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?"

Comments

Lawyer: History says yes

[hawk]

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction if you need some.

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 . . .). 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.

hawk, esq.

Not the Right Court

[Royster]

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.

Be real

[werdna]

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?"

Why just technology cases?

[laetus]

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.
----------------------------------

Re:how is this going to work?

[grammar nazi]

You can think of the cybercourt as similar to a food court in the mall. Whatever you think of it as, don't take it seriously!

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.

I can see the cyber-court transcipts now

[typical geek]

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