throbber
No. 18-1150
`
`IN THE
`
`
`
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`
`STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`PUBLIC.RESOURCE.ORG, INC.,
`
`Respondent.
`
`
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
`to the United States Court of Appeals
`for the Eleventh Circuit
`
`
`
`BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE
`NEXT-GENERATION LEGAL RESEARCH
`PLATFORMS AND DATABASES AND DIGITAL
`ACCESSIBILITY ADVOCATE
`IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
`
`
`
`
`
`Phillip R. Malone
`Counsel of Record
`JUELSGAARD INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY AND
`INNOVATION CLINIC
`MILLS LEGAL CLINIC AT
`STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
`559 Nathan Abbott Way
`Stanford, CA 94305
`(650) 725-6369
`pmalone@stanford.edu
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ................................. 1
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 5
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................ 6
`
`I. This Case Is Exceptionally Important Because
`Full Access to the Law Is Fundamental. .............. 6
`
`A. Due Process and Democratic Principles
`Require Public Access to the Law. ................. 7
`
`B. People Who Use Assistive Technologies in
`Particular Require Access to the Law. .......... 9
`
`II. Existing Legal Uncertainty Hampers Legal
`Innovation and Lessens Competition. ................ 11
`
`A. Uncertainty Regarding Access to the Law
`Impairs Amici’s Ability to Innovate. ............ 12
`
`B. Lack of Uniformity Exposes Legal
`Innovators to Nationwide Suits. .................. 16
`
`C. Without Uniformity, Legal Threats and
`Lawsuits Against Innovators Will Recur. ... 18
`
`D. Legal Uncertainty Restrains Valuable
`Competition. ................................................. 21
`
`CONCLUSION .......................................................... 24
`
`

`

`ii
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Banks v. Manchester,
` 128 U.S. 244 (1888) ................................................. 8
`
`Bldg. Officials & Code Adm. v. Code Tech., Inc.,
` 628 F.2d 730 (1st Cir. 1980). .................................. 9
`
`Buckley v. Valeo,
` 424 U.S. 1 (1976) ..................................................... 7
`
`Code Revision Comm'n v. Public.Resource.Org,
`Inc.,
` 906 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2018) ............................. 23
`
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys.,
` 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) ............................................. 7
`
`Edy Clover Prods., Inc. v. Nat’l Broadcasting
`Co.,
` 572 F.2d 119 (3d Cir. 1978) .................................. 17
`
`Evergreen Media Holdings, LLC v. Warren,
` 105 F. Supp. 3d 192 (D. Conn. 2015) .................... 17
`
`FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.,
` 567 U.S. 239 (2012) ................................................. 6
`
`Foreign Imported Prods. & Publ., Inc. v. Grupo
`Indus. Hotelero, S.A.,
` 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108705, at *1 (S.D.
`Fla. Oct. 24, 2008) .................................................. 17
`
`Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville,
` 405 U.S. 156 (1972) ................................................. 7
`
`Penguin Grp. (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha,
` 946 N.E.2d 159 (N.Y. 2011) .................................. 17
`
`

`

`iii
`
`Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l,
` 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002) ................................... 8
`
`Statutes
`
`17 U.S.C. § 121 (2018) ............................................... 10
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 (2018) ............................................. 18
`
`Treatises
`
`17 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal
`Practice – Civil
` (3d ed. 2019) .......................................................... 17
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Brief of Next-Generation Legal Research
`Platforms as Amici Curiae In Support of
`Defendant/Appellant,
` Code Revision Comm'n v.
`Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 906 F.3d 1229 (11th
`Cir. 2018) (No. 17-11589-HH) ................................ 15
`
`Jill Schachner Chanen, Exclusive: Inside the
`New Westlaw, Lexis & Bloomberg Platforms,
` ABA Journal (Jan. 25, 2010, 3:00 AM),
`http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/exclu
`sive_inside_the_new_westlaw_lexis_bloomber
`g_platforms. ............................................................ 22
`
`Judge Kevin Burke, An Exciting Opportunity for
`Judges to Get Good, Solid Research,
` American Judges Association (May 16, 2017),
`http://blog.amjudges.org/?p=5968 .......................... 13
`
`

