I'm presenting on Monday morning at the CALI Conference for Law School Computing here at UNLV. Here's the program summary of the session I'm co-leading with Prof. Megan Chaney:

What Can You Do for Me? Using Web Technology to Expand Library Service for Law School Clinics
Audience: All
Technical Level: Low

With experiential learning playing a prominent role in legal education, law school librarians need to expand the level of service they provide to law school clinics, moving beyond scholarship and curriculum support, offering the same kind of practice support found in law firms.

Professors Boone and Chaney argue that clinics and libraries must make some fundamental changes in the ways they work together. This includes the implementation of digital library technologies for clinics, as well as the creation of a new professional clinical position: clinic library coordinator.

The presenters will demonstrate some of the methods they have used this semester to implement these changes, including a walk-through of an clinic website that incorporates knowledge management for student case practice, electronic research tools for practice and scholarship support, course management for the classroom, enhanced communication tools, and full case management, all using open-source tools.

Tom Boone
Head of Electronic and Information Services
University of Nevada William S. Boyd School of Law
tom dot boone at unlv dot edu

Megan F. Chaney
Visiting Associate Professor of Law
University of Nevada William S. Boyd School of Law
megan dot chaney at unlv dot edu

CS-SIS Breakfast Meeting: Connecting Big Dots

John Mayer, Center for Computer Assisted Legal Instruction

There are a number of "big dots" with problems to solve.

Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is an organization funded by federal government that gives money to organizations who provide legal aid to low income people. The federal government is currently shrinking, so LSC must find ways to become more efficient.

Courts are seeing an increasing number of people representing themselves. This forces judges to serve as law professors for litigants in their courtrooms.

Law libraries are being used less and less by lawyers, but more and more by the general public. This forces librarians to instruct inexperienced pro se patrons in how to perform legal research.

Law students, as always, need more on-the-ground experience while in law school to prepare them for practice.

There has to be a way to connect these dots and solve their problems simultaneously...

Recently, LSC decided to require legal aid organizations within a single state to join forces on a single website in order to receive funding. One example of this is probono.net, where organizations receive web space on the site using a content management system. Another is Illinois Legal Aid Online, a site for legal aid organizations in Illinois that provides information designed for three different audiences: pro se patrons, pro bono attorneys, and legal aid attorneys.

The Center for Computer Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) became involved in these projects through The Center for Access to Justice and Technology (A2J) at Chicago-Kent College of Law. A2J walks pro se users through the process of filling out a legal form rather than just giving them a blank form. The system takes things one question at a time, explaining information one issue at a time. To aid in the creation of these systems, CALI created A2J Author, which allows creators of A2J content to break a form down into a series of steps using a graphical interface to simplify the authoring process. When a law changes, or if a different jurisdiction reuses another's form, it is a simple process to make changes. As with CALI Lesson authoring system, an A2J author can view the entire form process as flow chart.

When an A2J user finishes a form, the system currently sends the answers provided into a HotDoc system that generates a completed hard copy of the form that the user can print and file themselves. The next logical step for CALI and A2J is automated electronic filing of these forms.

Currently, pro bono efforts typically involve courts, legal services, and legal education, but there needs to be a way to involve law libraries and lawyers in this process -- and to get law students involved while they're still in school. CALI is still trying to develop a way to make this happen.

So far, members of the organization have brainstormed many interesting (and sometimes humorous) ideas so far, but none have been workable. These include:

Virtual Legal Aid
A system for providing legal aid online that is similar to virtual reference service in libraries.

MyLawsuitSpace.com
A website where users could help one another with various legal problems. Of course, this leads to problems with the unauthorized practice of law, but people are already using the web for legal advice anyway.

Law students as "pre-authors"
Student writing explanatory text about the law.

Mentor eBay
Need legal help? Post your problem and price you're willing to pay for help. Attorneys then bid to take your case.

YouTube Law Guides
Online video tutorials about the law. (There is already one judge who is posting his sentencing hearings on YouTube.)

There are many problems with connecting these big dots in a single legal aid project. For one, different jurisdictions and local practices make online resources problematic. With the internet, there is always the risk of unauthorized practice of law (though this warning may just be protectionist propaganda by local attorneys who perceive online services as competition for clients. The quality of online information is always questionable, so there needs to be some evaluation of authority (and aren't librarians in a perfect position to help with this already?). There are also a number of second order effects that will be created by the online system CALI envisions, including electronic filing and an increase in lawsuits, and these must all be taken into account. There is also the question of how to provide incentives to students to encourage them to participate. Paying them is problematic, which leaves course credit as the only other obvious alternative.

Over at CALIopolis, CALI Executive Director John Mayer has the end of semester survey results from the Legal Education Podcasting Project (LEPP). The project, conducted during the Winter/Spring 2006 semester, involved about 30 law professors who recorded their classroom lectures and/or created weekly audio summaries and disseminated the audio files via a podcast feed.

The surveys, completed by students enrolled in the affected classes, provide some interesting data. Despite the podcasting name (inspired by the Apple iPod), over three quarters of the participants used a personal computer to listen to the podcasts. Only a little over 16% used a portable MP3 player.

Perhaps most notably, there was no real indication that the availabilty of a class podcast resulted in more absences by students. 85.5% of students reported that they attended classes with podcasts as much or more often than their other classes.

I've been podcasting this summer for my online Advanced Legal Research class. The interesting thing about my experience is that the podcasts aren't a supplement to the classroom lecture. They ARE the classroom lecture. Most of my students probably don't even really know what podcasting is, but they seem to have embraced the format nonetheless. I recently posted a discussion question on the class blog soliciting suggestions for how law schools could improve legal research instruction. By and large, the responses seemed to indicate that an online research course was exactly what they wanted, both for its convenience and its reflection of an increasingly electronic dependent world.

And I'd say that bodes well for CALI's podcasting push. Mayer says plans are already under way for LEPP II.

Visit CALIopolis for more of Mayer's analysis of the survey results, or simply download the complete survey results in PDF format.

The Social Web and Higher Education
Nicholas Drury, Duke University School of Law
Scott Lenger, Duke University School of Law

There are several habits and characteristics of today's online users. They seek out community, and any non-community information flows in to that community through rss feeds and aggregation. More and more, these users are "always on" thanks to technologies such as instant messaging and phones with internet access. There are many modes of receipt for these users: phones, palmtops, tablets, UMPCs, aggregators, and desktop widgets to name just a few.

Content consumption is increasingly a social endeavor thanks to tools such as social bookmarking. Content distribution still occurs via email, but more and more it occurs through "new" tools like RSS and APIs (the latter of which enables so-called "mash-ups" in which multiple online tools are layered on top of one another to create new tools with new uses; examples include Frappr Maps, CrimeMAPS, and Rollyo).

Games have become an important part of the social web with the popularity of interactive games such as World of Warcraft and Second Life.

People's online identities are becoming increasingly important in their lives and are no longer a fully separate concept from their offline self. People are now using their online identities to develop relationships, begin deals, and generate ideas.

Content production is vastly different than it was just a few years ago. Anyone can produce content now, in the form of blog posts, podcasts, reviews, and forum posts.

Because of these develpments, users now expect to be able to review and comment and discuss. They expect microcontent availability. If we don't get involved, we're just standing in the way

There are several common practices of the social web. For one, the individual is a contributor of content. This is illustrated with blogs, wikis, and forums (e.g., The Faculty Blog). Another common practice is interaction with that content, as seen in blogs, discussion boards, and tagging (e.g., Newsvine). Yet another common practice is that content is kept separate from location, as made possible by RSS feeds and APIs (e.g., LibraryThing). A final common practice is the integration of all this content from disparate sources (e.g., CaseWiki:Map, combination of a wiki on top of a Google Map)

How does one develop a successful social webspace? First, determine the audience. Is it internal or external? Do you need user authentication? Are you appealing to students? Academics? Alumni? Next, decide how to moderate the webspace. Will it be user moderated or staff moderated? Is there a way to implement automated moderating? Next, you must figure out how to develop critical mass. Should you limit the scope? Can you use use external applications? What about using some form of networking/blogroll/feeds? Next, you should figure out how to provide value for your users. This may include creating a simple interface, short urls, and strong content. Finally, make sure you choose the right tools for your webspace. Which online mapping service best suits your needs? Are there reliable open source options? Is there adequate technical support?

