Comments on: Sustainability http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/01/14/sustainability/ Tom Bruce\'s blog Tue, 24 Nov 2009 08:08:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Dirty Necessary Money - Digital Digressions by Stuart Sierra http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/01/14/sustainability/#comment-30 Dirty Necessary Money - Digital Digressions by Stuart Sierra Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:03:51 +0000 http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/01/14/sustainability/#comment-30 [...] at Cornell, Tom Bruce has a post about the problem of funding open access to legal materials. This brings to mind a conversation I had with a doctor friend recently about AltLaw. My friend, [...] […] at Cornell, Tom Bruce has a post about the problem of funding open access to legal materials. This brings to mind a conversation I had with a doctor friend recently about AltLaw. My friend, […]

]]> By: Scott Matheson http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/01/14/sustainability/#comment-29 Scott Matheson Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:06:51 +0000 http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/01/14/sustainability/#comment-29 Carl has an interesting point. What if law schools adopted the idea that training on a particular computer system was not really the role of a graduate school. Each school could pick *either* of the online behemoths and divert the modest savings (if any) from dropping the other to other worthy educational or open-access tools, like LII. Quite apart from the fiscal responsibility it would demonstrate, it would underscore to students the need be flexible in choosing and using tools. Especially if the school switched major provider every or every-other year (as some law firms might as they seek lower costs), the intangible values of an open-access, permanent repository would be made plain. Carl has an interesting point. What if law schools adopted the idea that training on a particular computer system was not really the role of a graduate school. Each school could pick *either* of the online behemoths and divert the modest savings (if any) from dropping the other to other worthy educational or open-access tools, like LII.

Quite apart from the fiscal responsibility it would demonstrate, it would underscore to students the need be flexible in choosing and using tools. Especially if the school switched major provider every or every-other year (as some law firms might as they seek lower costs), the intangible values of an open-access, permanent repository would be made plain.

]]> By: Carl Malamud http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/01/14/sustainability/#comment-28 Carl Malamud Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:16:48 +0000 http://blog.law.cornell.edu/tbruce/2009/01/14/sustainability/#comment-28 I can sympathize 100%, based on my recent experience trying to keep Public.Resource.Org in business and also on past experience running operations-oriented nonprofits at the Internet Multicasting Service and chairing the Internet Systems Consortium. No matter how many $1b closed markets we help disintermediate or how much we help our chosen industries (today legal, in the past financial markets, patents, and others), industry rarely steps in to pay their fair share or to invest in their own future. So, operations end up getting paid for by a few far-sighted individuals making contributions instead of those who benefit the most. The legal profession has failed miserably in investing in it's own future. LII, in particular, should be rolling in dough considering the immense benefit it has provided to working lawyers, law students, and law schools. I can sympathize 100%, based on my recent experience trying to keep Public.Resource.Org in business and also on past experience running operations-oriented nonprofits at the Internet Multicasting Service and chairing the Internet Systems Consortium.

No matter how many $1b closed markets we help disintermediate or how much we help our chosen industries (today legal, in the past financial markets, patents, and others), industry rarely steps in to pay their fair share or to invest in their own future. So, operations end up getting paid for by a few far-sighted individuals making contributions instead of those who benefit the most.

The legal profession has failed miserably in investing in it’s own future. LII, in particular, should be rolling in dough considering the immense benefit it has provided to working lawyers, law students, and law schools.

]]>