Lynn Cheney and William Kristol are anti-American.

Walter Dellinger, a partner with O’Melveney & Myers, and former head of the Office of Legal Counsel, writes today (in relation to my passionate rejection of Lynn Cheney’s attack on lawyers who represented Guantanamo Detainees):

It never occurred to me on the day that Defense Department lawyer Rebecca Snyder and Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler of the Navy appeared in my law firm’s offices to ask for our assistance in carrying out their duties as military defense lawyers that the young lawyer who worked with me on that matter would be publicly attacked for having done so. And yet this week that lawyer and eight other Justice Department attorneys have been attacked in a video released by a group called Keep America Safe (whose board members include William Kristol and Elizabeth Cheney) for having provided legal assistance to detainees before joining the department. The video questions their loyalty to the United States, asking: “DOJ: Department of Jihad?” and “Who are these government officials? . . . Whose values do they share?”

. . .

That [the lawyers] in question would have their patriotism, loyalty and values attacked by reputable public figures such as Elizabeth Cheney and journalists such as Kristol is as depressing a public episode as I have witnessed in many years. What has become of our civic life in America? The only word that can do justice to the personal attacks on these fine lawyers — and on the integrity of our legal system — is shameful. Shameful.

Thank god for our founding fathers — John Adams, honorable lawyer.

Whose values do the lawyers for Guantanamo detainees share? John Adams’, for one:

John Adams, in his old age, called his defense of British soldiers in 1770 “one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.” That’s quite a statement, coming as it does from perhaps the most underappreciated great man in American history.

The day after British soldiers mortally wounded five Americans on a cobbled square in Boston, thirty-four-year-old Adams was visted in his office near the stairs of the Town Office by a Boston merchant , James Forest. “With tears streaming from his eyes” (according to the recollection of Adams), Forest asked Adams to defend the soldiers and their captain, Thomas Preston. Adams understood that taking the case would not only subject him to criticism, but might jeopardize his legal practice or even risk the safety of himself and his family. But Adams believed deeply that every person deserved a defense, and he took on the case without hesitation. For his efforts, he would receive the modest sum of eighteen guineas.

So when Lynn Cheney’s group, keepamericasafe.com, suggests that there’s something un-American about the fact that lawyers in the Justice Department have defended Guantanamo detainees, the real question is this: why is keepamericasafe.com spouting the un-American propaganda that those accused of wrongdoing are not entitled to a defense and to requiring proof of their wrongdoing? In fact, as Adam Serwer reports,

Lt. Col. David Frakt, who has represented detainees both in military and civilian courts, said that the lawyers who secured due process rights for detainees were ultimately vindicated. “There is an assumption there that has proven to be a fallacy, which is that everyone at Guantanamo was a terrorist,” Frakt says, pointing to the fact that the government has lost three-quarters of the habeas petitions filed by detainees at Guantanamo. “What we have seen over and over and over is that the vast majority of detainees at Guantanamo are innocent.”

This is, in short, ugly, anti-American propaganda:

Our capacity to be just is measured by our capacity to do justice to those most in need of it.

The only way to do justice is to provide opportunities for justice. 50 years ago, in Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to representation by a lawyer and that, if he cannot afford one, the state must provide him with one. Now, with our states and local governments starving for money, this foundation of our justice system is sorely threatened. Two lawyers whose careers have been devoted to these issues, Virginia Sloan and (my good friend) Cait Clarke, write:

The report of the Constitution Project’s National Right to Counsel Committee, Justice Denied: America’s Continuing Neglect of Our Constitutional Right to Counsel, is the most comprehensive examination of the indigent defense crisis in over 30 years. The Committee, whose members represent every relevant part of the criminal justice system, including prosecutors, judges, victim advocates, defenders, bar leaders, and scholars, unanimously concluded that this country’s indigent defense system is in crisis, that the government has for too long ignored its obligation to provide lawyers in these cases, and that it cannot be ignored anymore. The report outlines 22 urgently-needed recommendations for reform.

One of the most important recommendations is that indigent defense should be provided through an independent, non-partisan authority that appoints qualified, experienced lawyers who have adequate resources. Of equal significance is the recommendation that the federal government assist the states in ensuring that the Sixth Amendment is protected and that poor people have the kind of lawyers to which they are constitutionally entitled. The federal government provides badly-needed funding for law enforcement and prosecutors, but to continue doing so without also providing funding for public defense services simply exacerbates the already untenable situation.

Another recommendation is that the federal government should create a federal office of public defense services to distribute funds, collect data, promulgate standards, and develop and deliver training similar to the federally-supported training for state and local prosecutors. Additionally, the federal government should require all states to abide by national standards for public defense. Adoption of the American Bar Association’s Ten Principles would provide constitutionally adequate legal representation for criminal defendants unable to afford an attorney.

One innovative idea that will improve the quality of representation for indigent defendants is to create a national fellowship program to cultivate and train the next generation of indigent defense lawyers. This would dramatically increase the number and caliber of lawyers working to secure justice for clients and communities. Equal Justice Works, working in partnership with the Southern Public Defender Training Center (SPDTC), is proposing to do just that.

Chief Justice Roberts has no respect for precedent that doesn’t suit his purposes.

One of the less noticed parts of last week’s Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court overturning precedent that had supported over 100 years of congressional restrictions on corporate campaign contributions was precisely the question of the strength of precedent. During his confirmation hearings, prospective Chief Justice Roberts was questioned intensely on the question of his respect for precedent, particularly with respect to Roe v. Wade. In keeping with the image he plainly intended to project of a true conservative, a non-activist who respects existing institutions, Roberts emphasized his respect for precedent.

Thus, it should not be particularly surprising that Roberts wrote a separate concurring opinion in Citizen’s United to supplement his support of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion. Roberts’ concurrence focused on the need to follow Court precedent — or, rather, the need to depart from precedent in this particular case.

Roberts’ concurrence should leave people convinced he would overturn Roe v. Wade and that his persona as a non-activist “umpire” who merely calls balls and strikes is a fraud. First, Roberts wrote, upholding precedent “is not an end in itself. It is instead ‘the means by which we ensure that the law will not merelychange erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.’”

So why would Roberts depart from precedent? First, if he thinks it’s wrong: “[I]f the precedent under consideration itself departed from the Court’s jurisprudence, returning to the ‘ “intrinsically sounder” doctrine established in priorcases’ may ‘better serv[e] the values of stare decisis than would following [the] more recently decided case inconsistent with the decisions that came before it.’”

Merely overturning precedent because a judge thinks it’s wrong, of course, does away entirely with what court’s call “stare decisis,” the rule that compels them to follow precedent (except when they don’t). If all that mattered was a judge’s determination of what is right, then there would be no need for stare decisis — a judge will always uphold precedent he or she believes is right.