There are plenty of examples of integrating social web applications in legal education already, they include the Suffolk University Law School's "Legal News"; the University of Virginia School of Law's extensive use of RSS feeds, the Case School of Law's "Saddam Hussein Trial Blog"; the Duke School of Law's "Law & Technology Review" iBlawg; and the Berkman Center's CyberlawWiki.

Some further areas to be considered:
1) The implication of MySpace
2) How to consistently present content outside of your website
3) Tagging and folksonomy (methods for nontraditional searches to be effective)
4) Commenting apart from blogging
5) The growth of APIs (what happens when they begin charging or including advertising?)

'Piping Hot Content' from Your Library via CALI ClassCaster IntraBlogs
Michael Samson, Wayne State University Law School

With the help of CALI Classcaster, Wayne State now has IntraBlogs for faculty, government documents, information technology, computer labs (for student news), and library staff (reference).

The tools used over the life of the project include Bloglines, Blogger, and CALI Classcaster. Initially, the IntraBlogs were created with Blogger. The pros of using blogger include the ability to integrate e-mail, support for adding team members to a multi-user blog, the availability of add-ons for such things as VoIP, statistics, pictures, spam-blocking, and mobile devices. With Blogger, remote access to the IntraBlogs was achieved through either Remote Desktop connections or a virtual private network.

There were, however, several cons associated with the use of Blogger. For one, separate blogs had to be created for each and every blog, meaning there was no ability to administer them all together. There was no file server for hosting files directly with Blogger. There was also no calendar support. Finally, Blogger offered no ability to password-protect blogs to hide them from general consumption.

Why did WSU switch to Classcaster? It offered a wide range of tools, including blogs, podcasting, VoIP, and video. Users could assign categories to their posts which could be integrated with RSS feeds. Classcaster also offered the file server and calendar WSU desired. Notably, CALI offers 24/7 support for its Classcaster blogs.

There are several reasons for faculty at all law schools to use Classcaster. First the technical support mentioned above can help non-techie professors tremendously. The tools can maintain use statistics that can show faculty how widely a blog is being used. Unlike some tools, Classcaster offers the ability to suppress comments to protect against unwanted comments or spam. There is also a plugin center to administer the various add-ins that are available.

So far, three of the IntraBlogs at WSU are using Classcaster: the library, Professor Peter Henning's Professional Responsibility podcast, and the Michigan Association of Law Libraries. Professor Henning's podcast was a part of CALI's Legal Education Podcasting Project which took place during the Winter 2006 semester and involved over 50 law faculty across the country. The professors were asked to record and post recordings of class lectures or summaries. All were provided with recording hardware and web support via instructions, digital tools, and screencasts.

Prof. Henning says podcasting is very easy to do but requires discipline. In his class it was definitely an attention getter for the students. The recordings provided depth and clarified class issues. They also provided flexibility and enhanced students' comfort level with the material.

Students indicated that they liked the idea of class podcasting. They said it improved comprehensive and retention and allowed them to learn a new technology in the process. The time commitment was minimal, requiring only an additional 20-30 minutes per week.

What's the future of podcasting at WSU? Prof. Henning says he'll be doing it again, and the Dean plans to begin podcasting shortly.

Samson finished by providing a demonstration of a Classcaster blog, including the live creation of a blog post on his library's system. He also showed off the ability to add video files to the posts from tools like Jumpcut, Stickam, and YouTube. Members of the audience asked several questions during the demo, one of which even caused Samson to discover a feature of Classcaster of which he had been previously unaware.

"Just Say No to Outsourcing" - Developing an In-House Info System to Take Care of Your Daily Needs
Mohyeddin Abdulaziz, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Erica DeFrain, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Lisa Wagenheim, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Garnette Knoll, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law
Paul G. Kealey, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law

Abdulaziz began by providing an overview of why the Arizona team opted to build its own web systems for various law school services rather than simply purchase pre-built commercial solutions to meet their needs. For one thing, they had specific cost, need and availability requirements not met by other tools. They needed complete control over their systems, so only a flexible solution would do. All their systems would share core date, so integration among many systems was essential. With commercial tools, you only get what you pay for. Therefore, more functionality means more money. Similarly, with a commercial product, the ability to supplement the product is greatly inhibited. This means no customized interface or other enhancements.

