Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Observer on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Mike Rich on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • anon on Privacy and Tattletales

    • orly lobel on At CELS, Hoping to Blog

    • harry brooks on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Michael H Schneider on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • flood pictures on Public opinion on same-sex marriage

    • gtownstudent on And Justache For All at GW Law

    • AF on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Maryland Conservatarian on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Daniel S. Goldberg on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

  •  

    Site Meter

The Hottest Internet Startup of 1960

posted by Scott Moss

Some legal research the other day unearthed a hilarious-in-retrospect account of the first online legal research service — a (pre-)internet startup from almost 50 years ago whose success-and-seediness story is eerily similar to those of more recent tech startups:

Law Research Service is a child of the computer age. In 1960, Hoppenfeld, a lawyer with some background in computer technology, perceived that computers could greatly facilitate legal research. He concluded that a practical system could be developed in which thousands upon thousands of court opinions would be fed into a computer, so that when a legal problem was submitted to the machine it would then select and retrieve all the relevant precedents . … [L]awyers would … pay an annual subscription and a small fee per inquiry. … Similar ideas for marrying computers to the law have been put forth but it seems that LRS was the first such legal information retrieval system to be tried commercially.

Sanders suggested a public offering which would raise not only enough money to cover the LRS’s debt … but would permit LRS to expand its computer library to cover decisions of the federal courts as well as those of the New York courts then already on tape.

Globus v. Law Research Service, 418 F.2d 1276 (2d Cir. 1969) (emphases added to the phrases that made me smile). I just wanted to share this as a nifty piece of legal history trivia, not so much comment on it… but I do have two quick points to make in the “more things change, the more they stay the same” department:

(1) The reported case was a now-familiar type of securities fraud lawsuit: alleging shady practices to raise capital for a tech startup.

(2) Between the financing problems and the “small” fee per inquiry business model: Is there something in the genetics of tech startup visionaries that they assume they can provide huge quantities of information to the masses without much means of actually making money?


 January 30, 2007 at 9:53 am   Posted in: Technology   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (8)

  1. Ubertrout - January 30, 2007 at 10:32 am

    The Law Research Service was involved in an awful lot of litigation it seems (Westlaw lists 26 cases in which it was a party, although many are unpublished), the last few concerning its bankruptcy.

  2. Jack S. - January 30, 2007 at 11:46 am

    No doubt a bit ahead of his time too. Had Chakrabarty and Diehr already occurred Hoppenfeld might have had one heck of a software/business method to patent and frustrate the Lexis/Westlaw monopoly.

  3. James Grimmelmann - January 30, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    Don’t mock the small fee; at scale, it’s a great business model. Of course, it’s even better if your business model will be self-funding at any scale, but Google and Yahoo were both launched without an obvious proven revenue model. Fractions-of-a-cent-per-search revenue has worked out quite well for them.

  4. Bruce Boyden - January 30, 2007 at 12:14 pm

    I felt the same way about this article from the Times archive a few months ago:

    http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0827.html#article

    You can tell from the language that the idioms of the information age and space exploration haven’t taken hold yet. E.g., “[a] correction so that the Mariner would pass the planet close to the planned distance of 10,000 miles was said to be well within the capabilities of the craft’s radio-activated rocket steering-motor.” In other words, they were able to uplink a course correction.

  5. Scott Moss - January 30, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Bruse — yeah, tech terms change quickly enough that in a few years, nobody even knows the old ones any longer; I was just watching an Ernie and Bert skit on YouTube with my daughter, and Ernie & Bert were talking about their “transistor radio.” I guess old radios used something called “transistors” but I don’t know why folks said that instead of just “radio”. It was jarring to hear Ernie using a term for a piece of electronic equipment whose purpose I don’t know.

  6. Bruce Boyden - January 30, 2007 at 3:14 pm

    I’m just barely old enough to remember common use of the term “transistor radio” (I may even have seen that Sesame Street episode first-run). Prior to transistors, radios had vacuum tubes — which made them huge and bulky, and more importantly they couldn’t be run on batteries. My Dad had a couple. “Transistor radios” were newfangled, smaller devices that you could carry around with you. They were the iPods of their day. It was just another way of saying portable or handheld radio.

  7. Ubertrout - January 30, 2007 at 4:10 pm

    Methinks there’s an interesting article in the early history of computerized legal research systems. A quick search of the NYT archive reveals a story about a proposal to put all the world’s law on a computer in Geneva (July 10, 1967), and two days later an article where someone excitedly announced that by the end of the year U.Pitt. Law would have the entire USC on tape.

    Four years before that, came an article about an “electronic law clerk” – a Univac computer for finding and printing precedents (December 3, 1963).

  8. IWasThere - January 13, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    It may seem hilarious in retrospect, but it wasn’t all “seedy”. It was a great idea, but the company struggled with obtaining the computer services and the terminals [the only way of online, other than telephone, communication in its day] to permit the customer to send queries and receive answers. The securities and fraud cases followed the canceled and breached contracts that made it impossible for LRS, Inc. to expand and grow its service and to continue in business.

    More than a decade later, a lot of lawyers were also laughing at Lexis when it was first rolling out its service.

    Not all technology catches on that quickly.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress