Slashdot Mirror
Cyber-Court in Michigan?
Mr. Obvious writes: "Probably a lot of people are sending in this link, but there's an interesting
article
over at the NY Times
(free registration still required, I believe) about how the Gov. of Mich. wants to set-up a "cybercourt" real soon,
in the hope of attracting business to the wet-and-soggy-state where I once lived, long, long ago. So, my question is: Does anyone else really think that the existence of a cyber-court would attract start-ups to Detroit, Grand Rapids or Kalamazoo? Somehow, I just can't see it, but I haven't chosen a location for a start-up lately, so maybe I'm just out of touch?"
Normally, you set a start-up up where there's electricity. Kalamazoo is way ahead of certain competition in this regard. FP?
The reference to not having chosen a location for a start-up was a little joke/reality check. The author admitted that he didn't know about that sort of thing since he hadn't done it.
Now settle down and go have some Sugar Smacks.
Bankruptcy is conducted exclusively in federal court.
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you need some.
.). This is part of the draw, and and is part of general corporate-friendly climate that draws so many businesses to Delaware for incorporation. Delaware was #1 in the friendly climate for a very long time, and is still a close #2 to Nevada.
HIstory suggests that it could be a draw. In particular, look at Delaware, which has separate Chancery Courts for business disputes (but don't confuse these with the historical Chancery Courts . .
hawk, esq.
One of the beauties of the net is that a business can start up anywhere, as long as they can get the necessary quality of employees connected.
Your programmers don't have to live in Kalmazoo, they can be in Orlando or Dallas or even Podunk, Arkansas.
Your lawyers can be in Delaware.
Your mail-order fullfillment can be in Seattle.
The modern world is so distributed, you can plunk a business down almost anywhere, and take advantage of lower local standards of living for filling the less-technical positions, or of captive audiences at small local universities for filling the lower-tier technical ones.
That's how two successful national businesses have managed to grow up out of Ada, Oklahoma, population 24,000.
(Never mind that both have serious quality-control issues, and one has been found by at least one court to be a scam.)
-
Article without registration.
:wq!
So, Michigan wants to set up a cyber-court, not so that people will move their Internet businesses to that state, but so that Internet businesses will *incorporate* in that state, but not have to physically travel there if they get hauled into court. The analogy to Delaware where there is a special court just for businesses incorporated in the state was made in the article.
The biggest problem is the division of our laws into state and federal laws. A state court can only decide state cases. Now, many business related cases fall into state courts. The law of contracts is almost entirely state law. Not that I want to make a Federal case out of it or anything, but many disputes in the Internet arena involve Federal and not state law: copyright, trademark, many employment disputes. This court will not handle those cases and the startup will need lawyers present in Michigan to attend any Federal district court cases and at least one attorney present in MI to receive summonses and other legal demands.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
What it will probably do is attract a lot of failing .coms to move there so they can go bankrupt in an e-friendly e-nvironment.
The state will undoubtedly be disappointed when it discovers that it attracted the poor rather than the rich.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
In fact, it sounds dangerous to set up a business there until the way the court works and makes judgements has been set down and proven out. By setting up there, a business has a strange liability that is unknown.
Cybercourt here is just a buzzword, used among governors and legislators for PR purposes, much as our marketroids have absconded with "object oriented" and "expert system." A state is sovereign only with respect to its territorial borders, and any extension of that jurisdiction is limited to specific constitutional constraints (under the Due Process Clause). Furthermore, nothing the State can do can extend that jurisdiction to the federal court subject matter that is most likely subject of much high-tech litigation (copyright, patents, trademarks, anti-trust), or to force jurisdiction where a litigant is lawfully entitled to remove to Federal Court.
That said, ARE THEY NUTS? Can you really, truly imagine that two litigants would find it a GOOD THING to have a complex, high-stakes lawsuit resolved by videoconference? Isn't it nuts enough that two businesses sophisticated enough to have a high-tech, high-stakes lawsuit believe that it would be better to pick six people off the street to resolve it than to settle the dispute themselves?
In Florida, we teleconference arraignments and some other criminal proceedings, as it is often more convenient to do things that way than to transport defendants from central booking just for an arraignment. Further, it is very common in preliminary hearings and motion practice for out-of-town or out-of-pocket lawyers to teleconference or videoconference?
But to hold an entire trial by videoconference? To ask a factfinder to judge the credibility of someone based upon their television appearance -- to permit a crafty lawyer to have "technical difficulties" just at the moment his client is losing it on the stand -- to permit all sorts of other mischief? Be real. The trial system is awkward enough as things stand. How does it benefit from being "cyberized?"
Seems like the idea of streamlining court cases by using technology to file briefs and using video-conferencing for oral arguments can stand on its own, separate of a technology court. Why not extend this to all court cases?
Also, I agree with the article that is is going to be a jurisdictional nightmare. I mean, just specifying which cases can make into a "technology" court is going to create a plethora of laws in and of itself. Think farming and you think, "old economy," but with bioengineering, would farming cases make it into this new court?
There's also the question of fairness. Why do technology companies get served up juriprudence on a golden technology tray while other "old economy" companies get to slog their way through the old court system? I think this introduces an anomoly/disruption in the proper flow of business, favoring new economy companies over old. Why train judges just on technology matters? Why not on other disciplines?
All in all, I think the intent of using technology and training of judges to speed up the slogging pace of the courts is good, but it should be applied universally, not to a specific industry. Otherwise, you're introducing market distortions that shouldn't be there.
----------------------------------
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
In fact, it sounds dangerous to set up a business there until the way the court works and makes judgements has been set down and proven out. By setting up there, a business has a strange liability that is unknown.
... Your Honor? ... Your Honor? ... Hello? Is anyone there?"
My thoughts exactly.
Also: Attending court proceedings by streaming video? What happens when the ISP suffers congestion? "I object, Your Honor! I can't hear what the witness said.
And then you get bogus claims of transmission trouble, DOS attacks, cracker attacks on the infrastructure (possibly sponsored by shady law firms), bias toward those with better internet feeds... And that's just the infrastructure of the trial!
Making it possible to file briefs and the like in a >regular court via the internet would make some sense (if you didn't have to buy into proprietary software and agree to its shrink-wrap contracts to do it). But setting up a new court means you've got a whole new set of procedural issues that are wide open until precedents are litigated. RISK!
A litigant (especially on the defense side) would be a fool to agree to have his case tried in such a "cybercourt".
Finally: Establishing a court with a focus on tech is a great business REPELLANT. Why would a company want to move to a state whose main selling point is that it's easier to be sued?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Then why is Silicon Valley in California (state income tax, high sales tax and extremely high gas tax)?
<JOKE>Of course! It's the CHEESE!</JOKE>
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
There are many sitauations in which a company must file legal briefs of some sort (or just legal paperwork) which would be expediated greatly by the use of this "cybercourt" (which, as has bee pointed out before, is nothing but a buzzword for a way to update the manner in which legal documents are handled -- basically now being able to use computer and electronic submission of more things than you used to be able to do).
I beleive that you are right in the fact that just the "cybercourt" itself will not really attract that many buisinesses (or start-ups for that matter, as that is what they are really trying to attract). What will attract them are the things that you lined out. The low taxes always attract buisinesses, and buisinesses tend to move towards the better educated workforce (or at least the workforce that is capable of learning).
However, if Michigan was able to offer the low taxes and this cybercourt, then they would be able to attract more distributed style buisinesses and startups. Where you would basically have a few programmers and people scattered about the country with their legal base in Michigan (and the key being that nobody would have to be there, including the lawyers as they would be able to do all of their work over the internet, trasmitting all the things that they need to rather than bringing it in by hand).
This is a great concept of bringing courts up to date with the modern world, which I hope actually happens in more places than just michigan (though I'm not sure about evidence being presented in streaming video).
So, when someone gets tried in cyber court, do they go to cyber jail, in their own cyber cell, where they get a laptop (with an Internet connection)?
Or maybe they restrict the Web pages and the IRC channels that the criminal can frequent.
Or, even worse, the judge unplugs the laptop.
Oh my.
The partners link quit working soon after the more recent article was posted. I haven't tried it in the past few days, so it might have been temporary. I finally registered myself an account, which you're free to use if you want. Username is "fuckmarketers" password is "fuckthemall".
Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
So, my question is: Does anyone else really think that the existence of a cyber-court would attract start-ups to Detroit, Grand Rapids or Kalamazoo?
No. The night life in Ann Arbor is enough to attract startups.
MmMMmmmm... Ann Arbor. The faded but salvagable grandeur and history of Detroit. The excitement of dodging potholes on the I-75 through Hamtramck. The friendly people, the eastern Mid-West "Can Do" attitude. I love Michigan.
I drive a 1976 Dodge Ram pickup truck; for winter traction, I've got most of a crushed Honda Prelude in the back. And my old Dodge feels far more at home flying down Woodward than it does flying down Yonge Street.
The ability to contest a parking ticket online, without having to take a day off work to avoid paying a $20 ticket, is just the icing on the cake. This is a good idea whose time has come.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Governor Engler is known for giving all of the State's computer jobs to companies that are run by his friends. For example, the DNR, Dept. of Parks and Recreation got a campground reservation system by some company in Boulder. It turns out that the president of the company was a college roommate of Gov. Engler. The program never did work completely, and finally the contract was over, the company had been paid and parks quit using this program. An incredible waste of money. When I worked for parks, if somebody came into the campground stating that they had made an online reservation, we used to honor it, because we had no method of checking to see if such a reservation was actually made.
A similar situation happened with privatising the Alcohol commission. That is why no bartenders/owners will ever vote for Engler again. Some bars had to wait up to 3 months in order to restock liquor (PLI in waterford had this problem).
I think of the cybercourt as an excuse for all of Engler's Cronies to come into the state and get away with illegal activities. Before you moderate this as flamebait, realize that I backed up all of my statements with hard facts. Then you can moderate it as flamebait, if you still choose.
Keeping
Not requiring a license to practice in Michigan is shady. So would the lawyer only need to be licensed in the state where the "pajamas and sticky-bun" reside, or what?
Also, what's with the pretentious"I haven't chosen a location for a start-up lately" crap in the post? The multitude of start-ups that you have started were before the fall of the Nasdaq? I mean, gimme a freakin' break!
Cheers to you Slashdot for continuing the tradition of MLP.
*DISLCAIMER* I haven't had my cup of coffee yet this morning.
It might not work, but I can see what's keeping the Gov. encouraged. Currently, Ann Arbor is attracting more and more online/IT businesses. There's decently cheap labor in Ann Arbor (read:college students), and the mentality there is fairly condusive. Having said this, it stands to reason that Engler would think that more and more businesses would take the leap of faith to come to good ole MI if he supported further growth /opportunities via cyber-courts.
It's not likely to be a huge draw though. Companies go through Delaware because there's a rich history of corporate law; the judges actually know what their doing, when to pierce the corporate veil, etc. What good is an online court system if the judges don't know encryption from Encarta?
"O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" She chortled in her joy.
All of this was done just about 20 years ago in RTP, NC, and it was very successful. That's also what happened in Boston, Dallas, and all of the other tech centers in the US. "cyber-courts" are not going to bring in business.
This one, I shall definitely watch - if it succeeds, this will be cool. If it fails - I hope that the concept isn't abandoned. At least Maryland is planning somethings similar as well.
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Judge> defendant, name and a/s/l?
onlook3r> What r u wearing under your robe, judge?
Defendent> 12/f/pakistan
Pros Attorney> bailiff, please kick onlook3r
There are many factors more important than "cybercourts" in selecting the location of a startup company. Yes, by the way, I've been there and done that. I chose locations for corporate headquarters based in large part on where I lived at the time, and set up operations elsewhere as well when it made financial sense. Why start a company for someone else's convenience?
When I've started companies, I've done it with the hope that I'd never end up in a courtroom at all, cyber or otherwise. I certainly wouldn't choose a different state just because it would be more convenient for people who wished to sue me!
Real factors in selecting a startup location include state income taxes, cost of employees (disability insurance, worker's comp, and such), ability to find qualified employees in the area (for non-telecommuting positions), proximity to customers (it's convenient to have beta testers close at hand), real estate prices, the reputation of other businesses in the area, crime rates in the area, proximity to vendors (shipping can be a significant cost of business), and proximity to good schools (if you can't find good, well-trained employees, grow your own).
I think that list would be two or three times that length before I'd add "being in a state with cybercourts," and my last startup was in the legal software business!
As one last closing thought, the court systems of the U.S. are becoming more "electronic" all the time. People are often deposed by teleconference or videoconference during the discovery phase, transcripts are being e-filed and digitally signed, court documents are available in a number of different databases, and with the advent of Legal XML, it's all becoming more accessible to the average citizen. None of this is unique to any one state.