create a citator but that their contract with the “unnamed large legal publisher” that licensed the text prohibited that feature. Somehow that didn’t stop Google from adding two features that form a quasi-citator.
One is the “How cited” link in the upper left corner of the page containing the full text of an opinion. That gives links to other citing cases with snippets of text from those cases. There is another option to see all cases that cite the source case. The second feature is a series of links on the same page under the heading “Related documents.” This is where links to the same case at a different appellate level may be found. By hyperlinking the docket numbers, Google can now offer a quasi-history along with its quasi-citator. The only thing missing and presumably barred by contract are the symbols (emojis?) identifying the quality of the citation.
The main feature of Google Scholar’s case law, of course, is finding cases related to a problem through keyword search. The results were hit or miss back in 2009 when the database went public. The case list showed relevant decisions but it seemed as if something was missing. The trust factor wasn’t there. I mention this because I tested Scholar last fall when I created scripts for teaching features and strategies available using Lexis Advance, WestlawNext, and Bloomberg Law.
The problem was set in New York State. Essentially, an individual sued a landowner for injuries sustained while riding an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) on the owner’s property. The searches were from the perspective of the owner under the theory of assumption of the risk. I liked the problem because there is a New York statute that specifically exempts liability for injuries sustained in most but not all unauthorized access circumstances. It gave the opportunity to show research elements such as case results, links to statutes, annotations under statutes, and how to find related headnotes. All three databases brought up the same leading cases and straightforward navigation to the related research types on each system.
I tested the same keywords in Scholar and sure enough, it gave results featuring all of the same leading cases on the first page of citations as I had found in LA, WN, and BL. Essentially, Google’s algorithm has improved tremendously since those early days. Google is hardly a substitute for any of the commercial databases as it does not have the value-added features such as secondary sources and others. At the same time, anyone searching Scholar’s case law database can do so with a good amount of confidence in my opinion.
Incidentally, anyone wishing to see the scripts I designed should contact me for copies.
News reports are appearing about Microsoft offering free and legal versions of Word, Excel, OneNote, and PowerPoint via cloud access. Readers may be aware that Microsoft is pushing Office 365 as a subscription based alternative to installing the application suite on a computer. The free web versions of the most popular Microsoft applications are associated with a Microsoft account and OneDrive, formerly SkyDrive. One can open, edit, or create a document in OneDrive by selecting the option from the menu choices at the top.
Anyone familiar with a computer based version of the Office applications will feel quite at home. The same ribbon interface appears with just about the same options. I believe, as with most people, I use only common formatting in documents. Everything I needed in Word is here and more. In fact, I’m typing this in Word Online as a way of testing the viability of the product. So far, so good. This version of Word appears to support keyboard shortcuts (at least the ones I use) without too much variation from the boxed Office suite. The editing process is smooth and stable.
Some features are missing. Inline spell and grammar check do not appear to be an option. There is an spell check feature under Review in the menu bar. Some option boxes require clicking a button to select a choice rather than responding to the Enter Key. Drag and drop seems to be missing as well. These are minor inconveniences. I find the product very comfortable to use, especially for the price.
From the January 6, 2014 notice sent to academic law library subscribers:
We’re writing to ensure you are aware of a change regarding access to BNA (Bureau of National Affairs) publications available through LexisNexis®. BNA was acquired by a new publisher and at their request, BNA sources will no longer be available on Lexis Advance® and lexis.com® after December 31, 2013. BNA documents saved to a folder or included in an Alert on Lexis Advance, will no longer be accessible.
We understand the value of this content which is why I’m thrilled to inform you that we’re providing access to Law360 content at no additional charge under your current LexisNexis subscription. Law360 content will be available within Lexis Advance in late January. Law360 is a premier current awareness publisher providing legal professionals with non-stop coverage of high-stakes litigation across 35+ practice areas. Faculty and students will benefit from the latest news and developments on topics and cases of interest.
In addition to Law360, Lexis Advance continues to have one of the largest collections of secondary content to meet your research needs including
And there you have it. Really, this isn’t a surprise, right? — Joe
Below is a photo by John Miano of the New Providence, New Jersey LexisNexis sign. The blank spot used to be occupied by “Martindale-Hubbell”. “Gone. Along with most of the M-H staff,” he wrote. See Jean O’Grady’s tribute at Martindale Hubbell: Another Legal Icon Bites the Dust. But It Was Once Worth Its Weight in Gold. — Joe
LexisNexis and Fastcase announced that Collier TopForm & File will now be provided exclusively by Fastcase, and will be known simply as TopForm. From the press release:
The exclusive license will bring together the editorial expertise of LexisNexis, a leading provider of content and technology solutions, and the focused product development of Fastcase, an award winning legal software company. LexisNexis will continue editorial updates to the service through 2017, with Fastcase focusing on product development, especially a Web version of the TopForm software tightly integrated with Fastcase’s legal research service. The combination will produce the most authoritative, powerful bankruptcy software on the market.
Under LexisNexis, TopForm has been a CD-Rom product that only works on PCs. With this exclusive agreement, Fastcase will be taking TopForm to the web, adding new features, and essentially refreshing TopForm with smarter tools and technology. See product details at TopForm™ by Fastcase.
Also from the press release:
“This will offer a valuable benefit for professionals in the bankruptcy community,” said Fastcase President Phil Rosenthal. “Integrating the editorial expertise of LexisNexis and one of the industry’s best filing and form systems with Fastcase’s technology and online database will provide every TopForm subscriber with more access and helpful tools than ever before.”
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
Will Wolters Kluwer L&R’s Cheetah platform elevate the Company to its former heights in the law firm market?
Wolters Kluwer L&R will be releasing its Cheetah research platform soon. The Company, once a dominate player in the legal specialist market, offered Jean O’Grady a sneak peak. “Will Cheetah be just another hyped up launch of a marginally new product? Will it be a “head scratcher” like IntelliConnect? Can Cheetah find a home in the wild world of legal research? Can Cheetah outrun the competition? Read on” at Can Wolters Kluwer Legal Get its Grove Back? Can Cheetah Outrun the Market? Jean’s concludes her quick review, highly recommended, with the following:
Can Wolters Kluwer position Cheetah’s high performance platform to actually steal the market share that had been in BloombergBNA’s crosshairs? Can Cheetah lure users from Lexis and Westlaw with a promise of high functionality and relatively low annual cost which can be supported without charging clients for cost recovery? It looks like Cheetah is positioned to give them a “run for their money.”
LexisNexis L&P provides law prof access to legal eBooks for adoption purposes and makes it easier for law students to purchase eTextbooks
Yesterday, LexisNexis L&P announced two new legal eBook developments in the academic sector. The Company has reached an agreement with Follett bookstores that provides a means for students to buy Lexis eBooks in both brick-and-mortar and online store environments. According to the press release, “[S]tudents can pay for a LexisNexis(R) eBook in a Follett-run bookstore and receive a passcode for downloading the book online at the LexisNexis Store or they can buy codes directly online via efollett.com and use them to download related legal eBooks from LexisNexis.”
Second, LN announced the launch of LexisNexis® Digital Library – Professor Review Copies to enable professor-only access to the core collection of LexisNexis law school textbooks for review. To the best of my knowledge this is the first major law eBook vendor to provide access to its catalog of academic eBooks for law school course adoption. Perhaps not; that depends on how one views the relationship between TR Legal and its spin-off West Academic.
Quoting from yesterday’s press release:
“Today’s law students were born digital and eBooks are simply ‘books’ to them, and that is why our strategy is to meet and exceed their expectations in the media format they want,” said Susan Slisz, vice president at LexisNexis. “Law professors are also embracing eBooks and increasingly need a fast and reliable way to find and review eBook titles for possible inclusion in their class curriculum.”