Fastcase Header

Fastcase Public Links to Cases on Haiku Decisis Are Here!

by Joshua Auriemma on September 10, 2014

It was always my intention to include links to the cases referenced on Haiku Decisis, and finally that day is today.

We introduced a feature at Fastcase about two months ago allowing any Fastcase subscriber to generate a public link to any integrated document (cases, statutes, regs, etc.) and make it available to anyone, regardless of whether they have a Fastcase account.

As of yesterday, we finished the API that will allow people to generate a public link from any known citation to the case. That allowed me to write some code to chug through the Haiku Decisis database and tag the cases with links to the Fastcase public link URL.

I hope people find it as amusing as I do to see how these haiku are actually written in the context of the case.

Finally, we’ve amassed enough votes that I can start to write a ranking algorithm to weight display of the haiku (meaning you’ll see more good than bad eventually). I’ve also got a query ready to display the top haiku — just need to write a front end for it. So that’ll be coming soon.

As always, feel free to pass along your feature requests, bug reports, and comments.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

the infant, being absent from the State, could not be personally served.

Haikus Straight from SCOTUS

by Joshua Auriemma on August 19, 2014

Announcing Haiku Decisis.

A few weeks ago, for reasons I still don’t completely understand, I began to wonder how often the Supreme Court inadvertently creates a haiku in its opinions. These are the kinds of conversations we tend to have around the Fastcase offices.

Sometime shortly thereafter I began researching how difficult it would be to write an algorithm to identify the number of syllables in a word. Happily, a gentleman named Jonathan Feinberg — a much better coder than I — had already written and shared some code on GitHub that allowed me to write an application in relatively short order to count syllables of sentences (and ultimately to identify full-thought haikus) inadvertently created by Supreme Court Justices.

I asked the developers at Fastcase to generate for me a list of cases going back to 1 U.S. 1, which I parsed and used to populate a database. Once the database was constructed I had quite a bit of data cleaning to do (it turns out the algorithm is pretty bad at handling rogue punctuation). Nonetheless, the results were amusing.

I decided to use the haikus as a framework to learn Laravel — I’ve never really done any actual web coding before. Haiku Decisis sort of took form on its own as a sort of Hot or Not-cum-Reddit for Judicial opinions. Upvote the cases you like; downvote the cases you don’t like.

I like this system for a few reasons: First, I’m greatly amused by thinking about how much time law student nerds are going to spend in class voting on haikus from the cases they’re studying. It’s incredibly easy to get caught up voting on haikus (at least for me) and trying to find the real stand-out quotes. Second, the idea of reducing beautiful writing from some of the greatest minds of the past few centuries to out-of-context poems that laypeople can dismissively vote on is also greatly amusing to me. Finally, and most importantly, these haikus are easily accessible to anyone.

We recently pushed out our new “Public Link” feature at Fastcase; this is going to allow me to link all of the cases giving rise to these haikus to anyone regardless of whether they have Fastcase access. Even having studied the Court quite a lot, I have on a great number of occasions seen one of these haikus and grown incredibly curious about the context. When Fastcase builds the Public Link API for me to incorporate the links into Haiku Decisis, I’m hopeful this will enable some curious laypeople to want to learn a bit more about the judiciary.

I’ll be monitoring this thread for comments, complaints, and suggestions. I’m happy to take feature requests as well since this is still a programming exercise for me. I’d personally very much like a hidden-by-default comments section added to each haiku for people to discuss the haiku or the case. I’d also like to somehow incorporate the haiku summaries of SCOTUS opinions written by my fellow law nerd colleagues over at the Supreme Court Haiku Reporter.

If you like the app do me a favor and share it and follow @haikudecisis on Twitter.

Have fun and let me know your favorite haikus — I’m keeping tabs on my own favorites.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Post image for Second Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc for Aereo Plaintiffs

Second Circuit Denies Rehearing En Banc for Aereo Plaintiffs

by Joshua Auriemma on August 13, 2013

Last summer I wrote about Aereo’s journey through the federal courts. At that time, the plaintiffs were seeking to enjoin Aereo from providing their broadcast television content to subscribers via the internet at the district court level. On July 16, the Second Circuit made clear that it had no intent of overturning the Cablevision case, discussed on LG previously, by denying en banc reargument.

Consistent with our previous discussion — and incidentally the district court’s opinion and the standard of review — the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit believed that the crux of the issue revolved around the second section of the Transmit clause in the Copyright Act.

Specifically, the Court held, there are certain factors discussed within Cablevision that must be considered in deciding whether or not a transmission is public and therefore violative of the Copyright Act.

Based on the Court’s opinion, uniqueness of the signal seems requisite in a case like this. Because Aereo owns an antenna for each and every person to whom it transmits a signal (and therefore is not producing copies of the signal but rather is simply transmitting the original copy [pardon the oxymoron]) it’s less likely that the performance was transmitted to the public for purposes of the Copyright Act.

In the en banc denial Judge Chin, joined by Judge Wesley, attached a 27-page dissenting opinion arguing why en banc should have been granted. Interestingly, Judge Chin relied made two main arguments: (1) the holding is inconsistent with WPIX, Inc. v. ivi; and (2) the holding is of substantial public importance because it economically harms broadcasters. I find these arguments interesting because ivi is really all about a Chevron analysis that ultimately determined the company wasn’t entitled to a compulsory license under the Act whereas the present case is all about the definition of public transmission. Moreover, the policy focus on the danger to businesses is interesting given the dicta in Ivi focusing on the original intent of compulsory licenses (going back to bringing information to harder-to-reach rural areas). Arguably though Judge Chin was making a broader policy argument seemingly unrelated to statutory interpretation, but interesting nonetheless that the argument focuses on the entrenched businesses rather than startups or cord/antennae cutters (the latter not really being a “thing” so much as a fact of life for most Americans, I would imagine).

Still, interested to see what happens now. I’m not aware of whether there’s a desire to seek cert.

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Having entered law school from a discipline where technical interviews were the norm, I remember being very skeptical of the behavioral interview process. I’ve been thinking about technical interviews lately — specifically, their role in the legal profession — in light of recent news stories about Google vilifying the utility of technical interview questions and brainteasers during the interview process. (Disclaimer: once upon a time I got a callback to a Microsoft interview primarily for, one assumes, answering one of their infamous brainteasers.)

The premise of the argument against technical interview questions for software engineers revolves around the artificial atmosphere created by forcing an applicant to sit in a room and answer tough questions under pressure. While such a situation probably is artificial in the context of designing software at Google, it’s essentially any day of the week for most litigators. If an applicant can’t have an intelligent conversation with me about the implications of her law review comment or the law governing an area about which she has written, why should I think she’ll be effective with clients or judges? I would argue that the technical interview process is a fairly good gauge for how one will react under pressure as an attorney.

So why don’t we do this more? Particularly when you’re dealing with an applicant from a non-T14 school, how can you have any sort of gauge about what their achievements actually mean unless you’re intimately familiar with the law school in question? I’ve had people in interviews with CALI awards in constitutional law who couldn’t answer basic questions about con law jurisprudence that served as the basis for papers they’d written. That’s something that would never come up in a strict behavioral interview, and yet it seems pretty important.

So what’s the deal? What am I missing and why isn’t this the norm?


{ Comments on this entry are closed }

Pearl Sammett. Canada. National Film Board of Canada. Photothèque. Library and Archives Canada

I Got Myriad Problems and Patents Are One

by Joshua Auriemma on February 12, 2013

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. is a case with a long and storied history in the federal courts. For our purposes, the only thing you really need to know is that the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on April 15 to [hopefully] determine whether human genes are patentable.

SCOTUSblog had a symposium on this case, which goes into much better detail than I ever could about the specific issues the Court will need to address to determine whether these patents are valid (hint: most I’ve seen suggest that the Court will find that human genes are not patentable), but I am mostly interested in thinking about this from a policy perspective.

I am fairly conservative in my patent views. I don’t like business method or software patents as a general rule because I don’t think they usually serve the purposes intended by the Constitution or the Patent Act. Let’s review Introduction to Patent Law quickly:

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8. The overarching idea here is that you, brilliant inventor of this invention that would be difficult to reproduce if you didn’t tell us how you made it, tell us exactly how to make it in return for a government-sanctioned monopoly for a limited term of years. The far-off secondary purpose — and indisputably the more prominent in recent history — is akin to the motives of the Copyright Act; inventors should have some incentive to invent or they won’t invent. The latter purpose necessarily envisions an inventor that can’t make money from her invention without the assistance of a monopoly. Arguably, the former envisions someone who could make money, but would make more with the assistance of a monopoly.

In the 21st Century, inventions are only as good as the company making them. Look at Lytro, for instance. Ren Ng, at the time a Stanford PhD student, designed a camera as part of his dissertation that does not need to focus before snapping a picture, and images can be focused after the picture is taken in post-processing. That’s a billion-dollar idea if I’ve ever heard one. The result from the consumer standpoint is an ugly, awkward camera with very limited functionality. In the better funded and more experienced hands of Apple or Samsung, this technology could be (as Steve liked to say) revolutionary. So do we say that because those companies could fairly easily reverse engineer the Lytro camera the mechanism doesn’t deserve government protections? Not really, because we essentially fall back to the [possibly fictional] idea that Ng wouldn’t have invented this camera in the first place if he wasn’t going to be given patent protection. Personally, I’d argue that the creation of his company to market the product is evidence that he would have invented it irrespective of patent rights, but I digress.

If we decide that genes are not patentable, which I think is the correct finding in a perfect world (on that point I’m in total agreement with my Patents & Biotech Law Prof., Dr. Eileen Kane, who filed the most recent amicus brief in support of the Petitioner), I am concerned that private investors will run away and effectively stall out (or at least set back) the incredible progress of gene research. I have looked through eight of the amicus briefs and seen no mention of this issue, which is somewhat surprising. If the Petitioners can pull out the numbers and show that withdrawal of a large chunk of private funding won’t severely hurt genetic research, then I think I’ll be satisfied.

What do you think? Should non-synthetic genes be patentable?

{ Comments on this entry are closed }

97% Profit Margins on Internet Will Cripple Innovation

by Joshua Auriemma February 7, 2013 Geekery
Thumbnail image for 97% Profit Margins on Internet Will Cripple Innovation

We’re at a point now where technology has finally caught up to the amount of bandwidth most people have available. A few years ago, the only thing we could really do to max out our bandwidth was download huge files from the internet, but nowadays ubiquitous internet activities can easily max out our available bandwidth […]

Read More

Transcription, Translation, and Commentary on the DOJ Targeted Killing White Paper

by Joshua Auriemma February 5, 2013 Legal
Thumbnail image for Transcription, Translation, and Commentary on the DOJ Targeted Killing White Paper

The following is a transcription of the recently released DOJ white paper regarding the use of legal force against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al-Qa’ida or an associated force. A Google search reveals that no one has transcribed this yet [edit: Wikipedia also has a transcription that was initially quite […]

Read More

Legal Geekery Podcast — Episode 32

by Joshua Auriemma September 18, 2012 Podcasts

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:25 — 24.5MB) | EmbedIntroduction It’s been months since the last show. What’s new? Josh’s journey from lawyer back to student (and lawyer consultant) is new! And don’t miss the scoop on Alice and Dallas. Josh will be getting the iPhone 5, no doubt shipping with iOS […]

Read More

Easy and Lightweight Way to Open Wordperfect Files on OS X

by Joshua Auriemma August 14, 2012 Reviews
Thumbnail image for Easy and Lightweight Way to Open Wordperfect Files on OS X

Not too long ago one of our associates asked me to open a file for her because, you know, I’m the de facto IT guy. The file was a Wordperfect file (.wpd) and, it turns out, dang near impossible to easily open on my Macbook Pro. I set out to download NeoOffice or some other shareware […]

Read More