This has nothing to do with protecting Lexis/West's profits (there is very little that's on PACER that's also on Lexis/West that isn't also on e.g. Google Scholar). It has everything to do with understanding why things are the way they are.

Mr. Foster drags Lexis/West into it so he can work the "$6.5 billion" + government conspiracy angle to build outrage, even though blaming Lexis/West for PACER's problems makes no sense, nor does it give any insight into how the system evolved to its present state.

Someone has to pay for the operation of the court system. Usage fees are an (until now) uncontroversial way to do that. They reflect a policy choice: do we want to completely subsidize a government service, or push some of the costs of running it onto the people who directly use it? Thus, you see usage fees in many different contexts: toll roads, subway fares, traffic tickets, parking meters, court filing fees, and access to public records. There are lots of kinds of public records that require paying a fee (you should price a FOIA request sometime).

Are usage fees a bad idea for court dockets? You're welcome to make that argument. But make that argument for what it is: a proposal to subsidize one kind of access to the court system by diverting revenues from elsewhere. Evaluate the costs and benefits of those proposals. E.g. are higher filing fees (for people appealing to the court system for justice) worthwhile in order to allow reporters, etc, cheaper access to dockets? These are practical, concrete, educated arguments. But don't clothe your argument in uneducated conspiracy theory bullshit.