`

`iv
`
`Leslie Street & David Hansen, Official
`Publications of State Laws: Copyright Status
`and Terms of Use (Compiled with Status
`Current to August 2018),
` Mercer University Research, Scholarship,
`and Archives (Dec. 17, 2018, 2:36 PM),
`https://libraries.mercer.edu/ursa/handle/10898
`/9937 ....................................................................... 20
`
`Leslie Street & David R Hansen, Who Owns the
`Law? Why We Must Restore Public Ownership
`of Legal Publishing,
` 26 J. Intell. Prop. L. 205 (2019) .................... 14, 21
`
`Letter from Bradley R. Frazer, Hawley Troxell
`Ennis & Hawley LLP,
` to Carl Malamud, President & Founder,
`Public.Resource.Org (Aug. 14, 2013),
`https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/id/id.gov.2
`0130814.pdf. ........................................................... 19
`
`Letter from Carl Malamud, President &
`Founder, Public.Resource.Org,
` to Hon. Scott Bedke, Speaker of the House,
`Idaho State Legislature (May 30, 2013),
`https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/id/id.gov.2
`0130530.pdf. ........................................................... 19
`
`Letter from Larry A. Schemmel, Special
`Assistant Attorney General, State of
`Mississippi, to Carl Malamud, President &
`Founder, Public.Resource.Org (Oct. 7, 2013),
`https://law.resource.org/pub/us/code/ms/ms.go
`v.20131007.pdf. ...................................................... 20
`
`

`

`v
`
`LexisNexis Announces Acquisition of Ravel Law,
` LexisNexis (Jun. 8, 2017),
`https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/about-
`us/media/press-
`release.page?id=1496247082681222. .............. 15, 22
`
`Matt Shipman, White House Honors Sina
`Bahram as a “Champion of Change,” CSC
`News (May 7,
`2012), http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/news/1322 ............. 5
`
`Olufunmilayo B. Arewa, Open Access in a Closed
`Universe: Lexis, Westlaw, Law Schools, and
`the Legal Information Market,
` 10 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 797 (2006).............. 21, 22
`
`Robert J. Derocher, Accessibility Matters:
`Experts and Lawyers With Disabilities Help
`Bars Find, Eliminate Barriers,
` American Bar Association (Jan. 11, 2018),
`https://www.americanbar.org/groups/bar_servi
`ces/publications/bar_leader/2017-18/january-
`february/accessibility-matters-experts-and-
`lawyers-with-disabilities-help-bars-find-
`eliminate-barriers/ ................................................. 10
`
`Stephen Rynkiewicz, Judicata Automated
`Review Scores Brief’s Lines of Attack,
` ABA Journal (Oct. 17, 2017, 4:19 PM),
`http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judica
`ta_automated_review_scores_brief ......................... 1
`
`Tim Stanley, Cease, Desist & Resist: Oregon’s
`Copyright Claim on the Oregon Revised
`Statutes, Justia (Apr. 19, 2008),
`https://lawblog.justia.com/2008/04/19/cease-
`desist-resist-oregons-copyright-claim-on-the-
`oregon-revised-statutes. ......................................... 19
`
`

`

`vi
`
`U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment
`Commission, Reasonable Accommodations for
`Attorneys with Disabilities,
` https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/accommodations-
`attorneys.html (last updated Dec. 20, 2017) ........... 9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
`
`1
`
`Amici are nonprofit and for-profit creators of next-
`generation legal research platforms and databases
`that provide innovative tools and services, and a
`digital accessibility researcher and advocate.1 The
`next-generation tools developed by amici dramatically
`improve the ways in which the public, courts, lawyers,
`and other users access, understand, and use the law.
`
`Amicus Judicata provides research and analytic
`tools to turn unstructured case law into structured
`and easily digestible data. Judicata’s color-mapping
`research tool highlights connections between cases
`and makes the law more accessible to both lawyers
`and nonlawyers. Its “Clerk” tool helps not only
`attorneys, but also pro se individuals, by reading and
`evaluating drafts of briefs across three dimensions,
`identifying quotation errors, and providing the user
`with “action items” and areas for improvement.
`Stephen Rynkiewicz, Judicata Automated Review
`Scores Brief’s Lines of Attack, ABA Journal (Oct. 17,
`2017,
`4:19 PM),
`http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judicata_aut
`omated_review_scores_brief.
`
`Amicus Casetext is a legal technology company
`that provides information and research services to
`
`
`
`1 Parties’ counsel were given timely notice of amici’s intent to file
`this brief pursuant to Rule 37.2(a). The parties have consented to
`the filing of this brief. No counsel for a party authored this brief
`in whole or in part, and no party or counsel for a party made a
`monetary contribution intended to fund its preparation or
`submission. No person, other than amici or their counsel, made a
`monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this
`brief.
`
`

