Linux Journal On Linux's Adoption In U.S. Courts

Sam Hiser writes "Tom Adelstein writes in Linux Journal that, technically, one-third of the U.S. Government has moved to Linux: its Third Branch, the Judiciary. That's 30,000 users across 800 locations, comprising the nation's Federal court system. Given our information overload, it's easy to miss the most significant kernels of news."

Comments

Wow!

[neiras]

Now let's see the US government follow in Germany's footsteps and directly sponsor the development of some critical piece of open-source software.

Re:Wow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want open source to die?

Re:Wow!

[JimDabell]

DARPA is the primary sponsor of ReiserFS 4. There's this other little thing called "the Internet" as well...

Re:Wow!

[presarioD]

Why do you want open source to die?

Seriously now, this is kind of scary. If Open Source ever "dominates" in the governmental sector, the impact it will have on the Open Source community will not be a trivial matter to consider.

The worst thing that happend to socialism for example is that they actually got elected for government.

New forces will be created in the Open Source community once it becomes mainstream and the temptation to "bend" GPL for more and more profit might be there. Of course you might argue that this will automatically exclude anybody that does it from the Open Source community but I am just wondering how the future might look 40 years from now...

Re:Wow!

[orthogonal]

As the grandchild of several Holocaust survivors, I hereby inform you that there is not a shred of cleverness in this sort of posery. It is merely trite and repulsive.

If my grandmother were addressing you, she wouldn't be doing it nearly as politely as I am, you spoiled twit.

With all due respect to your grandmother, most of the Holocaust survivors I've met have been polite and thoughtful persons (and one was a rather pervy old guy with a who always made it obvious which women he was staring up and down, at least in the class I took from him).

One grants your grandmother a certain deference because of her suffering -- just as I didn't question the apparent contradiction of the Holocaust survivor, a Polish Jew, who told me that he didn't blame the camp guards because "they were young men far from home, in the army, and ordered to be guards" -- but that he did blame the Poles, who "learned to throw stones at the Jews before they learned to walk". Absolving the Germans who were taught to hate but condemning the Poles who were taught the same hate was that survivor's way of understanding what had happened to him, and I was not about to suggest he believe otherwise.

But if my argument is wrong, it's wrong whether or not you're the grandchild of several Holocaust survivors. And if it's right, it's right regardless of your ancestry -- or mine.

Ideas are funny things: they don't become more or less valid depending on who says them. If a prisoner says the Earth moves, and the Pope says it doesn't, "Eppur si muove," -- "it still moves".

Being the grandchildren of survivors does give you a special responsibility to understand their pain, and to perhaps even to work to make sure the Shoah survivor's cry of "Never again" really does mean "never again".

But it doesn't give you any special claim to wisdom, and while it may have prompted you to study history, it doesn't necessarily give you any magical understanding of history, or any special moral vantage point from which to rule on the validity of the arguments of today. And to use your grandparents' suffering to make a rhetorical point -- to merely win an argument -- seems to me a tawdry way to use them.

Again, my reasoning is valid -- or invalid -- independent of who you are or even who I am. An argument stands -- or falls -- on its own, regardless of the personality, background, or ancestry or its proponents.

Yay!

[REBloomfield]

Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)

Re:Yay!

[Anonymous Coward]

> Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)

I know you're being funny, but let me draw attentions to a significant detail: if courts grok Linux it will be far more difficult for "people" like Dearl to initiate such "operations" like the one we witness.

Re:Yay!

[kfg]

Now SCO owns the Judicial System..... what next, the Senate? ;)

Nah! Lockheed Martin's got "dibs."

KFG

Now that Linux is in the Courts...

[spoonani]

You can find Linux as the court stenographer. But he's just not transcripting dictated litigation. He's learning. He's adapting. Soon Linux will become the bailiff, judge, jury, court illustrator, public defender, janitor, and CourTV anchor.

Re:Now that Linux is in the Courts...

[nacturation]

Soon Linux will become the bailiff, judge, jury, court illustrator, public defender, janitor, and CourTV anchor.

So what role does that leave for Microsoft? The executioner?

Re:Now that Linux is in the Courts...

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Court Jester, perhaps..

One can only hope...

[drooling-dog]

...that the wide use of Linux in the court system will make judges just a little more skeptical of the legal antics that Microsoft will undoubtedly be throwing against it in the years ahead.

Re:One can only hope...

[Short Circuit]

I doubt most judges will be familiar with the software underlying the filing process.

However, it would make for an excellent argument on behalf of whatever pro-Linux guy is in the court.