So Roberts has to come up with something better. What does he come up with? To me it’s plain: precedent ought to be overturned if its justification is difficult, if using it to decide future cases is difficult, and if its original justification is open to question:

[I]f adherence to a precedent actually impedes the stable and orderly adjudication of future cases, its stare decisis effect is also diminished. This can happen in a number of circumstances, such as when the precedent’s validity is so hotly contested that it cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases, when its rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence inrelated areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new anddifferent justifications to shore up the original mistake.

Justice Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade has been under attack by both supporters of the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term and those who oppose the right to choose since the day it was issued in 1973. And in fact, our courts should and do uphold precedent if there is any legitimate justification to uphold — that’s a central truth about legal interpretation (and one law students have a very difficult time gaining an understanding of). But Justice Roberts and his allies on the Court now have authority to cite as support for overturning Roe v. Wade because its original justification may not gain widespread support — this opinion of in Citizen’s United.

Finally, Roe v. Wade fits that other justification Roberts advances for overturning precedent —  it is “hotly contested,” and no doubt he and his allies would argue it therefore “cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases.”

One thing I do know — Roberts has no respect for precedent that doesn’t suit his purposes.

Corporations = individuals? Confusions in economic theory and First Amendment jurisprudence

Metaphors are tricky things. Corporations are “persons” under the law in many respects, just as you and I are. And we treat corporations as rational individuals in the market. These figurative equations of legal fictions with human beings certainly have their utility, but they easily can be pushed too far. Individuals at AIG were making individual fortunes based on the income they were bringing into AIG for selling credit default swaps. Those individuals were making and would retain those fortunes even if, as turned out to be the case, AIG might not have sufficient funds to pay off the obligations those credit default swaps imposed on AIG. In other words, if one treated AIG as a rational person, one would suppose AIG would never expose itself to a real risk of obligating itself to pay more than it had in reserve. But AIG is merely a corporation, and the individuals actually making the decisions on behalf of AIG had every incentive to get what they could, subject AIG to irrational risk, and be able to walk away with their tens of millions of dollars.

And now the Supreme Court has overturned over 100 years of precedent permitting limits on corporate contributions to political campaigns because such limits constrained free speech and, according to the truism announced by Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, ”Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people.” But corporations don’t make decisions about how to spend money on campaign contributions — the individuals who control the corporations do. So what the Supreme Court has done is to remove any limits we might put on corporate CEOs to spend corporate money to advance the interests that indubitably are intended to redound to the benefit of those individual CEOs. I wouldn’t limit the ability of CEOs and shareholders to make individual contributions to political campaigns, but why are we treating purely legal entities like they are made of flesh and blood?

As Buzzflash pointed out recently, Thom Hartmann in his book Unequal Protection explains:

Prior to 1886, corporations were referred to in U.S. law as “artificial persons.” but in 1886, after a series of cases brought by lawyers representing the expanding railroad interests, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were “persons” and entitled to the same rights granted to people under the Bill of Rights. Since this ruling, America has lost the legal structures that allowed for people to control corporate behavior.

Here’s legal innovation: YouTube Broadcast of the Proposition 8 Trial. But will it happen? Stay tuned.

There are few more important and timely issues concerning innovation and law than the impact of the internet on courts. Courts have always been considered public institutions anyone could walk into to see court proceedings or to look themselves at court files. But now making something “public” means making it available to anyone at his or her own computer, and the inherent resistance to change that resides in any well-established institution makes courts and those who don’t want their legal stands exposed to the brightest possible public lights reluctant to embrace this new notion of public access.

So, as CNN reports, controversy and legal wrangling has erupted over the decision by “the federal judge who is hearing appeals of California’s Proposition 8 this week ruled that the proceedings could be shown — albeit in delayed fashion — on YouTube.”  But opponents of same-sex marriage, outlawed by Proposition 8, appealed the judge’s order and yesterday the Supreme Court postponed the online broadcasts at least until tomorrow (when, it is hoped, the Supreme Court will rule on the issue).

Jon Davidson, legal director of the pro-gay rights Lambda Legal, argued that opponents of same-sex marriage want to keep the trial as much out of the public eye as they can because public debate on same-sex marriage actually increases support for it. In addition, he argued that the risks of true public access to the proceedings is way overblown:

“One of the things we find on the marriage issue, but really on all issues in response to gay rights, is that the more discussion there is — the more conversation, the more people learn — the more likely it is that gay people are going to do well,” Davidson said.

Davidson said posting the trial on YouTube wouldn’t increase the potential for witnesses to be harassed, saying that anyone can read news reports after the fact to find out who spoke and what they said.

Besides, any effort to block new-media coverage of the hearings is already too late, Davidson said. He said people in the courtroom for opening arguments Monday were posting live updates to Twitter throughout.

The inexorable trend toward free access to court documents

I mentioned last week that Google Scholar can now be used to find case law. It’s real progress.Court documents, after all, are public documents, so it sometimes seems a bit frustrating that the only reliable way to do legal research is through private systems. As Wired’s Threat Level explains, “West [Publishing], and its competitor, Lexis Nexis, buy court data in bulk, reformat it and add proprietary citation codes. They then license the database of public documents at high rates to libraries, law firms and government agencies. Even the U.S. Court system pays West’s high license fees to access public court documents that West purchased from it.”

To make matters worse, the court system’s database, PACER, doesn’t work well: “the search function is intricate and inflexible, and lacks a way for users to be notified when a case is updated. And in the age of Google, it is absurd to charge citizens to search for the name of a person in a lawsuit. Even looking at the docket sheet — a short form list of all actions in a given case — costs $.08 a page.”

The ability to copy and disseminate documents instantaneously, of course, is breaking this system down.  In addition to Google Scholar, a “Firefox plug-in called RECAP, created by Princeton students, uploads court documents to a public archive any time a user goes into th e system, while programmer Aaron Swartz took advantage of a pilot program offering free access to download 18 million court documents (that earned him an FBI investigation).”

I’ve got mixed feelings about court dockets in their entirety being freely available via the internet (as opposed to, say, the documents courts themselves produce). Dissemination of documents produced without thought to a worldwide audience can cause serious misunderstandings. But technology and economics seem to be inexorable forces — just ask the music industry: try as it might, it isn’t going to recreate a world in which it held a monopoly on the ability to produce and distribute recorded music. And it’s probably better after all that the public gets for free the court documents it produces.

Cleveland Museum of Art allowed to use 50% of income from trusts for expansion; 1st time in Ohio since 1955.