The team opted instead to build its own systems using ColdFusion because it's very easy to learn. This allowed them to create browser-based applications, which meant no user training would be required.

The team's list of in-house systems built with this solution include dynamic websites, intranet sites, and services for academics, admissions, development, students, career services, financial services, IT, and the law library.

DeFrain and Wagenheim then discussed the in-house web development project in the library. They first noted that the librarians involved were not computer scientists, so they needed an easy learning curve. The projects were essentially being conducted in their spare time, so a time saving solution like a dynamic website was appropriate.

In the past, the library had a static site that was extremely time consuming to design and edit. There was no method for authenticating different users and there was no remote access provided for the the library's electronic resources. They designed the new site to have one starting point for all resources, dynamic content, fully searchable resources, and authentication for users, including remote access.

In addition, DeFrain worked on side project: ArizonaNativeNet, a web portal for indigenous resources including health, governance, law, and education. This site had limited funds and a part-time webmaster, however she was able to rework code from other law school sites to build the portal.

By working in an open environment, team members were able reuse and recycle their code for any need and could give and receive code to and from each other and other university members. ColdFusion was the key to this atmosphere of sharing.

Next, Kealey demonstrated how ColdFusion works in practice by demonstrating the University of Arizona Law School's On-Campus Interview system.

Under the old analog system, an employer would fill out a form and place it in a folder.
Students would select employers from the folder and drop their own materials into a box. Those materials were then sent to the employer who would select students to interview. Selected students would then choose an interview slot.

For the new system, a low price tag, minimal time investment, and absolute flexibility were the most important considerations. Several alternatives were considered, but they were all too costly and didn't do exactly what was needed. Instead, the team opted to create a one-stop integrated solution that was 100% web-based and provided comprehensive scheduling functionality.

Using little more than a series of web forms, the new system allows employers to register online. Students create web profiles and select from the employers' web-based materials. Employers review student materials and make selections within the system, and students then choose an interview slot, also entirely within the system. A schedule is then transmitted to the employer electronically.

Knoll wrapped up the discussion by covering how the project will work with third party expansions and other future development. Because they used ColdFusion, any SQL/Access based application can use data from other law school systems, including that generated by commercial applications. The team simply couldn't get the functionality it needed with off-the-shelf packages, and building its own system provides the law school with a fully customizable solution for today and the future.

Implementing Tools for Collaboration Across Boundaries
Steve Nelson, Marquette University School of Law
Dax Phillips, Marquette University School of Law

The Marquette Law School Media and Technology Group has implemented several software tools to promote collaboration between librarians, IT staff, faculty, and patrons. Until recently, Group staff was scattered across several locations in an old building and reported to several different people. This created confusion among users about who was responsible for what.

Prior to changes, tech support for the law school was run through an online help desk run by campus IT. This meant all requests were initially handled by staff outside the law school before being filtered back. Group members communicated by personal email, meaning individual Group members couldn't keep track of what others in the Group were doing, or how much they knew (or didn't know) about ongoing projects. In addition, Group data was maintained on a shared campus network space -- on which there was little to no available space.

Despite these limitations, the Group's customers were satisfied. However, they still remained confused about who had responsibility for specific areas.

The Group's first changes were administrative in nature. First, staff centralized all the law school technology services into a single service point. This involved moving everyone into one office and incorporating all law school units perceived by users to be "technology" into a single department.

With the administrative changes in place, the Group adopted a number of new tools. Email remained a primary method of communication, however a single email address was established for users to contact Group members, and all Group members received messages sent to the address. Similarly, a single hotline number was created for users to reach group members by phone.

At the beginning of each semester, Group members contacted each faculty member and explained the technology tools and services available to them in the classroom to which they were assigned. The Group also offered to demo these tools and services in a one on one session.

The Group began using Microsoft Sharepoint, which enabled members to make documentation available to everyone and provided a platform for them to share and collaborate on these items.