`

`2
`
`litigators, leveraging artificial intelligence and the
`
`legal community’s expertise to provide equal access to
`justice. Its CARA software automates legal research
`tasks with artificial intelligence and machine-learning
`technologies to analyze litigation documents and
`algorithmically query federal and state law. Casetext’s
`CARA tool provides a user with relevant cases
`immediately after uploading a brief or complaint. The
`system automatically analyzes
`the document’s
`language to find relevant case law not cited in the
`original document that might otherwise be missing
`from traditional case law searches.
`
`is a nonprofit
`Amicus Free Law Project
`organization seeking to create a more just legal
`system. To accomplish that goal, Free Law Project
`provides free, public, and permanent access to primary
`legal materials on the Internet for educational,
`charitable, and scientific purposes. Its work empowers
`citizens to understand the laws that govern them by
`creating an open ecosystem for legal materials and
`research. Free Law Project also supports academic
`research by developing and providing public access to
`technologies useful for research.
`
`Amicus Fastcase2 is a legal technology company
`that provides tools to make research easier and more
`intuitive through complex search-data visualization.
`Thirty-two state bar associations make Fastcase’s
`legal research tools available to their members for
`free, and more than 900,000 American lawyers have
`
`
`
`2 Ed Walters, CEO of Fastcase, and Tim Stanley, CEO of Justia,
`are on Respondent’s Board of Trustees, but neither they nor their
`respective organization provided any funding towards the
`preparation of this brief nor authored it in whole or in part.
`
`

`

`3
`
`subscription access to the service. It also offers its
`
`research service through free mobile apps. Fastcase
`allows legal researchers to see suggested search terms
`through a case law map, provides unrestricted search
`results, suggests cases a researcher may have missed,
`and outlines case connections with an interactive
`timeline of case history. The integration of its visual
`timeline tool with search results quickly highlights the
`network of citations in judicial opinions and enables
`researchers to identify the most relevant cases
`immediately.
`
`Amicus Docket Alarm, owned by Fastcase, is a
`legal technology company that provides docket
`tracking and analytics for state and federal courts.
`Docket Alarm provides full-text search of briefs,
`pleadings, and motions culled from docket sheets, as
`well as predictive analytics for the Patent Trial and
`Appeal Board, federal courts, and state courts.
`Attorneys can also sign up to receive alerts on docket
`updates through Docket Alarm’s real-time tracking
`system.
`
`Amicus Internet Archive is a public nonprofit
`organization that was founded in 1996 to build an
`Internet
`library, with the purpose of offering
`researchers, historians, scholars, artists, and the
`general public permanent access
`to historical
`collections in digital format. The Internet Archive
`receives data donations and collects, records, and
`digitizes material from a multitude of sources,
`including
`libraries,
`educational
`institutions,
`government agencies, and private companies. The
`Internet Archive then provides free public access to its
`data, including text, audio, video, software, and
`archived web pages.
`
`

