Historical Documentation Of Key Section 230 Cases

from the nice-to-see dept

We've been talking a lot lately about the fact that people seem incredibly confused (i.e., mostly wrong) about the history, purpose, and even language of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. No matter how many times we try to correct the record, it seems that more people keep getting it wrong. We've talked a few times about Jeff Kosseff's excellent new book called The Twenty-Six Words That Created the Internet, and, as Kosseff explains, part of his reason for putting together that book is that some of the early history around CDA 230 was at risk of disappearing.

And now Kosseff has teamed up with professor Eric Goldman to create an archive of documents related to key Section 230 cases.

As Kosseff notes:

As I noted in the book, many of the filings in the early Section 230 cases (particularly from the pre-PACER days), were particularly hard to track down. In an effort to ensure that these documents are not forever lost, I worked with Professor Eric Goldman of Santa Clara University to create an online archive of many of the filings. Below are some of the key court opinions mentioned in the book, along with some of the important court filings, if available. The files from the earliest cases are largely in paper format. We plan to add these filings once they are scanned; for now, we link to the court opinions.

This is great to see and should prove to be a useful resource, especially about some of the older cases.

Of course, it still won't stop some from misrepresenting the law, but at least having this information available will hopefully lead at least a few more people to understand the actual origins and purpose of the law.

Filed Under: cases, cda 230, eric goldman, history, jeff kosseff, section 230

PACER Deleting Old Cases; Time To Fix PACER

from the down-the-memory-hole dept

For years, we've talked about the many problems with PACER, the horribly designed and managed electronic court records system that the federal court system uses here in the US. Beyond being clunky, buggy, horribly designed and slow -- it's also expensive. With some exceptions, it's 10 cents per page you download, and also 10 cents per search. As many have noted, this almost certainly violates the law concerning PACER, which says that the Judicial Conference can only "prescribe reasonable fees… to reimburse expenses incurred in providing these services." And yet the fees go way, way beyond what's needed to maintain the (again, horrible) system which they refuse to update. Instead, it's used for lots of other things. And, as many people note, it's something of a travesty that all of these public records are locked up, rather than being made available. Even more ridiculous is that when people hack around this system, such as with the open RECAP project to free up PACER documents, courts freak out. Or, when people like Aaron Swartz try to use free access to PACER to free up its documents, they end up being the subject of an FBI investigation for computer hacking.

Aaron Greenspan, who runs an open court records site called Plainsite (and who is currently engaged in an unlikely-to-succeed lawsuit arguing that PACER should be free), has noticed that PACER is also shoving old cases down the memory hole so they will no longer be available. In a brief announcement on August 10th, PACER's website announced that a bunch of cases would "no longer be available." Now, there have always been some cases not on PACER, but to actively start removing a bunch of cases, including many that are fairly recent (CAFC cases from just two years ago?!?) seems ridiculous and excessive. Yes, PACER is horribly designed and managed, but it's not like the storage costs for some old PDFs is that high. Especially as storage keeps getting cheaper and cheaper. Does someone down at the Administrative Office of the US Courts want me to send them an external 2 TB hard drive? They run about $100 these days...

Filed Under: aaron greenspan, cases, pacer, public records, records
Companies: plainsite

How Petty Patent Fights Can Get: Samsung Upset That Apple Gets Top Billing In Patent Suit

from the oh-come-on dept

It's pretty clear that when two big tech companies go into patent nuclear war, it's often just as much about egos as it is about anything legal. We've been covering the worldwide patent fight between Apple and Samsung for a while now, mostly siding with Samsung over Apple's silly claims which seem to demonstrate an unwillingness to actually compete against other viable products in the marketplace. But, Samsung is no stranger to petty actions either. According to reporter Ina Fried, from AllthingsD (who is apparently covering the latest round of the trial in San Francisco), on the first day, the sign outside the court just showed "Apple vs. Samsung", but Samsung objected, and so the sign has now been updated: Yes, this is the kind of petty squabbling that comes out during patent fights.

Filed Under: cases, patents
Companies: apple, samsung