Aardvark’s Answer Machine

Typing a question  into a search engine and getting a specific, relevant answer hasn’t improved much since the 1957 librarian-favorite film Desk Set when EMMARAC (the Electromagnetic Memory and Research Arithmetical Calculator) answered a question about Watusis and the island of Corfu with Rose Hartwick Thorpe’s poem Curfew Must Not Ring Tonight.  Make it a subjective question, e.g., “What  is the best Chinese restaurant in Palo Alto?,” and the results are even less helpful, as noted in a “Digital Domain” article by Randall Stross in today’s New York Times.  The article, “Now All Your Friends Are in the Answer Business,” discusses “Aardvark . . . a Web service that answers users’  questions through their friends and friends-of-friends.”

Often at the reference desk I don’t answer a patron’s question but, instead, seek to find someone who can provide a good answer — I’m more a  switchboard operator than fountain of knowledge.  So Aardvark’s approach of using networks to make the connection between question and human-supplied answer is intriguing.  As the article explains,

A new service offered by Aardvark (vark.com), however, provides specific recommendations. Its advice is always current, too, obtained on the fly from those we trust, like friends, but whose collective expertise far exceeds that of the relatively few people we happen to know personally.

Founded in 2007 and based in San Francisco, the company has just completed beta testing of its answer service and opened it to the public last week. It begins with the social network that you’ve established elsewhere. Presently, it requires Facebook; other networks will be added, it says.

. . .

Aardvark may come to be preferred over answer databases and “decision engines” if many people want a speedy answer from a fellow human being.

Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) Reporting Framework

Climate Disclosure Standards Board is a NGO of major accounting firms, business groups and environmental organizations that studies how to account for carbon usage and climate change initiatives on financial reports and statements.

Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) website                       http://www.cdsb-global.org/

CDSB Reporting Framework                                                                     http://www.cdsb-global.org/uploads/pdf/CDSB_Reporting_Framework.pdf

From the report’s introduction:

CSDB is a consortium of business and environmental organizations formed for the purpose of jointly advocating a generally-accepted international framework for companies to disclose information about climate change-related risks and opportunities, carbon footprints, carbon reduction strategies, and their implications for shareholder value.

This Exposure Draft offers CDSB’s proposed Reporting Framework for public consultation. The Framework is designed on a principles-based model which aims to find the right balance between rules and principles, thus allowing flexibility for judgment to be exercised by management on those aspects of climate change they consider most likely to affect the economic performance and prospects of their company. The principles-based model also allows for management’s view to be balanced against the demand by users of information for greater consistency of disclosure. Whereas many initiatives that collect information about climate change focus on the essential matter of what should be reported, CDSB also focuses on how reporting can provide investors with information that is more useful to their decision making, (“decision-useful” information), by aligning its proposed Reporting Framework to existing relevant principles and objectives of financial reporting. In the process of continuous improvement that characterizes principles-based frameworks, CDSB aims to work toward the position reflected in its proposed Reporting Framework where decision-useful climate change-related disclosure is made in mainstream financial reports.

CDSB’s objectives are to:

• Respond to the demand for information about how climate change affects or is likely to affect the economic performance and prospects of companies;

• Elicit disclosures in mainstream financial reports that can be integrated into investor analyses for the enhanced efficiency of capital allocation;

• Provide business with greater certainty on how to respond to demands for information about climate change;

• Align the needs of information preparers and investors by connecting financial and non-financial business reporting through a focus on how climate change affects value creation;

• Harmonize corporate climate change-related disclosure to form the common approach that is necessary for comparability and for the implementation of policies under discussion through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations; and

• Provide conceptual and practical input into deliberations by regulatory agencies contemplating the introduction or development of requirements on corporate climate change-related disclosure.

WTO-UNEP report on Trade and Climate Change

The World Trade Organization and the UN Environment Programme released their 194 page report on international trade and climate change.

WTO-UNEP Report: Trade and Climate Change

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/trade_climate_change_e.pdf

Additional information at: http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres09_e/pr559_e.htm

From the report’s’ executive summary:

This Report provides an overview of the key linkages

between trade and climate change based on a review

of available literature and a survey of relevant national

policies. It begins with a summary of the current state

of scientific knowledge on existing and projected

climate change; on the impacts associated with climate

change; and on the available options for responding,

through mitigation and adaptation, to the challenges

posed by climate change (Part I).

 

The scientific review is followed by an analysis on the

economic aspects of the link between trade and climate

change (Part II), and these two parts set the context for

the subsequent discussion in the Report, which reviews

in greater detail trade and climate change policies at

both the international and national level.