A follow up to my posts (here and here) regarding the power of museums to deviate from the terms of a donor’s limitations on the use of money donated:

Last week, the Cleveland Museum of Art won permission from a Cuyahoga County Probate Court judge to use 49.99% of the income (not the principal) from 4 trusts over a period of 10 years (up to an amount not to exceed $75 million) to finance the museum’s ongoing renovation and expansion. The 4 trusts were established in 1920, 1935, 1938, and 1952. It is the first time since 1955 that the museum has sought such relief from the terms of a donor’s trust, which is also the last time such relief has been sought by any museum in Ohio.

These facts plainly do not justify the fears the museum’s critics hold up as the consequence of such rulings.

ADDENDUM: The Art Law Blog was right on top of this, and also has written, commented upon, and linked to articles about the background.

How do we decide how a long buried corpse would want his art treated? And is the corpse’s former intent all we care about?

My post last week about art museums and the doctrine of deviation provoked in the comments precisely the kind of discussion/argument that I tried to point out is the whole point: how do we decide how to apply rules or other written expressions when they are applied in contexts that have radically changed. To literally apply the words written by a donor that restrict the use of a gift by an art museum when doing so would threaten the entire point of the gift (a thriving art museum) seems pretty absurd to me. If what we’re trying to do is discern a donor’s intent, shouldn’t we be a little more flexible?

Thus, I am particularly pleased to note Donn Zaretsky’s reference to the Philadelphia Inquirer’s conclusion that the new Barnes Foundation building (the subject of a couple of those comments to my original post) shows “obvious respect for Barnes’ legacy – for his idiosyncratic view of how art should be displayed and appreciated – should reassure supporters of the move.” That’s precisely the point: Barnes’ original bequest might have forbidden the move, but the result of his restriction, 60 years after his death, was the closing off of a multi-billion dollar collection of art to the wider public, strife between the Foundation and its neighbors, and a threat to the very existence of the Foundation itself. Isn’t it at least arguable that satisfying much of Barnes’ obvious intent — precisely how the art is housed and shown — while making it accessible to the world in a location where it is welcome is a reasonable effort to accommodate what he would have wanted? And isn’t it appropriate that we have institutions like courts to decide whether that reasonable argument or the opposing one (Barnes stated in his bequest the collection should never be moved, so it should never be moved, even if there are circumstances now that he did not anticipate and we could not predict his reaction to)?

And that’s not even to mention that there is a public interest involved. Are we to so honor “property” rights that we would sacrifice billions of dollars of the world’s culture to the whim of the owner? As Zaretsky asks in another post:

What if Barnes’s Will had provided that the works were to be exhibited in Merion for exactly 50 years — and then were to be burned in a big bonfire?

Should we honor donor intent in that case?

Or can we agree that sometimes the public interest trumps the donor’s intent?

Let’s get straight the historically profound benefits of making information available online — Scribd this time.

Two days ago I wrote about the court decision holding that the video hosting service Veoh is protected by the ”safe harbor provisions” of the Digital Protection Millennium Act from liability if any of the service’s users upload videos that infringe existing copyrights. One of the reasons Veoh is entitled to those protections is that it uses adequate technological safeguards to police the content its users upload.

So I don’t expect there is much of a chance that a new lawsuit against Scribd, a web site that hosts documents uploaded by its users, will will succeed or even survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a procedural device that ends the lawsuit at its very beginning by means of a court determination that even if everything the plaintiff alleges is true she is not entitled to legal relief. As Geek.com reports, the lawsuit alleges copyright infringement by Scribd not because it hosts copyrighted materials but because the software it uses to detect copyrighted materials before they are published on the site allegedly uses copyrighted materials:

A children’s author in Texas has leveled a strange lawsuit against the company, claiming that the company infringes copyright, but not by hosting infringing works on its service.

No, her claim is even weirder: she maintains that Scribd prevents copyrighted material from being placed on the site by copying the text of copyrighted books and other publications into its copyright infringement detection software, which therefore infringes copyright itself!

The claim may not be as weird as Geek.com believes, though it is likely not to survive long. The original legal challenge to the Google Books Project by the Authors Guild and individual authors holding who were identified was premised largely on the contention not that Google was going to make those authors’ copyrighted works available. It wasn’t. It was only going to make those works searchable so that snippets could be brought up by researchers who could thereby identify and by library loan or purchase obtain relevant works they never otherwise would have found without traveling from Palo Alto, California to Ann Arbor, Michigan to Oxford, England. So what was the problem? The authors alleged that the fact Google was copying their works in their entirety to create the database that would yield the snippets constituted copyright infringement.

And in A.V. v. iParadigms, LLC, 544 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2008), aff’d in part and remanded, F.3d 630(4th Cir. 2009), plaintiffs were students who alleged that iParadigm’s Turnitin plagiarism detection system — used by schools throughout the country to detect plagiarism committed by students — constituted copyright infringement. Schools that use Turnitin require each student turning in a paper to submit it through Turnitin. Turnitin then compares the paper to its database and prepares a report that rates the similarities of the paper to papers in its database. In addition, Turnitin adds the paper it is rating to the database, thereby constantly growing and increasing the effectiveness of that database.

The students alleged that they owned the copyright in their papers and that IParadigms was infringing those copyrights by copying those papers and using them as part of the Turnitin database. But last March the federal court hearing the lawsuit dismissed it.

There are several interesting points to make about the decision. First, I read the trial court decision (that was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit) on Scribd (here). Scribd is a tremendous resource for me — a lot of legal documents are not available online, and a lot of valuable ones that are available online are behind paywalls even though they cannot be copyrighted (including a lot of court decisions). Scribd is a solution to this problem, providing a central clearinghouse where lawyers can upload legal documents to make them available to the general public.

The value of resources like Scribd is one of the reasons I find criticisms like that Chris Castle directed at the decision in the Veoh case so maddeningly unhelpful. If one looks at sites like Veoh and Scribd as doing nothing but making available for free works that people would otherwise pay for, then it is much easier to rant and rave that those sites are nothing but distributors of stolen merchandise and to rationalize a stubborn refusal to admit that copyright must be balanced against strong competing interests in free speech and the exchange of ideas. But if you see these sites as profoundly gratifying resources that make the internet the greatest innovation in the history of information technology, the fact that media companies (and even independent writers, artists, and musicians) can readily identify infringing uses that do slip through detection programs does not seem so profoundly troubling. Those copyright owners can quickly employ the DMCA’s notice-and-takedown procedures, which many criticize as too friendly to the copyright holders.

Why would you use copyright to stifle marvelous new innovations? Copyright exists to encourage, not stifle, invention.

So a legal attack on Scribd, even if it is not as “weird” as it might seem on first blush, is something I will scrutinize carefully.