`

`4
`
` Amicus Justia works to advance the availability of
`legal resources for society. It is committed to making
`legal records free and easily available on the Internet.
`It provides Internet users with free case law, codes,
`regulations, legal articles, and other legal resources.
`Justia works with educational, public interest, and
`other organizations to make legal information easily
`available online.
`
`Amicus UniCourt is a legal technology company
`dedicated to organizing court records to make them
`universally accessible and useful. Leveraging the
`latest advances in machine learning, indexing, and
`other technologies, UniCourt provides attorneys,
`businesses, and consumers with access to case
`research (docket searching), case tracking, document
`downloads, legal analytics, and bulk access to court
`data through their Legal Data APIs. In addition to
`covering all U.S. Courts of Appeals, district courts, and
`bankruptcy courts, UniCourt also provides access to
`state court records.
`
`Amicus Sina Bahram is a digital accessibility
`researcher, inclusive design expert, and founder of
`Prime Access Consulting, Inc. (“PAC”), a company
`dedicated to making the world more inclusive and
`accessible to all people, independent of ability. An
`individual with vision-impairment himself, Mr.
`Bahram advocates for individuals with disabilities
`and organizations representing their interests, and
`has co-invented transformative solutions that allow
`access to online mathematics for persons with
`disabilities. He requires accessible access to the law as
`an expert witness and because of PAC’s role in helping
`clients become compliant with
`laws regarding
`accessibility and disability. Mr. Bahram has been
`
`

`

`5
`
`honored by the White House as a “Champion of
`
`Change” for his accessibility work. See Matt Shipman,
`White House Honors Sina Bahram as a “Champion of
`Change,”
`CSC
`News
`(May 7,
`2012),
`http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/news/1322. Persons with
`disabilities like Mr. Bahram and those for whom he
`advocates are severely
`impacted by copyright
`protection of the law because the resulting restricted
`access and formats often prevent the use of vital
`assistive technologies such as screen readers to render
`the law in an accessible manner.
`
`SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
`
`The Court should grant certiorari because this
`case raises fundamental and exceptionally important
`issues regarding full access to the law. Uniform and
`consistent access to the law nationwide is an essential
`component of due process and the rule of law; everyone
`in our society must have fair and meaningful notice of
`conduct that is forbidden or required. Full access to,
`and knowledge of, the law is also essential for
`meaningful engagement in our democracy.
`
`Restricting access to the law by allowing copyright
`protection is irreconcilable with these basic principles.
`Limiting access harms
`the public and
`can
`disproportionately
`disenfranchise
`vulnerable
`populations. Copyright also hinders the valuable work
`being done by legal innovators, like amici, who create
`tools to inform and empower the public and everyone
`in the legal field. Amici’s innovative tools increase
`access to the law and to justice; they also improve the
`efficiency and quality of legal advocacy and legal
`services through an array of sophisticated new
`
`

`

`6
`
`research, distribution, visualization, and predictive
`
`analytics tools.
`
`As Petitioners note, there is currently uncertainty
`and lack of uniformity around whether the law can be
`copyrighted. Pet’rs’ Cert. Pet. 16. This uncertainty
`hampers amici’s development and use of legal access
`and research tools. It stymies valuable innovation and
`competition in an industry characterized by high
`concentration and limited options for users. The
`public, and legal innovators like amici, must be free to
`locate, access, use, transform, and distribute law in
`novel and innovative ways. But claims of copyright
`over the law have been, and will continue to be, made
`by states and publishers acting on their behalf. The
`continued unpredictable nature and outcome of such
`claims, due to ongoing legal uncertainty, will worsen
`existing accessibility barriers to legal information,
`hamper valuable innovation, and further reduce
`already limited competition in the legal information,
`research, and analytics industry.
`
`The Court should grant certiorari to eliminate
`this uncertainty and to establish,
`finally and
`uniformly, that the law cannot be copyrighted.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Important
`Is Exceptionally
`I. This Case
`Because Full Access
`to
`the Law
`Is
`Fundamental.
`
`Meaningful access to the law is critical to both due
`process and the rule of law. FCC v. Fox Television
`Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253
`(2012)
`(“A
`fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws
`which regulate persons or entities must give fair
`
`