Also, the Group adopted Microsoft Communicator for its internal messaging needs. Since the entire campus used this tool, Group members could communicate easily with University organizations beyond their own walls.

A number of social tools were adopted for current awareness purposes. The first of these was del.icio.us, which provided shared bookmarks for everyone in the group. Members also began using Furl for private tagging and bookmark purposes. Furl also assisted in the creation of table of contents subscriptions for members of the law faculty. Group members installed an RSS reader (RSS Bandit) on new faculty computers and pre-populated the program with subscriptions tailored to each professor's interests. A Group blog was established to bundle and market Group services and resources to users. The blog included several popular features, including a virtual jukebox, del.icio.us tags, and a Flickr badge. Finally, the Group used AirSet to create a system of calendars for everything from equipment checkout to personal schedules to room reservations.

RSS moves all information within this new system to everyone involved inside and outside the group, thus ensuring that everyone knows what's going on. And when everyone knows what's going, there is a huge incentive for Group members to not drop the ball.

Podcasting for Fun and Non-Profit: Exploring the Possibilities of New Media
James Milles, Buffalo School of Law

Jim Milles provided an excellent overview of podcasting technology, engaging his audience with questions that turned his session into an hour-long conversation rather than a simple lecture.

Milles first discussed the defining characteristics of podcasts. The first is syndication using RSS feeds. A podcast is essentially just a blog with MP3 enclosures. The second characteristic is portability, the ability to listen to the podcast anywhere using an iPod (or other MP3 player), a PDA, a cell phone, and other portable devices. Statistics indicate that most people still listen to podcasts on their desktop computer, but portability is growing, particularly with young people. The last characteristic is seriality. To have a true podcast, a creator must have commitment and continuity.

Milles then played excerpts from two interviews with law professors involved in CALI's Legal Education Podcasting Project. The first subject said that more and more law schools are using podcasting in classes, and that the practice is seen by some as a possible replacement for traditional legal education. The second subject, however, defended the traditional form of legal education, but said he still saw a place for podcasts in that system. Afterwards, Milles indicated that he believed that while podcasts may not be the best method for classroom instruction, podcasts might be better suited to other class elements.

Podcasts can also serve many different functions for law schools than classroom lectures, such as education, entertainment, public relations, journalism, and community building.

In order for a podcast to truly succeed, it must reach beyond a captive audience. This requires compelling content, acceptable sound quality, and entertainment value. Milles played excerpts from some podcasts that illustrate this formula for success. Screaming Halibut provides entertainment in the form of sketch comedy, CitizenShift provides community information, and participants in Vloggercon illustrate the concept of citizen journalism in which news becomes more of a conversation between journalists and citizens than traditional news reports.

What role can the law school play in this wider conversation? Milles himself produces Check This Out!, a podcast for and about law librarians.

There are plenty of choices for recording and editing software, including Audacity (for recording/editing), GarageBand (for recording/editing), Skype (for making internet phone calls), and Audio Hijack Pro (for capturing computer audio, including Skype calls). Milles also mentioned the practice of "double ending," a recording method in which two Skype users each record their end of a conversation, then sync the recordings later to create a high quality recording.

As for hardware, all you need is a computer, a microphone, a digital recorder, and headphones.

Podcasters can add music to their recordings but avoid copyright hassles with "podsafe" music from providers like the Podsafe Music Network, Magnatune, and MySpace.

Podcasting communities have recently arisen in which members share content with one another, trade advice, and cross-promote one another's podcasts. Two such communities are Rogic Podcast Conglomerate and the Rabble Podcast Network.

Milles would to see a conglomerate/community in legal education podcasting. As illustrated by the Long Tail, we may be a narrow interest, but everyone involved can share information easily thanks to technologies like podcasting.

Milles ended by asking the audience a couple of questions to ponder. First, will a law school podcasting community emerge? And second, is there a broader audience for law school podcasting? Legal podcasting could very well be seen as a public service. This may take the form of something as simple as a podcast from a law school clinic or as ambitious as a means for providing open access to legal knowledge (not just legal scholarship).

Update: Jim's Keynote slides are now available over at Check This Out!

