3 ms·

I don't mind advocating against regulatory capture in general. If nothing else, improved access to this data will make the Westlas/LexisNexis industry more comp

I don't mind advocating against regulatory capture in general. If nothing else, improved access to this data will make the Westlas/LexisNexis industry more competitive. There are a lot of ways governments generate revenue even if we want to restrict it to the legal industry. Obfuscating public information to the point that there's an oligopoly controlling access is fucked up.

dd36 8y ago
Exactly. Sounds like maybe courts should have higher filing fees.
rayiner 8y ago
What exactly is the “regulatory capture” here?
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  The higher than needed fees locking out competitors. Even if they didn't actually 'capture' them it is still regulation supporting their business model without a justifying good. Seat belts being compulsory may make more money for seat belt manufacturers but it isn't regulatory capture because it serves an actual purpose. Requiring all seatbelts be sourced domestically to shut out competitors would be regulatory capture however.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    Are you seriously suggesting that PACER fees have any impact on competition? That’s like saying toll roads protect the business model of taxi companies. It’s completely nonsensical.
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      I am saying that taxi medallions have an impact on competition - that is a more appropriate analogy given the magnitude. It boosts the start up expense of competition considerably as opposed to just processing and serving the data at a discounted rate as a 'mirror'. Assuming about 30 KiB per page a mere Gigabyte comes out to about ~$3500. Which is vastly more than the about $0.08 of cost of 1 GB storage space. It is a well known phenomenon given things like how quixotic the article 13 upload filter is because the expense locks out new competitors.
rayiner 8y ago
You’re deeply confused about the situation if you think Westlaw and Lexis have anything to do with PACER. You use those services to access legal opinions. The underlying opinions are free on PACER and also usually posted on courts websites. Westlaw and LEXIS don’t index most of what’s in PACER. Conversely, PACER doesn’t contain most of what’s in Westlaw and LEXIS. PACER for the most part only has electronic files going back to the early 2000s. You can’t use it for serious legal research. Westlaw and Lexis have comprehensive data based of opinions going back to the 18th century because they went and scanned in all those paper records. (And West has been around since 1870 and has been building its collection ever since then.) The government (in fact, governments—there are hundreds of mostly autonomous court systems in the country) isn’t limiting access—it simply doesn’t have the data that makes West and Lexis so valuable.
- comex 8y ago
  Are you sure? I have not used Westlaw or Lexis, but from a quick search, both of them appear to offer services – albeit distinct from their 'main' services – that provide access to court dockets and corresponding documents [1] [2], which would account for the rest of what's in PACER. [1] https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/courtlink-for-corporate-or-professionals.page https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/courtlink-for-corp... [2] https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw/dockets https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw/dockets
  - rayiner 8y ago
    You’re right, I forgot West/Lexis have docket tracking. I assume that gets data from PACER, but it also gets data from court “runners” (people who go to courts to get filings). That being said, despite that the overlap between West/LEXIS is very small. The docket tracking is an adjunct service that you use in the unusual situation where you’re keeping tabs on a case you’re not participating in. Its not real time (day after) which is a big thing because the PACER/ECF notification is the official notice that triggers time periods and deadlines. It’s also vastly more expensive than PACER (like $50 per document). That doesn’t address OP’s point, which is West/Lexis’s market dominance. And that is based on those systems having 200+ years of human annotated and indexed case law. PACER doesn’t have that data.

dd36 8y ago

Exactly. Sounds like maybe courts should have higher filing fees.

rayiner 8y ago

What exactly is the “regulatory capture” here?

Nasrudith 8y ago
The higher than needed fees locking out competitors. Even if they didn't actually 'capture' them it is still regulation supporting their business model without a justifying good. Seat belts being compulsory may make more money for seat belt manufacturers but it isn't regulatory capture because it serves an actual purpose. Requiring all seatbelts be sourced domestically to shut out competitors would be regulatory capture however.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that PACER fees have any impact on competition? That’s like saying toll roads protect the business model of taxi companies. It’s completely nonsensical.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    I am saying that taxi medallions have an impact on competition - that is a more appropriate analogy given the magnitude. It boosts the start up expense of competition considerably as opposed to just processing and serving the data at a discounted rate as a 'mirror'. Assuming about 30 KiB per page a mere Gigabyte comes out to about ~$3500. Which is vastly more than the about $0.08 of cost of 1 GB storage space. It is a well known phenomenon given things like how quixotic the article 13 upload filter is because the expense locks out new competitors.

rayiner 8y ago

You’re deeply confused about the situation if you think Westlaw and Lexis have anything to do with PACER. You use those services to access legal opinions. The underlying opinions are free on PACER and also usually posted on courts websites. Westlaw and LEXIS don’t index most of what’s in PACER. Conversely, PACER doesn’t contain most of what’s in Westlaw and LEXIS. PACER for the most part only has electronic files going back to the early 2000s. You can’t use it for serious legal research. Westlaw and Lexis have comprehensive data based of opinions going back to the 18th century because they went and scanned in all those paper records. (And West has been around since 1870 and has been building its collection ever since then.) The government (in fact, governments—there are hundreds of mostly autonomous court systems in the country) isn’t limiting access—it simply doesn’t have the data that makes West and Lexis so valuable.

comex 8y ago
Are you sure? I have not used Westlaw or Lexis, but from a quick search, both of them appear to offer services – albeit distinct from their 'main' services – that provide access to court dockets and corresponding documents [1] [2], which would account for the rest of what's in PACER. [1] https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/courtlink-for-corporate-or-professionals.page https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/products/courtlink-for-corp... [2] https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw/dockets https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/products/westlaw/dockets
- rayiner 8y ago
  You’re right, I forgot West/Lexis have docket tracking. I assume that gets data from PACER, but it also gets data from court “runners” (people who go to courts to get filings). That being said, despite that the overlap between West/LEXIS is very small. The docket tracking is an adjunct service that you use in the unusual situation where you’re keeping tabs on a case you’re not participating in. Its not real time (day after) which is a big thing because the PACER/ECF notification is the official notice that triggers time periods and deadlines. It’s also vastly more expensive than PACER (like $50 per document). That doesn’t address OP’s point, which is West/Lexis’s market dominance. And that is based on those systems having 200+ years of human annotated and indexed case law. PACER doesn’t have that data.