 

Part III on international policy responses to climate

change describes multilateral efforts at reducing

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapting to the

risks posed by climate change, and also discusses the

role of the current trade and environment negotiations

in promoting trade in climate mitigation technologies.

 

The final part of the Report gives an overview of a

range of national policies and measures that have been

used in a number of countries to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and to increase energy efficiency (Part IV). It

presents key features in the design and implementation

of these policies, in order to draw a clearer picture of their

overall effect and potential impact on environmental

protection, sustainable development and trade. It also

gives, where appropriate, an overview of the WTO

rules that may be relevant to such measures.

On Not Joining the West 600 Club

Today’s mail brought four new West supplements, each costing more than $ 600.00.

The first, just 3/4 of an inch thick, is Biotechnology and the Law, Update 7.  Its cost is $ 601.43.  Before I pay this invoice, I want to know:  Who wrote this supplement?  Was it the same team of people who wrote the supplement to Pennsylvania Criminal Procedure?  No, check that:  There’s no way I’m paying for this supplement.  No way; no how.

The next item is a 2 1/2 inch supplement to McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, 4th.  Its price is $ 608.52.  Talk about “unfair.”

Next up is a 4 1/2 inch supplement to West Federal Forms, priced at $ 605.27.

Last, but hardly least at $ 967.42, is 8 inches of material — pocket parts and supplements to West’s Uniformed Laws Annotated.

The timing of the arrival of this material — with its grand total of $ 2,782.64 — really couldn’t be worse.   In times like these, how can publishers do this to us?

Striking a Devil’s Bargain: The Federal Courts and Expanding Caseloads in the Twenty-First Century

Striking a Devil’s Bargain: The Federal Courts and Expanding Caseloads in the Twenty-First Century, by Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, 13 Lewis & Clark Law Review 473 (2009).

“Over the past four decades, caseloads in the federal courts have grown by leaps and bounds.  During the twelve months ending in September 2008, more than sixty-one thousand cases reached the twelve regional United States courts of appeals, which have only 167 active judgeships.  Such impossibly inflated dockets have forced the federal appellate courts to create an administrative system that sacrifices justice for efficiency.  Today, motions and staff attorneys play a critical role in sifting through thousands of appeals.”

As Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain notes, this backlog leads to litigants waiting a very long time for a decision.  It takes, “on average,  nineteen months” from the time the notice of appeal is filed until the opinion is delivered in the Ninth Circuit.  Further, “a party who files suit in a district court within the Ninth Circuit can expect to wait nearly forty months before his case is finally resolved on appeal.”

The article has very useful charts, including the number of filings by Court of Appeal; median time interval in cases terminated after hearing/submission of notice of appeal until disposition; and number of appeals terminated after oral hearing.

Study on Gender Discrimination in China’s Workplace

China Woman Newspaper published details and the recommendations of a study on gender employment discrimination in China.  The Study was produced by Peking University’s Center for Women’s Law and Legal Services. Hat tip to Patti Waldmeir for mentioning the study in her article in today’s Financial Times http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5d08330a-5f8c-11de-93d1-00144feabdc0.html

Title of the study in Chinese: 中国职场性别歧视状况研究报告

Peking University Center for Women’s Law and Legal Services http://www.woman-legalaid.org.cn/index.php

China Woman Newspaper Story on the study (Chinese only)

http://www.china-woman.com/rp/rp/snews/main?fid=open&fun=show_news&from=view&nid=45932

Digital Statutory Supplements for Legal Education

 

“Digital Statutory Supplements for Legal Education” 

 

C. STEVEN BRADFORD, University of Nebraska College of Law

MARK HAUTZINGER, affiliation not provided to SSRN

Law students spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each year on statute books or statutory supplements for their courses. These statutory supplements, notorious for their weight and bulkiness, are compilations of subject-specific statutes and regulations, most of which are publicly available at no charge. This article discusses the advantages of digital statute books, details how the authors created a digital statute book that was used in two securities regulation courses, and evaluates the result of that experiment.

 

Source:  LSN Law Educator: Courses, Materials & Teaching Vol. 5 No. 12, 06/19/2009

Bloomberg Law on the Web, an early review

Yesterday I got a sneak peek at Bloomberg Law on the web.  There were some features I really liked, such as the “Workspace,” but overall I was not impressed by the new interface.  The overall style is drab, and I just didn’t see many bells and whistles to compete with LexisNexis and Westlaw.  I was really hoping for more.  And I so, so, so want to see Bloomberg Law succeed and soar, so that we can have a good alternative to the CALR duopoly (alleviating dependency and enabling cancellations as needed).  Competition can be a wonderful thing.