Second, it seems odd that Scribd would be attacked for committing copyright infringement resulting from a mechanism it is employing to minimize copyright infringement by its users and for which it is rewarded by the immunity conferred by the DMCA safe harbor provisions.

Third, a spokesperson for Scribd, as Wired reports, explains that Scribd does not copy works in their entirety as part of its copyright detection system; rather, it “creates a digital fingerprint, or a ‘hash,’ to identify infringing copies.”

Most importantly, even if Scribd did copy the entirety of the copyrighted works only to use those copies to prevent users from uploading and making available to readers those copyrighted works, the decision holding that Turnitin’s similar use of copies copyrighted materials to detect plagiarism is illuminating. The trial court, affirmed in this reasoning by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, explained that “iParadigms, through Turnitin, uses the papers for an entirely different purpose [than those the plaintiff did or could], namely, to prevent plagiarism and protect the students’ written works from plagiarism . . . by archiving the students’ works as digital code.” Thus, while the court recognized that iParadigms profits from its use of the student works, the court found that iParadigms’ use of plaintiffs’ works was “highly transformative” because it adds a “further purpose or different character” to the copyrighted works and “provides a substantial public benefit through the network of educational institutions using Turnitin.” Slip op. at 14.

In affirming the trial court’s decision, the 4th Circuit added to this reasoning and described as “clearly misguided” the argument that   Turnitin’s  use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted papers cannot be considered transformative “because the archiving process does not add anything to the work — Turnitin merely stores the work unaltered and in its entirety”:

The use of a copyrighted work need not alter or augment the work to be transformative in nature. Rather, it can be transformative in function or purpose without altering or actually adding to the original work. See, e.g., Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1165 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that Google’s use of copyrighted images in thumbnail search index was “highly transformative” even though the images themselves were not altered, in that the use served a different function than the images served). [Turnitin's] use of plaintiffs’ works had an entirely different function and purpose than the original works; the fact that there was no substantive alteration to the works does not preclude the use from being transformative in nature.

562 F3d at 639.

So let’s get it straight: what Scribd is doing is of tremendous value to society as a whole. It’s use of copyrighted works to minimize the availability on its site of copyrighted works is entirely different than and in no way diminishes the value of the copyrighted works to the owners of the copyrights. A copyright is not ownership of property like title to a car is — it does not give the owner control over any use of that car the owner doesn’t approve. There are a lot of good reasons for these differences. First, if someone else uses your car, you can’t. If someone else uses your copyrighted work, you can still use it too. If they use it for a use you never would have, what’s your problem? And if that other person’s use is doing a lot of good, why should the law confer on you a power to stop it? (Even your ownership of physical property is limited by restrictions imposed for the social good.) Finally, copyrighted works are works of expression, and we have a constitutional right to free expression. The limitation on copyright imposed by fair use is precisely a means of balancing the copyright holder’s interests against this profound social interest in free expression.

It’s an amazing world. In the name of legal rights that exist to promote progress and innovation, people everywhere are trying to stop revolutionary innovations they plainly don’t realize the value of. One of these days I’ll have to talk about the Google Book Project settlement and the fights raging in connection with it. Some are more legitimate than others. But let’s be clear: Google is trying to make available online for research purposes (not in ways that would displace the markets for the works themselves) the contents of major research libraries from around the world. Doesn’t everyone realize what an amazing and unprecedented advance this is for the life of the mind, for anyone anywhere who ever has had an interest in doing research?

The Madoff Investigation Should Focus on the SEC.

Ever since the Bernie Madoff scandal broke, I’ve wondered: was the SEC paid off? It’s hard to believe the SEC could have investigated Madoff as it did, see what anyone who looked closely could see, and not dig sufficiently to uncover the fraud. And a story today from the Washington Post only adds gasoline to the fire of that suspicion. An SEC lawyer told her superiors in 2004 that “information provided by Madoff during her review didn’t add up and suggest[ed] a set of questions to ask his firm.” She was instructed in response to focus on other matters. And her immediate supervisor’s boss later married Madoff’s niece!

The suspicious SEC lawyer, Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, “had previously worked at the American Stock Exchange, where she developed an expertise in specialized trading strategies.” After she was diverted to other matters, she never was asked about the Madoff investigation again, even during an agency investigation into Madoff in 2005 which only “found three violations of minor rules.” In 2006, Walker-Lightfoot left the SEC after filing a complaint with the agency alleging that she’d been subjected to a hostile workplace. A person familiar with the complaint said it was settled in Walker-Lightfoot’s favor.”

Madoff, incidentally, once “boasted at a business roundtable discussion about his close relationship with SEC regulators, saying “my niece just married one.”

Did Apple Mislead Investors Regarding Steve Jobs’ Health? Almost certainly, yes. Then why did it not disclose the medical facts? (Part I)

Steve Jobs had a liver transplant last week, and, the L.A. times and others report, the “doctor who led the transplant team said this week that Jobs was ‘the sickest patient on the waiting list’ at the time a donor liver became available.” All Apple had earlier disclosed to the public regarding Jobs’ health was set forth in 2 statements written by Jobs and posted on Apple’s website posted last January. The first, in connection with his widely reported drastic weight loss in 2008, stated that “my doctors think they have found the cause—a hormone imbalance that has been ‘robbing’ me of the proteins my body needs to be healthy. Sophisticated blood tests have confirmed this diagnosis. The remedy for this nutritional problem is relatively simple and straightforward, and I’ve already begun treatment. But, just like I didn’t lose this much weight and body mass in a week or a month, my doctors expect it will take me until late this Spring to regain it. I will continue as Apple’s CEO during my recovery.” (emphasis added) The second letter, posted one week later, stated that “during the past week I have learned that my health-related issues are more complex than I originally thought. In order to . . . focus on my health, and to allow everyone at Apple to focus on delivering extraordinary products, I have decided to take a medical leave of absence until the end of June.” (emphasis added) In April, “[a]ccording to unnamed sources . . . Jobs continue[d] to work on the “most important strategies and products from home,” though Apple’s only official statement was that “Steve continues to look forward to returning to Apple at the end of June.”

Inevitably, people are asking a question lawyers representing a company whose stock is traded on public exchanges always have to ask themsevles about any facts that might affect the company’s’ value: is the information “material”? On the one hand, the L.A. Times story states: “Companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives, lawyers said.” But the story also quotes a lawyer stating that “If [Apple] tried to lessen the disclosure and make it misleading by omission, that’s just as bad as telling something that flat isn’t true . . . . ” And Warren Buffet is quoted stating: “Certainly Steve Jobs is important to Apple. . . Whether he is facing serious surgery or not is a material fact.” (emphasis added).

