OneNDA: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
It’s too early to stand on the poop-deck with a mission accomplished banner, but OneNDA is getting there. So, in a gentle further shove, here some observations about what it could all mean. | It’s too early to stand on the poop-deck with a mission accomplished banner, but OneNDA is getting there. So, in a gentle further shove, here some observations about what it could all mean. | ||
====Simplification beats technology==== | ====Simplification beats technology==== | ||
A counter-intuitive proposition: ''if you simplify | A counter-intuitive proposition: ''if you simplify, you may not need technology''. There is no need for automation, document assembly, even a mail merge is probably over-engineering. This is to observe that the conundrum facing modern legal eagles is not one of ''[[service delivery]]'', but ''[[Legal service|service]]'' in the first place. Fix the ''content'', and the delivery challenges fix themselves. | ||
This leads to | This leads to a paradox: ''if you simplify properly, it is easier to apply technology''. To design for technology, design for ''no'' technology. The fewer options, subroutines, caveats and [[conditions precedent]] in your legal forms, the easier you will find it to automate them. You will get all kinds of second order benefits too: fewer complaints, fewer comments, less time auditing your monstrous catalogue of templates. | ||
The [[JC]]’s [[maxim|handy aphorism]] here: {{maxim|first, cut out the pies}}. | |||
====It’s not the [[form]], or even the content, but the '''consensus''' that matters==== | ====It’s not the [[form]], or even the content, but the '''consensus''' that matters==== | ||
Once upon a time — until 2021 —if you devised your own short-form NDA, however elegant, you could expect it to be ''rejected''<ref>There ''is'' a “battle of the forms”, even if not apparent to the [[doyen of drafting]].</ref> or [[Mark-up|marked up]] to ''oblivion'' by the [[rent-seeking]] massive.<ref>The [[JC]] knows this, because he’s tried it. No [[counterparts]] clause! No waiver of jury trials! It was still worth doing, but it didn’t completely solve the problem.</ref> | |||
Once — okay, ''if'', but here’s hoping — the short-form NDA achieves ''wide-spread community commitment'' the dynamic will be different. Those who built it would use it, sure. But those who ''didn’t'' would look upon it not with suspicion, but with trust: “this is a community standard: I can [[Comfortable|get comfortable]] using it too”. No-one got fired for following the crowd. | |||
OneNDA is | OneNDA is a community effort: interested people came from far and wide to help; everyone<ref>Everyone except [[Ken Adams|the doyen of drafting]] himself, that is: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/onenda-is-mediocrenda-thoughts-on-a-proposed-standard-nondisclosure-agreement/ </ref> checked their agenda at the door. This was what Wikipedians call “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_raising barn-raising]”. The community came together for the greater good of all. | ||
Now once a barn is raised and community feels ownership in it, it is the very ''fact'' of the barn, rather than how it was built or what it is made of, that is its value. Community assets accrue to the benefit of everyone. The | Now once a barn is raised and community feels ownership in it, it is the very ''fact'' of the barn, rather than how it was built or what it is made of, that is its value. Community assets accrue to the benefit of everyone. The structure, day one, might not be perfect — is anything? — but nor is there any interest in undermining it, much less setting fire to the roof: ''it is in everyone’s interest that the barn does the job it was built for''. ''Everyone'' has [[skin in the game]]. The more people use it, the more they are incentivised to make sure it stands. The more people use it, the more [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough|“good enough” ''becomes'' “perfection”]]. | ||
Thus, technical complaints that, for example, it refers to “the public domain” and not just “public” — I mean, what a ''[[Knee-slide and jet wings|zinger]]'' — fall away because (if they didn’t already) ''everyone knows what it means''. If there are ten thousand standard NDAs out there that use the expression “public domain”, then no court (and, frankly, no plaintiff) is going to side with a pedant against the weight, and interests, of community consensus. | |||
====The hard lines discourage [[rentsmithing]] around the edges==== | ====The hard lines discourage [[rentsmithing]] around the edges==== | ||
| Line 35: | Line 39: | ||
But it is hard to rentsmith without a “host” contract. By drawing hard lines around itself, the OneNDA makes itself ''unavailable to act as that host''. It ''frustrates'' the [[rentsmith]]. The party wanting them has to create a new agreement for the purpose, but it is not likely to do that for fear of looking stuipid. ''The standard template discourages peripheral negotiation''. This is an additional, unintended benefit. | But it is hard to rentsmith without a “host” contract. By drawing hard lines around itself, the OneNDA makes itself ''unavailable to act as that host''. It ''frustrates'' the [[rentsmith]]. The party wanting them has to create a new agreement for the purpose, but it is not likely to do that for fear of looking stuipid. ''The standard template discourages peripheral negotiation''. This is an additional, unintended benefit. | ||
====The knee of the curve==== | |||
Creating a simple and standard alternative has a nice effect, too, on the legal complexity curve. It pulls it down and to the right. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
Revision as of 13:54, 25 August 2021
|
The design of organisations and products
|
Legal eagles love the idea that standard, boilerplate, tedious terms that make up the lion’s share of commercial legal discourse are special. Everyone — not just lawyers, come to think of it — likes to believe herself special, privy to something critical; dangerous; delicate — information that, should it fall into the wrong hands, may wreak great ill upon its owner or the poor unsuspecting random.