`

`7
`
`notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.”).
`
`Granting copyright protection to the law conflicts with
`our society’s engrained presumption that citizens
`must know the law, contravenes basic due process
`principles, and disproportionately disenfranchises
`vulnerable populations. Permitting copyright in the
`law contradicts the legal imperative of, and overriding
`public interest in, the right of full access to the law by
`everyone.
`
`A. Due Process and Democratic Principles
`Require Public Access to the Law.
`
`A fundamental tenet of the American legal
`system—that ignorance of the law is no excuse—
`assumes people can comply with the law and,
`necessarily, that they can access it in the first place.
`Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., 135 S. Ct. 1920, 1930
`(2015) (“[T]he general rule that ignorance of the law or
`a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution
`is deeply rooted in the American legal system.”)
`(quoting Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199
`(1991)); Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S.
`156, 162 (1972) (“Living under a rule of law entails
`various suppositions, one of which is that ‘[all persons]
`are entitled to be informed as to what the State
`commands or forbids.’”) (quoting Lanzetta v. New
`Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939)).
`
`In addition to promoting comprehension and
`compliance, open and unimpeded access to the law is
`also important for public engagement in a democracy.
`See Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 49
`(1976)
`(“Democracy depends on a well-informed electorate.”).
`The public’s ability to read, possess, and understand
`the
`law
`is essential
`to both
`the effective
`administration of justice and to the core principles of
`
`

`

`8
`
`and
`transparency,
`participation,
`democracy:
`
`accountability. See Veeck v. S. Bldg. Code Cong. Int’l,
`293 F.3d 791, 799 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Citizens may
`reproduce copies of the law for many purposes, not
`only to guide their actions but to influence future
`legislation.”).
`
`Full access to the law is also critical to enable legal
`innovation. Innovators like amici use the latest
`computer science techniques such as artificial
`intelligence, machine learning, and natural language
`processing, to classify, store, analyze, and disseminate
`legal knowledge through new research and analytics
`products. These tools and databases empower
`constituents—including judges, attorneys, academics,
`researchers, litigants, and the public—to better
`understand and apply the law. Amici are committed to
`providing access to the law to everyone, consistent
`with this Court’s precedent that “the authentic
`exposition and interpretation of the law, which,
`binding every citizen, is free for publication to all,
`whether it is a declaration of unwritten law, or an
`interpretation of a constitution or a statute.” Banks v.
`Manchester, 128 U.S. 244, 253 (1888) (emphasis
`added).
`
`Allowing the law to be copyrighted, however,
`limits access, stifles competition in the legal research
`market, and hinders the development of tools that
`would improve both access to justice and the quality of
`advocacy. And it contravenes fundamental tenets of
`fair notice and due process. “[I]f access to the law is
`limited, then the people will or may be unable to learn
`of its requirements and may be thereby deprived of the
`notice to which due process entitles them.” Bldg.
`Officials & Code Adm. v. Code Tech., Inc., 628 F.2d
`
`

`

`9
`
`730, 734 (1st Cir. 1980). The public and legal
`
`innovators like amici must be permitted to freely
`access, use, transform, and distribute the law in novel
`and innovative ways.
`
`B. People Who Use Assistive Technologies
`in Particular Require Access to the Law.
`
`While full, free access to the law is vital for all
`members of the public, it is particularly important for
`individuals with disabilities, who may be especially
`vulnerable
`to disenfranchisement. People with
`disabilities are acutely affected by the substance of,
`and changes to, public safety, accessibility, and many
`other laws. For some persons with disabilities, full
`access means the very ability to engage in certain
`professions,
`including
`legal practice, regulatory
`compliance, etc. See, e.g., U.S. Equal Opportunity
`Employment
`Commission,
`Reasonable
`Accommodations
`for Attorneys with Disabilities,
`https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/accommodations-
`attorneys.html (last updated Dec. 20, 2017).
`
`Many individuals with disabilities rely on a
`variety of assistive technologies, such as screen-
`reading software, to exercise their fundamental right
`to access the law. But this technology depends on
`materials being both readily available electronically,
`and appropriately
`formatted with well-defined
`structural data. Any format that prohibits copying and
`pasting also prevents the creation of accessibility
`adaptations and translations. If the digital text of the
`law is unavailable in sufficiently open formats, or if
`the text is restricted by technical measures that block
`digital interaction (e.g., to prevent copying), assistive
`technology becomes
`impossible or prohibitively
`cumbersome to use. Persons with disabilities report
`
`

