4 ms·
Side note: this looks like a very well typeset document. Also, seems like the first use of Butterick's fonts [1] by the courts? [1]: https://practicaltypograph
by smarx007 5y ago
Side note: this looks like a very well typeset document. Also, seems like the first use of Butterick's fonts [1] by the courts?
[1]: https://practicaltypography.com/mb-fonts.html https://practicaltypography.com/mb-fonts.html
- maxerickson 5y agoI'm not sure if it was 2013 or 2016, but the type engine in Word got a big update. (It may also be that it works better with PDFMaker, doing paragraphs instead of individual words, I've only noticed the difference, not figured out the specifics)
- jcrawfordor 5y agoA lot of larger courts have a proprietary document management system that typesets the final documents. And a lot of smaller courts use the modern-day WordPerfect suite (with Paradox and Perfect Authority) as a sort of home-grown one. It depends a lot on the individual court and government. In this case the metadata just tells us the PDF was generated by iText, so it's probably from a Java or .NET DMS the court uses. The use of Butterick's Equity suggests it's pretty new but I wasn't able to figure out what product they're using.
- maxerickson 5y agoI used the HN site link ( https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=uscourts.gov https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=uscourts.gov ) to quickly grab an older filing from the 5th circuit, which shows a similar Adobe PDF Library; modified by iText as the Producer, and PDFMaker for Word as the Creator. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41251-CR0.pdf https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41251-CR0.pd... Of course they may have upgraded to something else that shows the same producers, but the pattern is still there.