This is a positive development overall--likely in response to pressure from Senator Leahy, who chairs (or is about to have chaired?) the Senate Judiciary Commit

This is a positive development overall--likely in response to pressure from Senator Leahy, who chairs (or is about to have chaired?) the Senate Judiciary Committee--but a lot of things make no sense. - Supreme Court documents will be free. That's great. But district and appellate documents will still be $0.10 per page? Why? Both are public information. Arguably if Supreme Court documents are more important, then they should be more valuable, and therefore more expensive. This is totally inconsistent and no explanation is given. - Taxpayers now have to foot the bill (many tens of millions and counting) for "NextGen" CM/ECF and this supposed separate system for the Supreme Court that will not be available until 2016. So far the only next-generation feature released as part of NextGen CM/ECF is the ability to have one username and a password you set yourself. For this we have paid many, many millions of dollars over about five years. - Roberts cites procurement considerations to justify the totally unacceptable delay in adopting technology. Yet where are the RFPs for NextGen CM/ECF and the Supreme Court's docketing system? Why, they're nowhere to be found, either because they don't exist or they're not publicly available. - Roberts argues that the courts have an obligation to avoid jumping on technological bandwagons too quickly. Perhaps that's prudent. He fails, however, to address courts using technology as a weapon against the poor. See http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20130217/petitioning-rube-goldbergs-supreme-court/ http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20130217/petitioning-r.... - Paper filing will still be required. Why? Fundamentally Roberts' views on technology are a reflection of the views of the profession that created him. Lawyers generally do not believe that they are subject to the same forces as the rest of the world, technological forces included. Roberts posits in his report that technologies "come and go." Well, so do useless (and often harmful), self-important overpriced middlemen who complicate processes that would frequently otherwise be just fine without them. Meanwhile, my lawsuit against the Administrative Office of the United States Courts over these issues continues. See http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northern-district-court/think-computer-foundation-et-al-v-administrative-office-of-the-united-states-courts-et-al/ http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/29himg3wm/california-northe....