Wrath of Kahn Continues

May 22, 2013

STAR TREK II: THE WRATH OF KHANIn Confessions of a Trekkie I reported on a legal opinion in a copyright troll case that was incredible on many levels, including the stellar references to Star Trek. The opinion dated May 6, 2013 , Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe by U.S. District Court Judge Otis D. Wright, II begins with a quote from the second Star Trek Movie, The Wrath of Khan (1982), The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The opinion ended with the most serious sanctions order I have ever seen. The Wrath of Khan sanctions order included referral to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for criminal investigation, to the IRS for tax investigation, and the state Bar associations for ethics investigations, and an award of fees and costs in the amount of $81,319.72. Payment was to be made within 14 days, which was May 20, 2013.

To no one’s surprise the payment was not made on May 20, 2013, instead, plaintiff’s engaged in standard evasive maneuvers. They appealed the Sanctions order to the Ninth Circuit, but they did not post a bond to secure the ordered payment as required under appellate procedure. Instead they asked the appeals court to stay the payment order. Again, that is not correct procedure and the Ninth Circuit immediately denied the request for stay, pointing out the obvious that a request for stay like this must first be filed with the lower court. This is described in great detail, along with the original court filings, and many interesting background facts in several articles written by Mike Masnick. See Prenda’s Paul Hansmeier Asks Appeals Court To Delay Sanctions; Appeals Court Says ‘No, Try Again’Prenda Gets Some Tiny Bit Of Good News, As It May Get Out Of Two Critical Cases.

After the Ninth Circuit denied the so-called emergency motion by plaintiff’s counsel to stay, they finally followed proper procedures and filed a motion for stay from Judge Wright. This once again provoked the Wrath of Khan. The standard evasive maneuvers of plaintiff’s counsel did not succeed. Photon Torpedoes were again fired and the sanctions were intensified with another order (this time not including Star Trek references, but interesting none-the-less). Judge Wright denies the application for stay and goes on to add an additional $1,000 per day penalty for not timely complying with his first order:

Further, Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, and Prenda are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why they have contravened the Court’s order to pay the attorney’s-fee award. The Court hereby imposes a penalty of $1,000 per day, per person or entity,1 until this attorney’s-fee award is paid or a bond for the same amount is posted. This penalty shall be paid to the Clerk of Court on the same day the attorney’s-fee award is paid or the bond is posted. This penalty must be paid unless it is evident that the award was paid or the bond was posted on or before May 20, 2013. Failure to comply will result in additional sanctions.

For a copy of the entire order and additional background seeBad Day For Prenda Continues: Judge Rejects Stay, Adds $1k Per Day For Each Day They Don’t Pay Up.

It looks like the shields of the enterprise of Steele, Hansmeier, Duffy, Gibbs, AF Holdings, Ingenuity 13, and Prenda, are down to 2%, maybe less. It is only a matter of minutes now before their ship is destroyed. I suspect they have initiated the auto-destruct sequence. If I were defense counsel I’d be on the lookout for escape pods. Too bad plaintiff’s counsel was not better acquainted with Star Trek, this judge, or the Wrath of Khan. They would have known that Khan Noonian Singh was a super-human, and his anger was intense and long-lasting. They would not even have attempted the kind of feeble last-minute appeal efforts we see now.


Robots From The Not-Too-Distant Future Explain How They Use Random Sampling For Artificial Intelligence Based Evidence Search

May 19, 2013

Byte and SwitchByte and Switch, my future-law robots, here star in another video animation, this time on random sampling. They explain how sampling is used in machine-learning-based evidence review. In this first segment of a two-part video taking place sometime in the near-future we watch Switch help Byte to get ready to give expert testimony in a Daubert hearing. The presiding Judge, David J. Waxse, in the future routinely insists on that sort of thing. See: Waxse & Yoakum-Kriz, Experts on Computer Assisted Review: Why Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Should Apply To Their Use, 52 WBJLJ 207, (Spring 2013).

Byte, who is an expert by virtue of his knowledge-base, programming, and search experience, makes the perfect witness. Verified programming establishes that he is incapable of lies or evasion. Not only that, he has total recall of everything that happened in every search project he has been involved with. Still, Switch needs to help Byte to get ready to testify. Byte, like the scientists and programmers who created him, needs to learn how to talk simple enough for non-expert humans to comprehend. This animation shows Byte practicing for his testimony.

BYTEIn this video Byte (shown right) explains how and why random samples are taken at the start of a project, before the active learning training begins. Byte also explains that random sampling is also used again, in a limited fashion, during the training. (The Borg-type predictive coding software that relies entirely on random chance has in this near-future scenario been discredited and abandoned long ago.) In part-two Byte and Switch will go on to explain final quality assurance sampling at or near the end of a robot-enhanced search project.

As usual, pause to let the streaming video get ahead, especially if your connection is slow, and increase the video screen to full size for best effect.

Special thanks to William Webber, Information Scientist, for his background information and help. William has endured hours of my Switch-like questioning on random sampling in active machine learning search projects. His explanations of sampling have been invaluable, including such esoteric topics as Gaussian and Binomial calculations, Simple Random and Stratified Random sampling (William’s speciality), quality control sampling for testing, as opposed to training, prevalence, concept shift, and recall testing. All credit goes to William for what I get right in this future-scenario of random sampling. Any mistakes in the explanation, or errors in predictions, are entirely my own.

For the earlier adventures of Byte and Switch, see:


Robot Games: the Gamification of Legal Review

May 14, 2013

Screen Shot 2013-05-08 at 3.54.29 PMThe last blog, Robots With A Story To Tell, illustrated the use of narrative to improve legal search and review. This blog goes a bit further into the not-too-distant future and illustrates the gamification of legal review. Gamification per Wikipedia is the use of game thinking and game mechanics in a non-game context in order to engage users and solve problems. As a life-long computer gamer myself, I appreciate the power of well-designed games. They can engage a player in a timeless flow-state of enhanced concentration. This can go on for hours, days, weeks. Players get better as the game goes on. The power of their minds overcomes their physical fatigue. Why not add this quality control enhancement to legal review? It is sorely needed.

I know that Jon Canty, Partner and Co-Founder of Contact Discovery Services, agrees with me on this topic. We have talked about it a fair amount. Perhaps other review companies and software companies are also interested in this idea. Maybe someone is in a position to take action? If so, please contact me as I have several ideas on how to do it. A few of the more obvious gamification applications are shown in this animation with our robot friends, BYTE and SWITCH. (Thanks to Kip Comack of CACI International, the winner of the name-the-robots contest, for coming up with these clever names. Your book is in the mail.) As usual, this story is told from the perspective of the robots. For best effect open the video to full screen and pause to let the streaming video get ahead.

Gamification can make it easier for legal reviewers to attain an enhanced state of repetitive concentration, a timeless state of flow. That makes them better reviewers, better machine trainers. If you are a serious software developer looking to improve your predictive coding kung fu 功夫武術, let’s talk about possible collaboration. Lawyers working with robots to find the truth, with the help of story and gamified software. These are the next big things in future law.


Confessions of a Trekkie

May 10, 2013

Ralph the Star TrekkerMy name is Ralph and I’m a Star Trek addict. Yes, a true nerd. I have loved Star Trek since I was a kid in the 60s watching the tv show with my parents. We all loved the show, even if it was sometimes challengingly liberal for my Republican parents. I have seen every Star Trek show ever made, multiple times. I cannot get enough of it. I’ve even bought several Star Trek video games, just so I could have the personal thrill of firing Phasers (on stun of course), and a full volley of Photon torpedoes (not on stun). Make it so. Fight the Borg. Save the Universe.

JudgeOtisDWrightI share all of this with you so you will understand why my new favorite judge is Otis D. Wright, II. Otis is a U.S. District Judge in California who appears to be a Star Trek addict too. Look at the great opinion he wrote on May 6, 2013 , Ingenuity 13 LLC v. John Doe. It arises out of a discovery violation in a strange copyright case involving copyright trolls (Ferengi might be the better word for them). spock_khanJudge Wright’s opinion begins with this famous quote:

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

— Spock, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

Thinking of the scene in Wrath of Khan where Spock utters these fateful words nearly brings a tear to my eye, no doubt it did for the plaintiffs here too. It was a warning shot that they were about to be phaser blasted, or as lawyers say these days, bench slapped. The first paragraph of the opinion gives a great summary of the plaintiffs, Ferengi all, and includes a reference to my favorite Star Trek villains, The Borg:

Plaintiffs have outmaneuvered the legal system. They’ve discovered the nexus of antiquated copyright laws, paralyzing social stigma, and unaffordable defense costs. And they exploit this anomaly by accusing individuals of illegally downloading a single pornographic video. Then they offer to settle—for a sum calculated to be just below the cost of a bare-bones defense. For these individuals, resistance is futile; most reluctantly pay rather than have their names associated with illegally downloading porn. So now, copyright laws originally designed to compensate starving artists allow, starving attorneys in this electronic-media era to plunder the citizenry.

Is that a terrific beginning to an opinion, or what? But wait, there’s more. Judge Wright goes on to say:

Plaintiffs do have a right to assert their intellectual-property rights, so long as they do it right. But Plaintiffs’ filing of cases using the same boilerplate complaint against dozens of defendants raised the Court’s alert. It was when the Court realized Plaintiffs engaged their cloak of shell companies and fraud that the Court went to battlestations.

Battlestations, battlestations! Can you not hear the classic Star Trek alarms in your head? The judge then goes on with another first by using a Google Earth photo to expose a plaintiff’s lawyer’s lie. He actually includes this color photo in the opinion. John_Doe_Google_Earth Plaintiffs had stated that a defendant lived in a large mansion with a big gate out front, whereas the Google Earth photo showed it to be a typical small suburban track home. No gate, no mansion. This was just one example of Judge Wright’s exposure of a pattern of lies by plaintiff’s counsel. It led to his dismissal of the case, award of fees to defendants, and, declaring that these particular plaintiff’s counsel suffer from a form of moral turpitude unbecoming of an officer of the court, referring them all to state and federal bar associations for ethics investigations. He even included this color picture of these lawyers and their complex web of Ferengi-like corporate shells. Ingenuity_123_lawyers But wait, there are still more torpedoes left in the Captain’s, I mean, Judge’s arsenal. Judge Wright concludes his sanctions with an awesome flurry of weapons fire reminiscent of Kirk himself:

Third, though Plaintiffs boldly probe the outskirts of law, the only enterprise they resemble is RICO. The federal agency eleven decks up is familiar with their prime directive and will gladly refit them for their next voyage. The Court will refer this matter to the United States Attorney for the Central District of California. The [Court] will also refer this matter to the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service and will notify all judges before whom these attorneys have pending cases. For the sake of completeness, the Court requests Pietz to assist by filing a report, within 14 days, containing contact information for: (1) every bar (state and federal) where these attorneys are admitted to practice; and (2) every judge before whom these attorneys have pending cases.

Judge Otis Wright, you are a true Trekkie and my new hero. Thanks for a great order. I cannot wait to cite it against certain Klingon-like opposing counsel I know.

NASA_doomedgas_eso_Judge_Wright


Robots With A Story To Tell

May 8, 2013

c3po_r2d2Robot Stories: How storytelling narratives will be part of machine learning in the not-too distant future as told from the perspective of the robots. This is the second in a series of instructional cartoons on predictive coding; what it is now, and what it could be. The first was Bad Robot! A Story of Ethics and Predictive Coding in the Not-Too-Distant Future. The cute robots have now been named by readers in Vote For Your Favorite Robot Names where the winning names were: BYTE and SWITCH. These are much funnier names than the old Star Wars storytellers, C3PO and R2D2, or the senior partners at the law firm of Robot, Robot & HwangApollo Cluster and Daria XR-1029.

For background on the storytelling approach to document review in general, not just predictive coding based review, see the prior guest blog by Bill Hamilton and Larry Chapin: Storytelling: The Shared Quest For Excellence in Document Review. This is one of several methods that can and should be used to enhance the quality and consistency of document review. I have heard that a few document review teams are already using some narrative techniques. This animation considers more advanced applications in the context of machine learning. For best effect open the video to full screen and pause to allow the streaming video to download.

Perhaps some review companies and software companies are interested in these ideas and are ready to put them into action in a machine learning context? If so, please contact me as I have several more ideas on how to do that.


Vote For Your Favorite Robot Names

May 7, 2013

RobotsI received many great suggestions for names to the two robots who star in my new predictive coding animation series. The new cartoons kicked off this Sunday with Bad Robot! Thanks to all who participated. All of the suggestions were very clever, with some more esoteric than others. After great effort I was able to narrow them down to five names. But now I need your help to decide who wins the robot naming contest. Please vote for your favorite robot names. You will decide the winner. The poll is only open for 24 hours, so vote now. Only one vote per human or robot please.

Tim_HwangBy the way, did you hear about the sort-of law firm that opened up in California in 2010, Robot, Robot & Hwang. The only human in the firm is the junior partner, Tim Hwang, shown right.  His senior partners are Apollo Cluster, who specializes in mergers and acquisitions, and Daria XR-1029, who specializes in intellectual property issues. I’m thinking Tim is more prankster than real lawyer, but I like his style none-the-less. Get yourself a law degree Tim, and I may have a job for you with my two robots, names yet to be determined.


Bad Robot!

May 5, 2013

Bad_RobotA STORY OF ETHICS AND PREDICTIVE CODING IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE. Yes, by popular demand of younger readers, my e-discovery short animations are back. (I can almost hear the groaning of the literati readers!) This is the first in a series of quickie-fun videos to teach predictive coding and related topics. This first one also includes ethics. These lessons will all be told from the point of view of the Robots. And funky comic retro Robots at that! They embody the machine learning algorithms in the not-too-distant future of interactive document review. Literati, please put aside any prejudices you may have against videos and cartoons and give this new style of teaching a try. It may even become a new secret guilty pleasure. I know I had a blast creating them. For best effect open the video to full screen.

Come up with a name for the two robots, and win a prize. I’m thinking Click and Clack, but that’s not too original, I know. Please send me an email or leave your suggestion in the comment box below. Winner gets a free copy of any one of my e-discovery books; your choice.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,211 other followers