But the quotidian is a utility, not an asset. It doesn’t get more quotidian than legal boilerplate. We should, as a community, regard this as a free public resource, and not some productivity creation intiitative to keep battalions of legal eagles in well-paid but soul-destroying work.
No type of legal contract is more boilerplate than an NDA. The NDA is pure, abstracted, essence of boilerplate. Boilerplate is all there is.
Kudos, therefore, to the team at TLB for doing something about it.[1]
The JC put his sclerotic old shoulder to the wheel, for whatever that is worth and commends his friends, relations and readers; especially those who occupy places in the firmament, or up the fundament, higher than his own — that’s more or less all of you — to do what you can to get your own organisations behind this excellent initiative. Start with the NDA, who knows where it may lead?
Later ...
Well, readers, against his darkest suspicions, it looks like this OneNDA thing might work! The working group managed to defend against the inevitable special pleading, committee drafting, the pedantic culpa in contrahendo-style commentariat to which we agents of the tragic commons resort by irrepressible force of habit: through sheer willpower OneNDA generated a nice, simple, pleasant first edition. Not perfect — nothing is — but absolutely good enough.
It’s too early to stand on the poop-deck with a mission accomplished banner, but OneNDA is getting there. So, in a gentle further shove, here some observations about what it could all mean.
Simplification beats technology
A counter-intuitive proposition: if you simplify, you may not need technology. There is no need for automation, document assembly, even a mail merge is probably over-engineering. This is to observe that the conundrum facing modern legal eagles is not one of service delivery, but service in the first place. Fix the content, and the delivery challenges fix themselves.
This leads to a paradox: if you simplify properly, it is easier to apply technology. To design for technology, design for no technology. The fewer options, subroutines, caveats and conditions precedent in your legal forms, the easier you will find it to automate them. You will get all kinds of second order benefits too: fewer complaints, fewer comments, less time auditing your monstrous catalogue of templates.
The JC’s handy aphorism here: first, cut out the pies.
It’s not the form, or even the content, but the consensus that matters
Once upon a time — until 2021 —if you devised your own short-form NDA, however elegant, you could expect it to be rejected[2] or marked up to oblivion by the rent-seeking massive.[3]
Once — okay, if, but here’s hoping — the short-form NDA achieves wide-spread community commitment the dynamic will be different. Those who built it would use it, sure. But those who didn’t would look upon it not with suspicion, but with trust: “this is a community standard: I can get comfortable using it too”. No-one got fired for following the crowd.
OneNDA is a community effort: interested people came from far and wide to help; everyone[4] checked their agenda at the door. This was what Wikipedians call “barn-raising”. The community came together for the greater good of all.
Now once a barn is raised and community feels ownership in it, it is the very fact of the barn, rather than how it was built or what it is made of, that is its value. Community assets accrue to the benefit of everyone. The structure, day one, might not be perfect — is anything? — but nor is there any interest in undermining it, much less setting fire to the roof: it is in everyone’s interest that the barn does the job it was built for. Everyone has skin in the game. The more people use it, the more they are incentivised to make sure it stands. The more people use it, the more “good enough” becomes “perfection”.
Thus, technical complaints that, for example, it refers to “the public domain” and not just “public” — I mean, what a zinger — fall away because (if they didn’t already) everyone knows what it means. If there are ten thousand standard NDAs out there that use the expression “public domain”, then no court (and, frankly, no plaintiff) is going to side with a pedant against the weight, and interests, of community consensus.
The hard lines discourage rentsmithing around the edges
Once that common standard exists, with the hard lines OneNDA has drawn around itself, there is a further subtle advantage: it will dampen peripheral legal-eaglery around small, irritating edge cases (not to mention out-and-out pedantry).
We all know the common fripperies thrown into negotiation of an NDA by way of a dominance display between legal eagles: indemnities; exclusivities; non-solicitation; licencing and so on. Where notices these will quickly be rejected out of hand, the courtship display required to remove them is still tedious and it takes time.
But it is hard to rentsmith without a “host” contract. By drawing hard lines around itself, the OneNDA makes itself unavailable to act as that host. It frustrates the rentsmith. The party wanting them has to create a new agreement for the purpose, but it is not likely to do that for fear of looking stuipid. The standard template discourages peripheral negotiation. This is an additional, unintended benefit.
The knee of the curve
Creating a simple and standard alternative has a nice effect, too, on the legal complexity curve. It pulls it down and to the right.
See also
- Confidentiality agreement
- Perfection is the enemy of good enough
- The quotidian is a utility, not an asset
References
- ↑ Don’t just read about it here: go see: https://www.onenda.org
- ↑ There is a “battle of the forms”, even if not apparent to the doyen of drafting.
- ↑ The JC knows this, because he’s tried it. No counterparts clause! No waiver of jury trials! It was still worth doing, but it didn’t completely solve the problem.
- ↑ Everyone except the doyen of drafting himself, that is: https://www.adamsdrafting.com/onenda-is-mediocrenda-thoughts-on-a-proposed-standard-nondisclosure-agreement/