Legal Journals and Digital Publishing
John Joergensen, Rutgers University
Wayne Miller, Duke University School of Law
Gary Moore, Hofstra University School of Law

Wayne Miller briefly took the floor first and discussed the current progression that journals take from creation to publication and surmised that our goal should be to provide fully citable and structured free versions of law school publications on the internet.

Gary Moore was up next. He proposed immediately that student law school publications should move to exclusively online publication. There are already examples of successful non-commercial sites which allow access to full text online journal publications: Highwire Press Portal, JSTOR, etc.

Why do law schools still use print? Moore listed tenure standards, the safeguards in place at outside publishers, the common practice of journal routing in libraries, issues of prestige and publicity, and the availability of permanent archives as the most common reasons.

Moore pointed out that there are several inherent negatives for law school print publications, including cost (e.g., most law school publications operate in the red), time (e.g., production, printing, mailing, and delay of access in Hein Online), and the massive amounts of space used to store law review issues that no one ever uses.

It currently costs the Hofstra Law Review $35,000 to publish each year. This generates only $22,000 in revenue, meaning there is a net operating loss of $13,000. And that only includes the losses for one of Hofstra's publications.

Of 338 law school journals, 60% of them are currently not available online for free in any form. Why? Most do not own their own copyright. Restrictive agreements with Lexis, Westlaw, and Hein Online also contribute to this situation.

Hofstra puts its journals online. The authors own their own copyright, but the journals do retain the right to republish. This allows the school to publish online. Hofstra began with HTML articles in 1996, and eventually moved to PDF articles.

What are the benefits to digital publishing? Moore listed easy access, the ability to print on demand (no need for storage; cheap printing; selective printing), and the fact that is saves libraries a lot of money.

The Virginia Journal of Law and Technology and the Duke Law and Technology Review are the only exclusively online law journals in the market right now. Others have become defunct in the past because of a lack of consistent student interest and the fact that most lost schools don't accept digital documents for tenure consideration. This has a direct impact on these online journals. For example, in VJOLT only 1 in 5 articles were authored by tenure track faculty.

Are there costs? Sure: server costs, the cost of hiring a dedicated webmaster, and the costs of creating mirrored sites (which in Moore's estimation are essential).

But VJOLT illustrates all the benefits, too: greater worldwide exposure, lower total costs, and publication in a timely and relevant fashion.

Why should the push for digital publications happen now? Moore says there's no longer a lack of student interest and tenure standards are perhaps changing. The success of the SSRN clearinghouse shows there is interest in the medium. And don't forget, printing costs continue to rise.

Moore proposes that CALI form a consortium site for law school journals that will be free to the world. The issues that need to be resolved in order for this to work are routing, archiving, the stability of format, and consistency -- digital publications must be every bit as consistent as a print publication.

If we don't do this ourselves, Moore says a for-profit company will do it instead.

John Joergensen spoke next. He discussed the technical issues involved in preparing digital publishing for future access. The metadata must be robust, accessible, durable, and cost-effective. Growth will be unbounded which means complexity will also be unbounded. Data will grow beyond human control, but must still will be retrievable in a way that mirrors human behavior.

We must avoid proprietary and binary schemes. Also, the data must not be separated from the metadata. This is the problem with library catalogs -- the catalog metadata is separate from the work itself. This doesn't have to be the case with digital publications. Whenever possible, excess complexity must be avoided.

Joergensen proposes XML/RDF as the mechanism for building digital publications with data and metadata merged. It is a simple system that is made for metadata, but for which the actual content can be added as its own attribute for the document.

Wayne Miller returned to finish up the session. He believes that PDFs are not a long-term solution for durable digital publishing. It is extremely difficult to pull useful text from a PDF. It may be visually structured on the page, but the text has no structural units (paragraphs vs. footnotes). On Hein Online, the PDFs are images only while OCR is used to create a text version, and OCR is fairly good at what it does, but even small mistakes in character recognition can be significant.

Lexis and Westlaw, on the other hand, are high value services in the structure of their documents, but they are expensive, closed systems.