What’s going on? What information is “material” and therefore has to be disclosed to the public by a publicly traded company? Well, Neil Lipschutz is right that “something is material if ‘there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important” in making an investment decision. Also, if there was a substantial likelihood a reasonable investor would think the information ’significantly altered the total mix of information available’ about a company.’”

Do we have anything better to guide us than (1) what seems a terribly subjective test, (2) the gut reactions of lawyers and of Warren Buffett, and (3) the almost certain fact that Apple, after close consideration of the facts and the law by its lawyers, made the business decision that the risks and probabilities of disclosure last January (or at any time between when Jobs first got sick and now) were outweighed by the risks and probabilities of liability for securities fraud if and when its lack of candor became known?

Well, if what you’re seeking is guidance in the way beginning law students and most non-lawyers want the law to provide guidance — articulation of rule that makes it easy to decide the question — the answer is a resounding NO. These are judgment calls based on the specific evidence of each case. In order to determine if a set of facts would matter to an investor, you need to look at those specific facts. And plainly I have not had available to me all the evidence that might eventually be considered to judge the question in this case. But there is a lot available, and based on only that, I have to agree with Warren Buffet that the fact Steve Jobs was so ill he required a liver transplant certainly is material.

But, again, my certainty is not a product of pointing to a “law” and having you nod your head in agreement. I have to look at the specific evidence regarding Apple, the law, and the facts in the cases in which courts have concluded that events are material and in which courts have concluded the events are not material. By doing that, I hope I can convince you that my certainty is well founded. That’s the best I can do.

Moreover, that’s not the end of the lawyer’s job. Even if the lawyers concluded that the facts regarding Jobs’ health prior became “material” at any time before the next week would not mean Apple necessarily would disclose those facts. Apple’s lawyers would have to consider what potential downside its failure to disclose those facts would present and the likelihood that downside would occur. Then Apple, not the lawyers, would have to decide if those risks and probabilities would outweigh the likelihood and degree of the impact disclosure would have on Apple’s value.

There are a number of rules under which a publicly traded company is obligated to disclose “material” information to the public or face criminal and civil liability, but the definition of “materiality” is the same under all of them. One is a regulation known in the trade as “Rule 10b-5″ [17 CFR 240.10b-5], which makes it a crime and a civil wrong for any a company or an individual purchasing or selling stock “to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, . . ” As the United States Court of Appeals for the 2d Circuit stated in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F.2d at 833, 848 (2d Cir. 1968), this requirement to disclose material facts is based “on the justifiable expectation of the securities marketplace that all investors trading on impersonal exchanges have relatively equal access to material information . . . .” The requirement originates in the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)), one of the keystones of the New Deal passed in response to the practices prevalent on Wall Street that had led to the 1929 stock market crash.

As the court further stated in Texas Gulf Sulfur, “[t]he basic test of materiality * * * is whether a reasonable man would attach importance * * * in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question.” Thus, material facts include any facts “which affect the probable future of the company and those which may affect the desire of investors to buy, sell, or hold the company’s securities.”

The defendants in Texas Gulf Sulfur had argued that tests showing one of their company’s mines was likely a rich one were not material because there was nothing certain to report until mining had actually begun and there was more certainty than the tests could provide.  The Second Circuit rejectted their argument, ruling that even possibilities that never occur might be material. One must look at the probability the fact would have an impact on the company’s value and the magnitude of that potential impact: “whether facts are material . . . will depend at any given time upon a balancing of both the indicated probability that the event will occur and the anticipated magnitude of the event in light of the totality of the company activity.” 401 F.2d at 849. Thus, the court reversed the trial court’s decison to dismiss the criminal charges against the defedants because, the Second Circuit decided, they would be guilty if it were true that they had failed to disclose “the possibility, which surely was more than marginal, of the existence of a mine of the vast magnitude” as a result of a “remarkably rich” sample taken  ”close to the surface (suggesting mineability by the less expensive openpit method) within the confines of a large anomaly (suggesting an extensive region of mineralization).” That mere “suggestion . . . would certainly have been an important fact to a reasonable, if speculative,  investor in deciding whether he should buy, sell, or hold” stock in the mining company the defendants controlled. Id. at 849-50 (emphasis added).

The U.S. Supreme Court expressly adopted the Second Circuit’s test in 1988 in Basic, Inc. v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), a case in which the Court determined that corporate insiders might have had the duty to disclose negotiations for a corporate merger before the merger was concluded. Some courts outside the 2d Circuit prior to that time had ruled that a deal didn’t have to be disclosed until it was a binding deal. The Supreme Court rejected the reasoning of those courts and made plain that an event that might not ever happen nevertheless might at some point be likely enough and big enough that it would affect a reasonble investor’s investment decisions.

So the questions Apple’s lawyers had to be asking themselves all the time ever since they learned in 2004 that Jobs had pancreatic cancer, are the following:

(1) Is Jobs so important to Apple that an investor would make a decision to sell, buy, or hold on to Apple stock based on his ability to do his job?

(2) Do the medical facts demonstrate with sufficient probability that Jobs’ condition is threatened enough that those facts would cause an investor to sell, buy, or hold on to Apple stock?

(3) Did Apple’s words or omissions mislead reasonable investors in evaluating whether Jobs could continue to do his job well enough to not affect their investment decisions.

Let’s get the easy stuff out of the way. Jobs’ health and its impact on his ability to do his job  are so plainly material that to argue otherwise wouldn’t pass the “giggle test.”  I would therefore, if I were representing Apple in litigation, advise the company simply to admit this point in the answer to any complaint anyone filed. To admit the point would at least minimize attention to something that, if Apple did dispute it, would only increase attention to a weakness in the company’s case. But just in case you think I don’t understand when it’s smart lawyering to concede a point, remember these things — someone’s own words are taken by a court as “admissions.” In other words, if someone admits something that is harmful to his legal position, the court will assume the facts are at least that bad. In the letter posted online last January, addressed to the “Apple Community,” Jobs ended with this: “So now I’ve said more than I wanted to say, and all that I am going to say, about this.” I’d love to ask him in a deposition why, if he didn’t want to write what he wrote, he did. The probelm, if Apple had decided to dispute the materiality of Jobs to the company’s value, is that he’d have to deny and dance around the obvous: his lawyers told him he had to write the letter because his health and its impact on his capacity to do his job is material to Apple’s shareholders and potential shareholders.