`

`10
`
`significant difficulty accessing legal materials and
`
`legal research tools. See Robert J. Derocher,
`Accessibility Matters: Experts and Lawyers with
`Disabilities Help Bars Find, Eliminate Barriers,
`American Bar Association
`(Jan. 11,
`2018),
`https://www.americanbar.org/groups/bar_services/pu
`blications/bar_leader/2017-18/january-
`february/accessibility-matters-experts-and-lawyers-
`with-disabilities-help-bars-find-eliminate-barriers/.
`
`Given these difficulties, Respondent and legal
`innovators like amici serve a critical role as sources of
`appropriately formatted law that is accessible by
`persons with disabilities. Respondent
`creates
`searchable, manipulable, and accessible versions of
`the
`law
`that are
`compatible with assistive
`technologies. In this case, Respondent made the
`OCGA available in formats that are fully accessible to
`all, including persons with disabilities who use screen
`readers and other assistive technologies. In contrast,
`the current version of the OCGA provided by Lexis is
`not accessible. When a person attempts to access the
`statutory text with his or her screen reader, he or she
`is unable to do so; when a button is actuated or boxes
`are checked, nothing happens for a screen reader to
`announce. There is also no obvious or even slightly
`nonobvious way to subsequently access the desired
`content.
`
`This case powerfully illustrates how copyright
`assertions over the law can be especially detrimental
`to persons with disabilities.3 Copyright restrictions
`
`
`
`3 The Chafee Amendment of 1996 is not a substitute for full
`access by innovators, legal providers, or the public at large. The
`
`
`

`

`11
`
`that prevent innovators like Respondent and amici
`
`from creating and distributing versions of the law in
`appropriately open formats, with properly-defined
`data, hampers or outright blocks access to the law by
`persons with disabilities. Moreover, such restrictions
`prevent persons with disabilities from designing and
`implementing their own solutions to transform the
`text of the law into accessible formats. The result will
`be that many people with disabilities will be precluded
`from accessing and understanding
`important
`elements of the law that govern and (perhaps
`disproportionately) affect them.
`
`II. Existing Legal Uncertainty Hampers Legal
`Innovation and Lessens Competition.
`
`lack of
`substantial uncertainty and
`The
`nationwide uniformity regarding the copyrightability
`of various aspects of the law, including state statutes
`and annotations, has created a significant chilling
`
`
`amendment allows an “authorized entity” to reproduce or
`distribute copies or phonorecords of previously published
`nondramatic literary works in specialized formats exclusively for
`use by blind or other persons with disabilities. But “authorized
`entity” is defined narrowly as any “nonprofit organization or a
`governmental agency that has a primary mission to provide
`specialized services relating to training, education, or adaptive
`reading or information access needs of blind or other persons with
`disabilities.” 17 U.S.C. § 121 (2018) (emphasis added). Thus, any
`legal technology or legal access entity with a mission broader
`than primarily providing services for persons with disabilities,
`and any for-profit organization, would fail to qualify under 17
`U.S.C. § 121. Nor is a possible fair use defense a substitute for
`full, copyright-free access to the law, given the inherently
`uncertain nature of fair use and the significantly greater risk
`posed by relying on it. Only consistent, ex-ante assurances that
`the law is not copyrightable will eliminate the chilling effects on
`access and innovation.
`
`

`

`12
`
`effect on innovation. Amici and other developers of
`
`innovative new legal tools are hampered in their
`efforts to improve access and understanding of the law
`for the public, lawyers, and courts.
`
`This lack of uniformity among the courts of
`appeals concerning copyrightability means that even
`if
`legal
`innovators can
`freely operate
`in one
`jurisdiction, they may still face risk of copyright
`infringement liability in another. For example, even
`though Respondent can now offer full and open access
`to the OCGA in the Eleventh Circuit, it may not be
`able to do so without fear of legal threats or suit in
`other circuits. This uncertainty may force legal
`innovators like amici and Respondent to defer
`expansion into other geographic jurisdictions or to
`limit their service coverage to only a certain subset of
`the law.
`
`Nationwide uniformity of copyright protection for
`state statutes and other law is essential for legal
`innovators to grow confidently and serve the public
`interest by improving access to the laws that govern
`our everyday
`lives. Without consensus,
`legal
`innovators cannot implement tools that dramatically
`transform the ways in which the public, courts, and
`lawyers access, understand, and use the law.
`
`A. Uncertainty Regarding Access to the
`Law Impairs Amici’s Ability to Innovate.
`
`Amici are creating innovative tools that bring the
`full range of modern research techniques, and
`associated access to information, to the legal sphere.
`Their mission depends on open access to the law in its
`complete, official form. Without full access to all state
`statutes and other
`law,
`the development of
`groundbreaking research tools, intended to increase
`
`