Re:One can only hope...

[Master of Transhuman]

Oh, no, they DON'T have Word.

I was just in the Federal Court Clerk's office here in San Francisco around the first of the month paying my restitution as I do every month.

I happened to notice the clerk was keying a document in using WORDPERFECT - which STILL dominates the legal field. I even mentioned it to her, saying that too many legal WordPerfect macros exist to switch to Word. She laughed.

Re:One can only hope...

[darkmeridian]

WordPerfect dominates the legal field partially because it counts footnotes and such in its word count feature. Court documents done with Word sometimes go over the limit and get bounced back from the courts summarily. This is bad. In fact, Judge Posner wrote an article warning against this troubling aspect of Microsoft Word.

Nothing but good news

[PhysicsGenius]

I think it is especially significant that Linux has been adopted by the Judicial branch which is both the most savvy branch (people hate Congress and the White House, but few hate the SCOTUS) and, constitutionally, the one given the most power over the other two. I look forward to an activist judge mandating that all branches must use Linux to adopt and maintain transparent government.

Re:Nothing but good news

[mchawi]

Mandating that all branches use one thing - ie: taking away all their choice - would be using the same sort of pressure techniques that people complain about MS for.

I would hope that if the other branches were to move to Linux they would do it because it is the best option, not because it was the mandated option.

How would you feel if they all moved to FreeBSD?

Re:Nothing but good news

[Oddster]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

The Supreme Court, constitutionally, actually has the least power delegated to it. It was fairly weak until the concept of "judicial review" was established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In that case, the court found that a writ of mandamus, established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional under Article III of the constitution. Since nobody challenged the court's declaring of a legislative act unconstitutional, it was held that they were allowed to do so, thus establishing said concept as doctrine. Do not confuse long-standing case law with the Constitution, they are far different things.

Google the case, you'll find oodles of information.

Also, around the mid 20th century (I forget when this took effect or any specifics), the court also changed its rules on standing (the right a person has to bring a case to court). Previously, it was a very narrow standard - the damages had to be real and specific to the plaintiff. The court expanded its power by broadening the rules on standing - this is what allows groups like the Sierra Club to bring suit against industry over environmental issues, despite not having any real damages to themselves.

IANAL but I am a political junky.

Liability

[hawkeyeMI]

They must not be too worried about the SCO case, eh?

Re:Liability

[Hungus]

No, what they know that the federal gov can;t be hit with IP and licensing breaches. That is of course unless the federal courts give the entity trying to sue the right to do so, and its on a case by case basis.

Misleading

[moehoward]

The slashdot writeup makes it sound like 30,000 desktops. Rather, this is just the servers , not their desktop machines. No big deal here, as we already know that Linux is often a preferred back end. Call me when a US corporation or government agency moves 30,000 desktop users to Linux.

But my main point is that the slashdot writeup gives a false impression.

Re:Misleading

[StarCat76]

Call me when a US corporation or government agency moves 30,000 desktop users to Linux.

Isn't IBM doing just that?

Woo hoo

[adam.skinner]

So our judicial system is moving from Solaris to Linux for their servers. This would have been a story of note had they put Linux on the desktop, but as it stands it hardly seems newsworthy. I mean, the multinational company I work for uses Linux on many of it's servers as well.

Adoption of Linux as a server is one thing; adoption of Linux on the desktop for 30K is quite another...

Have to be careful

[L. VeGas]

Maybe this is all part of a secret Finnish plan for world domination.

Re:Have to be careful

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one, welcome our new santa claus and easter bunny overlords

Best. Quote. Ever.

[Noryungi]

From the article:

Finally, consider that while an allegation of copyright infringement exists in the Federal Courts today, those same courts have decided to migrate to the alleged perpetrator in that case. It's something to consider. As Søren Kierkegaard once said, "Irony is a disciplinarian feared only by those who do not know it, but cherished by those who do."

Now, why on earth did I think about SCO reading this paragraph? ;-)

Why are they moving to Linux?

[mOoZik]

Because it is better? Because it is easier? Nay, because it is free. Why does everyone get so excited about this? It obviously is free, but will its users be as productive? What about support? I don't know, but only long-term studies can assess these.

Is a good start

[gmuslera]

Lets see what will happens with SCO even smaller chances. Now the legal system is in illegal state?

Anyway, probably is the beginning of a good move. If something could shift the balance towards open source, open formats (hope there the court resolutions are not published in msword format, or required that format to present documents) and really wider access to information ("no, you can't show THIS for contract/base software limitations").