Don’t assume I haven’t considered the arguments I could make on Apple’s behalf on this point — I could point out, for example, as MacNewsWord did yesterday, that since January, when Jobs wrote the letter he didn’t want to write, Apple stock has almost doubled in value. The Apple loving outlet implied that market shows that investors have been confident that Apple was fine without Jobs:  ”This could be due to general belief among investors that Apple has a good management team in place which has kept the company running on an even keel despite the CEO’s absence.”  Or it could mean the market had already accounted for Jobs’ illness.  Or it could be that the market is driven by unreasonable investors.  It could be for any number of reasons. Regardless, I am convinced  that a strategy to fight a securities fraud case on the grounds that Jobs isn’t important enough to be material to Apple is not going to make winning the case more likely. I could go on and on . . . Last October, just to take at random one piece of evidence easy to find via a mere Google search, (according to CSnews) “Some individual had posted a fake report . . . claiming Steve Jobs had suffered from a heart attack and was rushed into the hospital. As a result, Apple’s stock made a 10% nosedive.”

NEXT: (a) was Jobs’ health so dire its specifics would have made a difference to people thinking about buying, selling or holding on to Apple stock, (b) did Apple’s statment’s or silences mislead investors about Jobs’ health, and (c) why would Apple choose not to disclose specifics regarding Jobs’ health even if its lawyers were telling it that those were material facts?

“Expert” is only a name; an “expert’s” ideas are only as good as the ideas themselves.

This is the honest truth: back when the Napster case was pending on appeal (the appeal Napster would eventually lose), I was teaching a legal writing class and the problem was about copyright and fair use in connection with a web site that used posted exerpts of copyrighted works and also an online “bulletin board” (it was that long ago) for discussion of the works. I told my class that I thought that if the music industry had any sense they’d put significant excerpts of every work in their catalogs in streaming audio next to a button that would allow electronic download of an mp3 file of each song for a price.

I bring this up not to boast that I am some brilliant businessperson who would’ve wisely been picked up by Apple to help produce iTunes. I have no doubt I’d read the idea a hundred different places and that it sounded good to me. So why do I bring it up?

The students reacted this way: it’s a stupid idea; if it weren’t, the music companies would’ve done it already. What would I know that they don’t? I was left almost speechless. I asked them if they really believe that people who do things necessarily know what’s best with respect to doing those things. They apparently did. I told them I thought that it was very important that they learn that just because an “expert” thinks certain things about his area of expertise doesn’t mean that a non-expert can’t have better ideas, and that it certainly isn’t the case that an entire industry necessarily does business in the best way it could.

I was reminded of all this when I read at Ars Technica that “Geoff Taylor, head of UK major label trade group BPI, wrote an op-ed piece for the BBC today in which he called Napster the ‘Rosetta Stone of digital music,’ said it was ’simple to understand and use,’ and said that the music industry should have ‘embraced Napster rather than fighting it.’”

Doing justice versus making rules.

There is a tension in the common law between doing justice in an individual lawsuit and articulating rules of general application that can guide decisions in future cases. The beauty of the common law system, however, is that the primary goal is to do justice in the individual case. Civil law, the system that governs in non-Anglo-American countries, on the other hand, relies on a civil code of general application that provides predictability but often at the cost of individual justice.

One consequence of the common law system is that a “rule” articulated by a court in one case to reach the proper result in that one case can often be modified in a subsequent case in which the facts differ in a way that would make it unjust to merely apply the earlier “rule.”

One of my problems with Supreme Court jurisprudence in recent years has been that it has lost sight of this principal purpose of common law judging: to do justice in the particular case before before the court. The justices seem often more concerned with formal, abstract consistency than justice, an emphasis that to this common law lawyer seems very misplaced.

No more blatant example of this distinction exists than the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Caperton v. Massey (pdf). Thankfully, by a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reached what plainly was the right result, but Justice Roberts’ dissent (joined by Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) epitomizes the ways striving for abstract, intellectual consistency can do violence to what, plainly, is common sense justice.

Caperton began in West Virginia, where a jury found the A.T. Coal Co., Inc. liable for $50 million for fraudulent misrepresenta-tion, concealment, and tortious interference with existing contractual relations. Knowing the West Virginia Supreme Court would consider an appeal of the verdict, Don Blankenship, Massey’s chairman and principal officer, contributed $3 million to the campaign of Brent Benjamin, who was running for the state Supreme Court against an incumbent. The $3 million contributed by Blankenship exceeded the total amount spent by all other Benjamin supporters and by Benjamin’s own committee. Benjamin won the election by fewer than 50,000 votes.

Subsequently, Caperton, who had won the $50 million verdict, moved 3 times to disqualify Benjamin from hearing the appeal of the verdict. Each time, Benjamin himself denied the motion. Benjamin also turned out to be the deciding vote that resulted in a reversal of the verdict against Massey’s company.

Apparently, as they say, money talks. There is, however, a constitutional right to “due process” under the Constitution, and, accordingly, Caperton appealed to the Supreme Court, which held, as anyone with any sense would hold, that Judge Benjamin could not be counted upon to be a fair and impartial judge of an appeal of a $50 million verdict against the man who got him elected. Justice Kennedy, writing for a majority of the Court, concluded that the primary legal quesiton is whether “under a realistic appraisal of psy-chological tendencies and human weakness,” the interest “poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of due process is to be adequately implemented.”  Kennedy concluded: “There is a serious risk of actual bias when a person with a personal stake in a particular case had a significantand disproportionate influence in placing the judge on the case byraising funds or directing the judge’s election campaign when thecase was pending or imminent.”

Justice Roberts, jointed by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, on the other hand, ignored the egregious facts before the Court because requiring disqualification based on a “probability of bias,” is a standard that “cannot be defined in any limited way.” Thus, Roberts complains, “[t]he Court’s new ‘rule’ provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required.”

I think Roberts is full of it. Any law student knows that common law rules often turn on standards such as “reasonableness” and “probability.” What do we know based on Caperton? We know that deciding a case in favor of the man who has contributed more than 50% of the funds to get you elected to the bench is enough to establish a “probability of bias.” That hardly seems arguable. If it means we’ll get other cases arguing for a “probability of bias” under facts far less probabitive of such undue influence, the courts can deal with those cases by hearing the evidence and determining, using common sense and the guidance of precedents such as Caperton, whether there is or is not a probability of bias.

But Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would prefer to let stand a travesty than to burden the courts with deciding exactly the kinds of questions the courts decide every day. That’s not doing justice, and it certainly isn’t common law justice. I’m not sure what it is.

Google’s Library of Babel and its opponents.

Steven Shankland has written a good piece on the proposed settlement of the lawsuits over the Google Library Project; the proposed settlement is “now under review by Judge Denny Chin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.”

Under the proposed settlement, the owners of copyrights in books would need to opt out of the project to prevent Google from including those books in its Library database, which is being compiled by scanning the libraries of several major insitutions around the world. As Shankland points out, “that means essentially that Google would be permitted to show content from in-copyright, out-of-print books and sell online copies of those books even without an explicit agreement with the books’ rightsholders.” Copyrighted, out-of-print books constitute approximately 70 percent of the books in the library collections Google is scanning, and that 70 percent includes the vast majority of “orphan works” in those libraries. Orphan works are works whose copyright holders cannot be identified, a common problem because there is no registry of copyrights and the authors of the books are not necessarily the copyright holders. Rather, the copyright holders might include unidentifiable heirs or even corporate entities that have gone through mergers, dissolutions, or other forms of corporate reorganization that make it difficult or impossible to identify the entity that currently owns the copyright.

Nevertheless, some authors continue to oppose the Google Library Project:

“Under the actual law, it is Google’s burden and not yours to ask you for permission and then fairly negotiate terms of contract acceptable to you personally, not jam some monstrosity down your throat,” said Lynn Chu, a literary agent with Writers’ Reps who also called the proposed settlement a “ripoff for authors” in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece.

As a business matter, I don’t understand the view Chu expresses, as I’ve previously written. Why would someone whose work is out-of-print not want that work accessible to the general public? And if that someone wants to keep his work in the obscurity resulting from being out-of-print and available only at some far off insitution’s library, he can always opt out. Chu says that the “actual law” requires Google to ask permission first, not for the copyright holder to deny permission, but the wonderful thing about contracts (and a settlement is a contract) is that they can be a means parties have of altering the rules that govern their relationships in the absence of agreement.

I’ve been a fan of the Google Library Project since it was announced in 2003. It promises to make available for search the collections of many of the greatest libraries in the world. Google will only be able to display brief snippets of works that are in print and under copyright, but even that access will make known to researchers the availability of sources they never otherwise would have been able to find. The Project is one of those endeavors that make the internet and the digitization of information truly revolutionary and magical. It would be a shame if copyright law founded on old technologies and the unfounded knee-jerk reactions of copyright holders (it’s mine, and that means you can’t do anything with it without my permission!) were to end up preventing the realization of revolutionary magic.

Finally, Shankland points out that there is concern over the settlement because it would give Google an advantage over competitors: “Microsoft, Amazon, or the Internet Archive . . . –without their own handy class-action settlement [--] would be have to try to seek such permission in advance from each rightsholder or risk copyright infringement litigation.” But if copyright holders and their representatives are willing to reach this settlement with Google there’s no reason to suppose they wouldn’t with Microsoft, Amazon, or the Internet Archive. Google’s competitive advantage is the result of its initiative and daring in starting the Project in the first place and developing technology (including new scanning technology) to make it truly possible. Advantages gained by daring and initiative should be rewarded by the law, not stymied.

The argument against Proposition 8 — result due in a few hours.

Today, the California Supreme Court announces its decision on Proposition 8, the voter initiative passed in November that outlawed same-sex marriage. In May 2008, the court, held that prohibiting same-sex marriages violated the Equal Protection Clause in California’s Constitution.

The briefs filed in the case are all available here.

The essence of the argument advanced against proposition 8, as I understand it, is as follows: the state constitution’s requirement of equal protection requires that same-sex couples be permitted to marry. The state Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the meaning of the state consitution. Thus, a voter initiative that by a mere majority declares that same-sex couples are not permitted to marry usurps the constitutional role of the state supreme court in interpreting the state’s equal protection clause. It’s an interesting argument — if the voters want someone other than the Supreme Court to interpret the state constitution, they must revise the constitution to alter the role of the Supreme Court. Leaving interpretation of constitutions, however, has been firmly embedded in U.S. jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison, in which, of course, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. . . . If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

Thus, the argument in California goes, the electorate usurped the role of the state Supreme Court in voting by a majority that the equal protection clause does not allow same sex marriage. Here, in summary, is the way the argument was articulated by the Petitioners in their Petition for Writ of Mandate (pdf):

13. Proposition 8 alters Article 1 of the California Constitution by adding “SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” By its terms, Proposition 8 purports to strip a constitutionally protected minority group of the fundamental right to marry even though that right was previously conferred by the equal protection clause of the California Constitution.

14. Proposition 8 is invalid under the California Constitution because the initiative power does not permit voters to divest a politically unpopular group of rights conferred by the equal protection clause. A transfer of the final authority to enforce the equal protection clause from the judiciary to a political majority can only occur by revision. The Constitution, however, has never been revised to remove final autohority to enforce the equal protection clause from the judiciary.

The Monopoly game is over.

Here’s one reversal of Bush administration policy no one will mistake: the New York Times reports that the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division will strengthen antitrust rules and aggressively enforce the nation’s antitrust laws “against corporations that use their market dominance to elbow out competitors or to keep them from gaining market share.” Remarkably, “[d]uring the Bush administration, the Justice Department did not file a single case against a dominant firm for violating the antimonopoly law. Many smaller companies complaining of abusive practices by their larger rivals were so frustrated by the Bush administration’s antitrust policy that they went to the European Commission and to Asian authorities.”

When the Bush Administration, “[r]eflecting deep skepticism of the role of government in the marketplace,”  made its lax enforcement of antitrust laws official policy in 2008, “three of the four commissioners at the Federal Trade Commission denounced the guidelines, calling them ‘a blueprint for radically weakened enforcement’ against anticompetitive practices.”

The Obama Administration, in contrast, believes it was a major mistake to relax enforcement of the antitrust laws during the the early years of the Great Depression, a policy believed to have “enabled many large companies to engage in pricing, wage and collusive practices that harmed consumers and took years to reverse.” The new policy is expected to hit tech companies especially hard, but is also aimed at “agriculture, energy, health care, . . . and telecommunications companies. ”

In a related note, embedded below, from Silicon Alley Insider, is a copy of a PowerPoint presentation Google is showing around Washington, D.C., marked up with comments by Consumer Watchdog.

Requiring McDonalds to disclose the calories in the Big Mac: good for consumers, or treating customers like idiots?

Today’s Wall Street Journal Law Blog has a post that nicely summarizes the varyious views on the impact of individual lawsuits on corporate behavior.  Referring to an article in the Wall Street Journal by Nathan Koppel (subscription only), the blog explains that “a surge in litigation against food companies for allegedly selling unhealthy products and for misrepresenting their products’ nutritional value” has led the food companies to adopt “a host of health-promoting steps, like reducing their use of trans fats, limiting marketing of sugary products to children, and toning down boasts about their products’ nutritional value.”

Thus, for example, in New York Restaurant Association v. New York City Board of Health (pdf), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a New York City law requiring restaurant chains to post calorie information on their menus.  In doing so, the court rejected the argument that the fact the restaurants already satisfied the federal regulations on required disclosures issued by the FDA meant that the city’s regulations were “pre-empted.”

As I mentioned last month, the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected arguments by a pharmaceutical company that having satisfied FDA labeling requirements, it should not also be subject to state law that imposed even stricter requirements on the company regarding what it must warn about in selling its drugs.  The Supreme Court in that case emphasized the important role litigation plays in supplementing federal regulation, pointing out that regulatory agencies are limited in what they can do and should not be relied upon to alone police an industry unless Congress makes it clear that the agency is supposed to have that exclusive authority:

The FDA traditionally regarded state law as a complementary form of drug regulation. The FDA has limited resources to monitor the 11,000 drugs on the market, and manufacturers have superior access to information about their drugs, especially in the postmarketing phase as new risks emerge.

A lawyer in the New York Restaurant Association case argues, though, that such lawsuits are “part of a larger ‘paternalization of society,’ adding that such litigation ‘in effect, says the masses aren’t intelligent enough to understand what they are buying.’” He is not alone in his sentiments, even if he lost his most recent case.  Michael Doyle, a reporter for McClatchy’s Washington Bureau, wrote in the aftermath of the decision that the “calorie police have won another one.”

Who should most influence the creation and intepretation of our laws?

Where did our laws go wrong and help create the current financial crisis?  My own experience over the 28 years since I began law school has been that at the intellectual level we have become more and more enamored of the idea that the free market is the best measure of all value and that at the professional level we have become more and more obeisant to the financial industry.  Markets do a lot of good, but it boggles my mind when complex legal problems involving competing values and belief systems are in facile ways reduced to a weighing of measurable quantities.  And the investment bankers I worked among during my years as a lawyer in New York City were bright, but they were no smarter than the lawyers, painters, non-profit fundraisers, contractors, social workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, writers, and engineers I knew.

As Simon Johnson, a Professor at MIT’s Sloan School of Management and former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, points out in the Atlantic, it might precisely be our willingness to defer politically to the people we referred to as financial “wizards” that got us in this mess:

Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better—in a “buck stops somewhere else” sort of way—on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for “safety and soundness” were fast asleep at the wheel.

But these various policies—lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership—had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector’s profits—such as Brooksley Born’s now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998—were ignored or swept aside.

The problem is that, as Joan Walsh points out, the Obama administration’s efforts to “fix” the financial industry seem to perpetuate the misplaced reliance on the financial industry that the Democratic Party started back in the Clinton administration and that continues, unabated, to this day in the actions of Tim Geithner and Charles Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York.

Perhaps, though, we’re in on the beginning of a trend in a direction other than the one we’ve taken in the 30 or so years of my professional life.  With the demise of investment banks we’ll no longer see the best and the brightest of our college graduates flowing into investment banking and financial consulting jobs.  At a recent job fair at Columbia University, Kevin Long, a recruiter for Environ, which provides international consulting services on environmental sustainability, cleanup and other issues, was quoted as follows:

We’re delighted. In the past, we have had to compete with investment banks, hedge funds people that were pulling the best engineers and scientists out of these schools. And this year, because of the conditions of the economy, we’re getting an opportunity to go after those students.

Who knows?  If the people we consider the smartest are engineers and medical providers and social workers, maybe we’ll pass laws that enrich them rather than laws that enrich investment bankers.  And maybe that will be better.  Certainly it will bring in a broader range of views.  I don’t mean we should ignore the financial industry, but we should realize when someone tells us by making laws and policy that are intended to directly enrich them we will indirectly be doing ourselves the greatest good, we should perhaps start checking our wallets.

Remix America, I salute you!

I am thrilled to have found Remix America¦America’s Digital Public Square. I’m no technical wiz. I’m always looking for easy ways to do technically difficult things. One thing I’ve searched for and asked friends about for a couple of years is a Friedman-friendly way of mixing and mashing up video and audio clips. I’ve wanted the contemporary equivalent (and therefore the multi-media) analog to the mix tapes I used to make on a cassette tape deck, and I need it to be as easy as making a mix tape on a cassette tape deck. My technically intelligent friends have had suggestions, but none have seemed accessible enough to me to be worth the investment of time and/or money they seemed they might require. But now I’m in techno-idiot heaven. As Remix America explains:

RemixAmerica.org is a multi-partisan, non-profit website that uses digital technology to give everyone the chance to own the words, the music, the images and sounds of America in digital form; to remix those expressions and ideas with their own; and to send the products of our community’s creativity out to the world… where others will come back to us and start it all over again…

And it works! I have a long way to go before I’ll be able to create a mashup that deserves to be posted, but, thanks to Remix America, that day is in sight. And I’m flattered beyond words that Erika Johansson, Producer and Program Coordinator for the site, paid me the compliment of writing to me that “we’ve got similar interests and aims.”

Despite the fact she runs circles around me when it comes to actually using the technology, Ms. Johansson is right that our interests and aims are similar. I approach  the innovation and creativity that is the subject of this blog as a lawyer, a role not typically considered innovative, creative or artistic. But it’s plain that being a lawyer requires fluency in the technical realities and practicalities one addresses as a lawyer.

I believe the law governing any particular set of circumstances expresses  society’s conceptions of what constitutes justice and fairness in those circumstances . In stark contrast, many lawyers and law professors believe law is the product of abstract notions of justice and fairness applied to the world as we find it.

If I am going to write persuasively about any given set of laws, my approach requires that I understand as well as I can the material reality those laws apply to. To understand contract law, I need to understand commercial practices and expectations. To understand market regulation, I need to understand how the financial markets run. To understand copyright law, I need to understand the technical details concerning the production and dissemination of information.

A necessary implication of my approach is that when the material conditions underlying any field change profoundly, the laws that govern that field should change profoundly. And in the last twenty years we’ve experienced a profound change in the material conditions that govern the way we produce, reproduce, and disseminate information. So the law governing the production, reproduction, and dissemination of information has to change — otherwise we’re stuck with the inevitable injustice that arises when you apply rules developed for one set of facts to an entirely different set of facts. There’s a revolution going on, but a lot of people don’t even recognize the revolution. And you can’t begin to understand the revolution unless you understand the the technical details that the revolution consists of.

So Remix America is a godsend to me. It gives me the means to create for myself (very crude) approximations of the mashups and remixes and collages I find so compelling and creative but that many consider theft. If I can understand and actually engage in an approximation of those creative acts, I can understand better and communicate better why those works are genuinely creative works, not merely ripoffs of original works that technology has unlocked.

I  salute and give a gracious thank you to Remix America and urge you to go there yourselves, see the works Remix America is making possible, and maybe start remixing and mashing up and creating your own original works.