`

`13
`
`the overall efficiency and fairness of the law, has been
`
`impeded.
`
`For example, intelligent legal search tools include
`products like amicus Casetext’s CARA tool, which
`analyzes the language in a brief to find relevant but
`not yet included case law that traditional search
`techniques might miss. See Judge Kevin Burke, An
`Exciting Opportunity for Judges to Get Good, Solid
`Research, American Judges Association (May 16,
`2017), http://blog.amjudges.org/?p=5968 (CARA “can
`help judges and their clerks quickly find important
`case law that the parties may have overlooked.”).
`Casetext also provides free legal research services, a
`valuable public resource that is currently used by
`approximately one million people each month.
`
`To function effectively, however, CARA requires
`full access to the official, current legal corpus. CARA
`software builds on the Casetext research database,
`which grants all users access to a law library with both
`Federal and State law, annotated by experts. The
`current uncertainty around open access to legal data
`(and the use of such data) creates high barriers to
`entry as Casetext expands its services and seeks to
`become a true competitor in the legal research market.
`
`Tools developed by other amici also depend on
`having access to the law because their machine
`learning algorithms require a complete and accurate
`dataset to be fully effective. Amicus Judicata, for
`example, relies on Respondent’s legal corpus. Without
`access to these laws, Judicata would have been unable
`to build or refine its most innovative tools. Although
`Judicata’s legal research services are currently limited
`to California law, it plans to expand its geographical
`coverage soon. The uncertainty engendered by state
`
`

`

`14
`
`copyright assertions in official statutory code has
`
`inhibited Judicata’s growth.
`
`Similarly, some amici that aggregate court data
`have been forced to circumscribe their product
`offerings out of concerns over copyright claims. Amicus
`UniCourt, for example, decided not to expand court
`coverage and provide its users with access to Georgia
`state court records due to the chilling precedent of
`Georgia’s suit against Respondent (compounded with
`claims of copyright in Georgia’s court records by
`private providers granted exclusive publication
`rights). After conducting a 50-state survey to help
`determine which new state court systems to onboard,
`UniCourt specifically excluded Georgia to avoid the
`risk of copyright infringement suit. Other innovators
`may find themselves similarly forced to defer adding
`coverage of a jurisdiction so long as concerns about
`copyrightability persist.
`
`the
`struggle with
`innovators also
`Other
`uncertainty surrounding copyrightability. Lack of a
`consistent rule prevents amicus Free Law Project from
`collecting and freely distributing not just all U.S.
`Court opinions, but all statutes and annotations, as
`well. The public, attorneys, and litigants often require
`past versions of codes to understand the law that
`governed at the time a contract became effective, when
`a conviction was entered, etc. Leslie Street & David R.
`Hansen, Who Owns the Law? Why We Must Restore
`Public Ownership of Legal Publishing, 26 J. Intell.
`Prop. L. 205, 206 (2019). Ensuring that statutes, and
`associated annotations, including previous versions,
`are openly available to the public, would help scholars,
`lawyers, and judges track this evolution over time.
`However, to do so, one would have to reproduce and
`
`

`

`15
`
`distribute not just one copy of a state’s statutes, but
`
`every historical version in its entirety. The possibility
`of copyright assertions creates crippling risk for a
`small non-profit—indeed, it has deterred Free Law
`Project from ever posting state statutes.
`
`Another legal innovator, Ravel, provides powerful
`research and analytics tools including case law maps,
`language technology that identifies key passages in
`cases, and judge, court, motion, and law firm analytics
`that shed light on how often judges and courts grant
`roughly one hundred different motions, as well as the
`cases, courts, and language that judges commonly cite
`and use in their opinions. Ravel previously described,
`in an amicus brief it joined in this case before the
`Eleventh Circuit, how it was “depend[ent] on having
`access to comprehensive, authoritative, and up-to-date
`primary legal information—especially statutes and
`case law.” Brief for Next-Generation Legal Research
`Platforms
`as
`Amici
`Curiae
`Supporting
`Defen

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket