4/7/10
Are You a Leader or a Follower?
After watching the latest TED Talk by Derek Sivers on "how movements really get started", I recalled how I understood how to leverage Twitter. Derek talks about how movements start not with a leader but with its first follower. For what is a leader but a nut case until he is followed?
As you might remember, I am a big fan of Ashton Kutchner. I think he is completely under-estimated as a marketer. In fact, I think that is probably his biggest strength: he is willing to act a fool in order to laugh all the way to the bank.
When I first started on Twitter, I watched him and Demi interact with each other. And I realized something: they had a tacit agreement to retweet each other's tweets. Of course, we all know that when you retweet something your exponentially exposing someone else's work to your followers. But what if you had an agreement between three people to retweet each other's tweets?
Yeah, you got it. When 3 gee--errr--people retweet each other's tweets, it just takes off like a whirlwind.
Just one more reason to encourage companies to embrace social media--the whole is oh so much more than the sum of its parts.
I am happy just be a lowly follower ... ;)
4/6/10
Children's Book Version of the Peer Monitor Economic Index
With my idea in my head, a PDF of the report in hand, a free account to StoryJumper.com, and a CD-ROM full of clipart I bought at a used book store, I was ready to make my first
The process wasn't entirely smooth, but for something that I really only spend about 90 minutes on total (if that...) it was a lot of fun to do. I showed the finished product to Mark Gediman and he seemed to like the fact that it was only a 15 page children's book that wouldn't tax most attorneys he knows. I'm sure that there are a lot better story writers out there than me... so, next time you have to give a report to a group of attorneys, give this a try. It might get them to pay attention and even learn a thing or two to take back to their office and share with the other
4/5/10
Could Legal Publishing Survive on iPad Only Books?
In the
past 25+ years, there have basically been three types of electronic legal
publishing. First there was the "terminal" publishing, where the
print material was transcribed into a vendor locked format that could only be
accessed through a specific machine that you purchased directly from the
publisher. Next, the vendor "program" publishing where the resource
was no longer locked into a specific machine, but rather ran on your personal
computer through a vendor supplied program and accessed the information through
an Internet connection or through locally based CD-ROM resources. Finally came
what we know refer to as the "Cloud" computing model, which is simply
the latest buzz word for accessing the information with a standard Internet
browser through a secured connection. Many of us think that the first two
methods of publishing have gone away, but if you think about it, both seem to
be finding a resurgence in popularity, and publishers are wondering if they can
exclusively move some of their products away from print and survive solely on a
vendor locked format like the iPad.
Like it or not, it does seem that the idea e-publishing finally reached a tipping point with the Amazon Kindle where people (including myself) finally bought into the idea that they could actually read an entire book in electronic format. In my opinion, there were three or four reasons behind the Kindle succeeding where other e-publishing formats failed.
- E-ink made the text
readable
- Having the support and
backing of Amazon made me comfortable
- Downloading books
wirelessly made it easy
- No monthly fees to
maintain the Kindle satisfied my 'cheap' side
Let's face it, the Kindle
represents a paradigm shift in how readers view the traditional publishing
world, but it was simply the first transition in what will probably be a decade’s
long shift.
The biggest complaints I've heard
about the Kindle is the fact that there is no backlighting, the e-ink is black
and white only, the size is too small (Kindle I and II) or too bulky (Kindle
DX), and that although the text looks like the print in a book, the "look
and feel" of the book is just not there. Now with the iPad, it seems that
all of those issues are answered. So was the Kindle simply an opening act,
simply warming up the crowd so that Steve Jobs could swoop in with his iPad and
wow the crowd with what they really paid to see? Probably... but it is too
early in the game to know for sure.
How about on the publisher's side
of the issue? Does the iPad give them something that the Kindle, or PDF, or
other forms of electronic publishing not offer? If you think about it, most
legal publishers completely ignored the Kindle publishing phenomenon. Why was
that?? What exactly does a legal publisher need from an e-publishing format in
order to be comfortable putting their material out there? My basic knowledge
tells me that they want the following things.
- E-publishing should be
cheaper than print publishing.
- The publisher must be
able to set the price.
- E-publishing should
allow me to protect the Intellectual Property of the publisher's work.
- There has to be a public
acceptance of the e-publishing format.
- There has to be a de
facto publishing standard that all legal publishers adopt.
For legal publishing, the Kindle
probably came up short in all of these topics; maybe with the exception of
number one (cheaper to publish). How many of these do the iPad answer?? Perhaps
all of them... although it may be too early to tell on number four's public
acceptance issue and number five's vendor format adoption.
The biggest problem with legal
publishers relying on the iPad as their platform for electronic publishing is
that they are really locking themselves into a partnership with a company that
is extremely proprietary --closed
systems vs. open. There is also such a cult of personality surrounding
Steve Jobs, which you have to wonder what will happen to it once he is no
longer around to guide it. Legal publishers also have to consider what to do
when the next big product is released... say the HP
Slate. Pretty much all of that work that was put into making the
publication work in the iPad format will have to be done all over again to make
it work in the 'next big thing.' Same as with all those companies that created
iPhone apps who then wanted to make it available in other formats. They
basically had to start from scratch to make it work for a Blackberry or Android
or Palm. Most didn't even bother to convert it, thus locked themselves into a
single vendor format with a small but vocal user base. If legal publishers go
with the iPad, will they find themselves locked into a closed format and simply not
port their product over to other formats simply
because doing so creates tips the scale of issue number one above? It's
definitely something they'll need to think about. The e-publishing revolution
has definitely begun... it will be interesting to see which side the legal
publishing world decides to join.
4/2/10
From "Foolish" Thursday to "Good" Friday
- SLAW.CA sold to Google; Google Sold to China
Good reason to test out Google's Chinese Translator, eh? - AVVO Singles
Seems some of the commenters have a high opinion of themselves... might explain why they're still single. - White House desperately turns to NY Personal Injury Law Blogger to bring a spark to its boring blog
My favorite part was the pic with Eric Turkewitz and Pres. Obama where Eric is either a ghost or the whitest man on earth.
The other thought was that we were entertaining the offer to sell the blog to WestlawNext and would only be available through the "Used to be Free Blogs" Database at $3400.00 an hour. But that LexisNexis, Bloomberg and Wolters Kluwer were making counteroffers and it was becoming a bidding war on who would buy-out the 3 Geeks. Actually, if anyone at WestlawNext, LexisNexis, Bloomberg or Wolters Kluwer is reading this... think about it (we still all want to retire to some small Caribbean island... see #10 of my 2010 projections.) We decided not to run with that story since the "we've been bought by Google" was making its rounds about the blogosphere yesterday, so we thought it had been overdone.
Now it's Good Friday and some of us have to ask for forgiveness for our Thursday follies. For all those partners at a Houston firm that saw my post yesterday about SCOTUS adopting iPad formatting (and buying it hook, line and sinker... I'm sorry.) For those single attorneys that were really hoping that AVVO Singles was finally your path to true happiness... well... I'm sorry... but for a completely different reason.
For all of you poor souls that have to work today (myself included), I'll be doing a live Webinar/Podcast later today with some other poor law librarians that also didn't get the day off. We'll cover how budget cuts are impacting law school's ability to teach and train students legal research skills and what that means for those baby lawyers that are coming your way.
Until then... I'm going to go order this...
4/1/10
Law Students - Why 'Brief' a Case When You Can 'Wiki' It?
Wikipedia Entry:
Background
Accident
Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a new Audi 100 LS automobile from Seaway Volkswagen, Inc. in Massena, New York, in 1976.[1] The following year, as Kay Robinson passed through Oklahoma on Interstate 44 en route to the Robinsons' new home in Arizona, the Audi was struck from the rear by a drunk driver in a 1971 Ford Torino. The impact of the collision itself did not directly injure any of the Robinsons, but the crash resulted in the Audi's doors jamming shut and a puncture in the car's gas tank. A fire then severely burned the trapped Kay Robinson and her two children riding in the Audi, Eva and Sam.[1]
Lawsuit
The Robinsons did not bring a suit against Lloyd Hull, the drunk driver. He had no insurance or assets and was therefore judgment proof. The Robinsons claimed that a product defect in the car led to the injuries they sustained...
This is a C-Student's dream!! Not to mention a Cheap C-Student's dream because now they don't have to go out and buy one of those briefing supplement books (I assume they are still being sold at the off-campus books stores, right??)
I don't know if law students of today know this, but we used to have to go to a little slimy bookstore/copyshop/pawnshop to copy class notes from someone that took Prof. C's CrimLaw II class two years ago, and had to pay 10¢ a page!! That's if Prof. C hadn't already gone down to the bookstore/copyshop/pawnshop and walked out with the original copy telling the owner to 'sue him' if he wanted to. (Prof. C was one bad MoFo... and I don't mean the law firm.)
I stopped my research (in other words, no more Google searching) at this point, but I did wonder if there were more 'advanced' cites out there for C students that were aspiring to become B- students. Someone let me know if there are online social communities that allow you to correspond with other law students to discuss these cases. If there isn't, I may have found my new path to riches and fame. I'll have to do some more 'research' on that subject.
Although many law students may be disheartened by how much law school costs, that they'll have thirty years of student loans to pay back, and they're entering what could be the darkest time in the history of law firm hiring... at least they can sleep well knowing that they can at least show up to their CivPro II class in the morning with a fully briefed case and the hope that the Prof will call on someone else that day.
US Supreme Court Phases Out PDF - Embraces Apple’s iPad Format (and Money)
This morning, William Knott, a spokesman for the US Supreme
Court, made a surprise announcement that the US Supreme Court will phase out
releasing court opinions in PDF format and will begin releasing all Court
materials to fit Apple’s new iPad format. The multi-million dollar agreement between
SCOTUS and Apple launches a new approach for the Court to push information to
the public and at the same time generating much needed revenue to support the
Federal Court System. Knott justified
the move by saying, “With the downturn in the economy, and the legislature’s
refusal to adequately fund the Federal Courts, we’ve decided to look for
additional funding through corporate sponsorships.”
Back in January, the Court handed down the Citizen United decision (Knott apologized that the decision is currently only available in the Court’s old PDF format), which ruled
that corporations and labor unions could contribute to political campaigns. Apparently, the Court has interpreted that
decision not only for campaigns, but also for other governmental contributions,
including itself. “Hey, why should some
schmoe congressman from New Jersey
In addition to the agreement with Apple, Knott also
hinted that for the right price, the Court would be willing to sell ad space
within the opinions themselves. “My God,
look at all the white-space that will be available in the iPad format,” Knott
adds. “I’m not saying it’s a done deal, but we are looking into the option of monetizing the Court’s
opinions. We’re just keeping our options
open at this time.” Knott assured us
that the ads would be “tasteful” and would have absolutely no influence on the
Court should any of the advertisers have matters brought before them. The ads, tentatively referred to as "CourtSense", will be similar to the Google Adsense model in order to sell contextual ads within the opinions based not only on keywords within the opinions but the user's own browsing habits and email content.
When I asked William Knott why the Court thought that the
public would not find the idea of the US Supreme Court taking money directly
from corporations and unions as a “payoff”, Knott stood up and poked me in the
chest and screamed, “Google does the same thing with its new Scholar website,
and they don’t need to take taxpayer money to support their operations, do
they?? Americans should be happy that
their justice system doesn’t need to ask them anymore to shell out their hard-earned
tax dollars to support the Courts. By
opening the Court to corporate money, tax dollars can be reallocated to
building what Americans really want, and that's more prisons! So for America
The new format should be rolled to Apple Retail Stores or decisions can be downloaded directly from iTunes at about the time we
release our April Fool’s Day post in 2011.
[note: April Fools!]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