Check the math there, chester.

[chumpieboy]

One third?

One of three branches, yes.

Those 30,000 users are a drop in the bucket when compared to the total number of Federal employees and offices.

Will the slashdot readers be hypocrites or will they denounce FUD when it comes from Linux Journal? If Microsoft (or a journal that is focused on MS technology) had released a statement that "two-thirds of the US government runs MS software!" then there would be a huge shitstorm.

I like this...

[Richthofen80]

because paying ZERO dollars for software means my government isn't spending any money when it doesn't have to, which means that I can keep more of my money instead of it going to taxes, right?

right?

(crickets chirping....)

I can't wait...

[Electric Monk]

for SCO to start sueing the Courts for copyright infringement.

SCO: "You owe us money!"
AOUSC: "Prove it."
SCO: "Pay up or we'll sue!"
AOUSC: "Go on then."
SCO: "Oh b...."

What a load of crap.

[Keebler71]

technically, one-third of the US Government has moved to Linux:

Uh, no.... technically one of the three branches of governement has moved to Linux. That is a far cry from the misleading assertion that "one-third" of the government has moved to linux.

Of course, I can't find this quote anywhere in the actual article, so it must have been the "analysis" of the submitter. Isn't this the type of misleading claim we continuously beride MS for?

Gov't adoption is the good news

[TheLoneCabbage]

It doesn't much matter what branch of the govt uses it. At the end of the day the Gov't controls around 1/4 of the nation GDP. It controls how and where that's spent.

ALLOT of money flows out of the gov't and stirs allot of industry. Especially durring recessions, that have been a classic time for gov't over spending, since FDR, to restimulate the economy.

If you want that money, you will run what ever software the gov't tells you too. Ideologies aside you have a buisness to run. To be compatible with the gov't agencies is essentials.

And as that money spreads out, to subcontractors, and support industries the chain of compatibilty does as well.

I worked for 2 years for a company that did court document back up. They declared what their standards were. If we wanted the contract we did as we were told. And we chose the servers that meant the absolute least friction between start and support.

This is a much bigger deal than just public relations.

Re:Gov't adoption is the good news

[Vengeance]

Unfortunately, the only reason that a lot of money flows from government coffers into industry, is that these very same dollars have been extracted from some other industry, or directly from our pockets.

Never make the mistake of believing that our government has any money to spend. It has only your money and mine, and it's not asking for permission nearly often enough.

One can only hope not

[ScouseMouse]

From a purely impartial point of view, I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.

The judicirary is supposed to be impartial. I think for the most part it is. I would like it to stay like that no matter whatever happens.

Re:One can only hope not

[kfg]

I certainly hope they dont let the use of underlying systems influence their decisions.

I agree, but I believe the point was that judges are essentially ignorant of Linux and free software in generally, and some greater familiarity will actually allow them to be more impartial.

So far they really only know one side of the "story."

KFG

Re:One can only hope not

[Toadpipe]

The law firm I work for just recently started using linux servers to store our documents to keep up with the new electronic filing rules. And the boss (the lawyer) still thinks the best way to view a website is to print it out and read it (not kidding, and among lawyers this type of thing is not rare).

Since all judges were once lawyers, and lawyers must be forced to even acknowlege the tech tools around them (on their desk even), I think it's a good bet to say that the Justice's would be shoked to hear they even have computers (let alone that they run linux).

So don't worry, I'm not.

Constitutionally the most power?

[Millennium]

I'm not so sure about that. The whole point of checks and balances is that each branch has some powers over the other two, but the other branches have powers over it as well.

Let's take the Supreme Court, for example. You're probably referring to the power of judicial review: the ability to declare laws unconstitutional (this was actually never codified in the Constitution; it's an important legal tradition and perhaps ought to be codfied, but it is not). This is, in fact, a very important power. However, it is not unbalanced:

1) Congress can override SCOTUS decisions. It takes a Constitutional amendment to do so (making the law constitutional by changing the Constitution to suit), and so it is very difficult, but it can be done.

2) The executive branch appoints justices. It's a little-known fact that even SCOTUS justices can be impeached and removed from office, even though they otherwise hold life terms; this has never been done, but it is possible.

3) The SCOTUS cannot act of its own volition; it must be called upon before it can do anything. The Executive and legislative branches have limited power, but they can use (most of) those powers at will; the SCOTUS is powerless unless actually called on by one of the other branches, or by the people.

This is the whole point of checks and balances: no one branch is self-policing, no one branch has unlimited power, and most of the actions of one branch can be undone (though not easily) by at least one of the other branches. The idea is to fight corruption on two fronts: one, by reducing its ability to form, and two, limiting its ability to do damage even when it does form. It's actually a pretty well-designed system, at least on that score.

Re:Constitutionally the most power?

[Halo-]

I completely agree with you in principle. Without getting overly political, I still feel it's appropriate to point out that lately the SCOTUS (and the judicial branch as a whole) has had a lot of its powers reduced. The PATRIOT act is just on of the ways the legislative branch has given the executative branch the ability to bypass the courts. The requirements for trials, warrants, and openness have been greatly reduced post 9/11. There was recently even a bill introduced to allow Congress to overrule the courts if they wanted. (Fortunately this got voted /laughed down).

This is to say nothing about the current "the president's executive priviledge overrides any other law" memos that are making news lately...

Finally, it's important to remember that the judicial system as a whole, especially the SCOTUS, is the slowest branch. As you pointed out, they mut wait to be called, and they almost always act after the fact. If legislators pass an unconsitutional law, or the executive branch steps on someone's rights, there is a considerable window in which the law is in effect, and those people rights are trampled before the SCOTUS can put a stop to it.

Checks and balances are the cornerstone of the US system, and branches fighting for power is in the design. Unfortunately there have been some fairly substantial swings lately which will hopefully right themselves soon.

The government *must* use linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

I recall hearing once that the government was required to go with the lowest bidder in a new contract for many of it's purchases.
So.. isn't linux the lowest bidder?
So, is the government required to use it then?
Just curious if anybody knows about this..

Re:Strange

[Teun]

Assuming you are from the USofA you *do* get to vote for them.
OK, it might by indirect but it's *your* vote for Congress and The President that eventually get's you the Supreme Court's judges.

So next time get registered, go voting and stop moaning!

WordPerfect

[justanyone]

It's a widely recognized fact that most of the legal community (law firms, etc.) used to use WordPerfect. I'm unsure of the current situation given WP's decline in popularity due to domination by MSOffice.

However, if whoever owns WordPerfect now (Corel? Novell? Underpants Gnomes?) would re-issue it on Linux, and provide favorable licensing to allow it to run from the server to the desktop nicely, many legal offices and courts that currently use WordPerfect could move to Linux far easier than to MSOffice. It would be a change of OS and NOT a change of application.

Any lawyers out there that can comment on what software (especially larger) legal firms are using, and on what platforms, and for what reasons?

I would wager that another large tipping-point factor would be how Lexus and Nexus are used. If they operate via a web portal instead of a fat client (Lawyers? Paralegals? Anyone know?) then making sure they operate nicely on Linux is a key adoption factor. IBM, are you listening? Law firms might like a suite of applications specially tailored to their needs, and they don't mind paying for high functionality if it gets them ease of use (not being typically technofiles).

Also, billing software, the back-office function of legal offices, might benefit from some kind of scheduling application that keeps track of which case someone's researching and thus bills time to that case in an easy manner.

An ex-lawyer friend of mine (now works as NOC designer for Siemens) mentioned what a pain in the butt it was to itemize his timesheet (bill) for 10 minute segments of his time, espeically if he was making lots of calls. Make a better application and they will love you (again, IBM or Novell, you have options here... and not only for US court systems).

-- Kevin J. Rice

Re:WordPerfect

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an employee of the Federal Courts and WordPerfect is still the word processing program of choice. We only have a handful of Office licenses and those are primarily for Excel. I believe the reason is that the AOUSC has a license with Corel for an unlimited number of users.

Re:WordPerfect

[widderslainte]

It's been a couple of years, but I used to run the computer lab at a law library. WP/Word use was pretty even, but I think people would throw a fit if they tried to get rid of WordPerfect.

Lexis/Nexis and Westlaw were both deploying web interfaces, and only training new users on them, rather than the desktop client software. At the time (Fall 2000) they worked find on Netscape 4.x.

Finally, Gov't Approved Applications

[James McP]

Someone migrating from Solaris->Linux isn't a big deal for stuff web, ftp or email services.

The real reason this is significant is because it means that US Government-approved application developers are making Linux software. An OS is something you run apps on; no apps, no need for the OS.

BakBone's backup system, ehh, it's a quasi-embedded product. I'm more impressed by Momentum, the financial management package in use by 94 districts. THAT is where Linux will start to make real inroads.

NSA/SE Linux

[Vengeful weenie]

NSA has supported and activly developed SE linux.