Word documents CAN be structured in a meaningful way within the data, not just a visual structure. At Duke, they are attempting to pull the valuable metadata from original Word documents. Using a commercial product called CambridgeDocs XDoc Converter, they translate this to a proprietary XML. Then another conversion afterward to DocBook schema cleans up the code. Once in this XML schema, it should be easy to create a system for converting the data to xhtml for use in a web browser.

All of this should encourage an open and accessible system. Law schools have access to the structured originals and stand directly behind the publications. Law schools, therefore, are uniquely positioned to create this system.

Friday Keynote: Learning by Design and Other Fallacies: What Behavioral Economics, Serendipity, and Procrastination Can Teach Us About Educational Technology
James Boyle, Duke University School of Law

Boyle spoke about what we all *think* we know and what we really don't know about technology.

He began with a lesson in behavioral economics. According to behavioral economists, people systematically do not act in the way that wealth maximizing rational people should behave. But this behavior is not random. In practice, we vastly overvalue potential losses and vastly undervalue potential gains. And this, according to Boyle, is why people buy extended warranties.

There are also similar patterns in the way we misperceive technology. For one thing, we are horrendously bad at predicting the uses of technology. The telephone, for example, was initially imagined by most as a one-to-many technology in which several users would simultaneously pick up their receivers to hear scheduled information (e.g., weather reports) or entertainment (e.g., the symphony). No one really saw it as the two way technology it became.

(Here Boyle noted that the most frequent early adopters of new technologies that eventually catch on with the general public are pornographers. However, he hoped to leave us with a more optimistic message than this.)

We are also systematically bad at predicting the power of open/commons/collaborative systems of innovation.

What is an open system? The English language is one. We don't have to pay to use English and can use it in any way we want. However, not all languages are open: Law French was a closed system.

In 1995, if someone conceived of a huge comprehensive encyclopedia containing all knowledge of human experience, we would have imagined a controlled, property rights restricted, centralized, print, corporately branded print resource. No one would have "designed" the internet as it is today. If it had been designed, it would have been a closed system, because given our druthers, we'd redesign Minitel and Encyclopædia Britannica over and over and over again.

That's not to say that all systems should be open. Some systems operate much better closed. Bank accounts and grade books are just two examples. But true innovation combines both open and closed systems, and we need a balance of the two.

How exactly does the human attitude towards technology resemble behavioral economics? We vastly overvalue closed systems and vastly undervalue open systems, thereby creating an imbalance of systems.

We as creators/providers have not fully embraced the idea that our users should also be our developers. To the greatest extent possible, we should push to have all of our educational material available to the general public. When information is made freely available, you discover uses, add-ons, and feedback you hadn't imagined.

Google Maps is a prime example of this. The layering of information onto the maps by users is precisely what makes Google Maps so exciting and interesting.

When data is made available to the public, we also find audiences we didn't know we had. When the government's Medline database became available to the public, no one expected lay people to use it heavily. But they did. And as annoying as an "informed" patient can be to physicians, that knowledge can greatly reduce the risk that malpractice will be committed.

How do we open legal information to the general public? We are all members of a community that has a responsibility to break down its professional rules and open its system. So don't just give people access to the information. Instead, let them add to and revise it.

A good example of this is Rice's Connexions. All educational information is added to the system in small modules. Then other users create roadmaps to lead people through the various modules. A module may be included within an infinite number of roadmaps for an infinite number of purposes. Still others come along and leave comments on all of this.

If we move to an open system, what should we expect to see on the legal front? Content providers will be very good at seeing the costs of allowing copying and very bad at seeing the benefits. To know this you need look no farther than the VCR, which movie studios tried desperately to ban -- and when they failed they made billions off the technology. And with the creation of an open system, you can expect existing content providers to and persuade Congress to protect them.

What about technology? We should expect people to be try and change the open nature of the personal computer, to close it off from the outside and only allow it to run approved protocols. This is precisely what proponents of Trusted Computing are already doing. Despite innovation, the dominant human instinct is to close the system.

Educational technology needs a balance between open and closed systems. Westlaw is a great product in many cases. However, there is great tension between open and closed legal information systems right now. Publishers can still make money, but there's no reason why they can't they improve access for and enrichment from users in the process.