But it was nice to hear the Bloomberg representative tell us that hundreds of lawyers are hard at work at Bloomberg law right now – indexing all federal and New York State case law.  It’s affirming to know that there’s work for some lawyers somewhere!

Unique citation analysis is being done by these lawyers.  The Bloomberg Law citator feature is completely human created, not machine generated.   In addition to citation analysis, these lawyers are writing “points of law” case summaries.

The case summaries are then being fed into the Bloomberg Law digest, which is becoming more than a digest in the traditional sense.  Commentary from other sources — including articles written by judges for the truly excellent Bloomberg Law Reports, for example – is also being folded in to the digests, along with the points of law.  The digest is evolving into a major treatise of American law.

The Workspace, mentioned above, is an online space where users can store, create, annotate, upload and share documents — a collaborative workspace.  This makes amazing sense to me.

Students will like the instant online help feature; and they will actually use the service in its web-based form as it is intuitive enough, and light years better than the existing interface.  The dockets remain the strongest feature for us and will get lots of use.  I would love to see Bloomberg link its docket content to its citator, and the representative indicated that that is a possibility.

But I didn’t see other features, such as “most cited,” or even indexes to statutes and regulations — in fact, the database seems all about the cases. 

Search results are displayed by case lists.  The orange and black screen display is not pleasing to the eye, not to my eye anyway. 

My review is an early one, and based only upon a brief presentation.   The planned launch date is August 3rd, and I plan to study it  in great detail then, and will share my impressions.  So please stay tuned.

Open Letter to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, part 1

Dear Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts,

Recently, a few of my librarian colleagues and I deployed a brief petition aimed at improving PACER.

Instead, I’d like to share with you some of the amazing comments that we have already gotten in our petition’s first week.  We have heard from librarians and lawyers and legal academics, and here is a sampling of the feedback:

Professor Howard Friedman (from University of Toledo College of Law) comments:
I would like to suggest that PACER also make it possible to create hyperlinks to opinions and major pleadings so blogs and websites can link to them.

[ME TOO!]

Carl Malamud (of Public.resource.org) writes:
Access to primary legal materials is a foundational issue for the judiciary. We cannot be a nation of laws if the proceedings of our courts are distributed at high cost and with no certificate of authenticity.

Dawn Urquhart (of Canada) shares:
I value the content and only wish we had a similar resource in Canada. However, it is a very confusing database to use. I often have difficulty trying to identify the documents I need. The interface needs to be more user-friendly.

Ed Walters (of FASTCASE) suggests:
A few things would be really helpful: 1) Offer a bulk access, flat-rate license fee. Many would pay for bulk access and update. 2) Please do a better job identifying judicial opinions. Often not tagged or mis-tagged. 3) It would be great to unify PACER in a single web application instead of different apps for each court. Justia has a nice UI for this. 4) I would also support a re-rationalization of access fees so that they are proportionate to costs. I have no problem with fees to cover the costs of maintenance, or even fees to cover costs of modernization. . . .

Ellen Simmons (of Texas) writes:
As a Depository librarian, I strongly believe in free public access. Allowing Depository libraries to have free access to PACER would be another step to shore up our democracy. To echo Carl Malamud, in a nation of laws, the people should have access to the proceedings of our courts. That access should be authenticated, straightforward,and preferably free so as to be accessible to all.

Ryan Calo (of Stanford Law School, Center for Internet & Society) states:
Usability and transparency go hand in hand.

Margaret Leary (Director of the Law Library, University of  Michigan) comments:
The information in PACER was accumulated through the use of taxpayer dollars and should be freely available to the public, perhaps via the Federal Depository Library program. . . .

More comments to follow as we continue to add signatories to the petition.

Digital Britain — UK Government’s Strategic Vision

The government of the United Kingdom has released an interesting report titled Digital Britain.

The Digital Britain Report is the British government’s “strategic vision for ensuring that the UK is at the leading edge of the global digital economy. It is an example of industrial activism in a crucial growth sector.”

Further:

The report contains actions and recommendations to ensure first rate digital and communications infrastructure to promote and protect talent and innovation in our creative industries, to modernize TV and radio frameworks, and support local news, and it introduces policies to maximize the social and economic benefits from digital technologies.

Hat tip to ResourceShelf.