82,891
edits
E-discovery: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
Have commercial disputes become intrinsically more complicated since the information revolution, or is the formal convolution a function of how lazy technology has allowed us to become? Are drafting is worse. There are ten times as many documents, but is there any more ''signal'' or is it just a lot more ''noise''? Is e-discovery really just an articulation of [[Parkinson’s law]] for the digital natives? | Have commercial disputes become intrinsically more complicated since the information revolution, or is the formal convolution a function of how lazy technology has allowed us to become? Are drafting is worse. There are ten times as many documents, but is there any more ''signal'' or is it just a lot more ''noise''? Is e-discovery really just an articulation of [[Parkinson’s law]] for the digital natives? | ||
Let us look at commercial litigation from a perspective rarely mentioned in the acres of thought-leadership on the topic: the [[customer]]’s. A commercial dispute from an end-user’s perspective has a reductively simple complexion. I believe I am entitled to value X, and I have received value Y. This is, in the vernacular, a [[univariate]] calculation. From the persective of those engaged to help resolve this shortfall the problem is decidedly [[multivariate]]: how reasonable is your client’s assessment; how solvent is the defendant; how likely is it to defend it, which forum is most convenient to resolve that dispute; how sympathetic is that forum liable to be — each of these factors one can assign a probabilistic assessment at best. They are [[known unknown]]s. | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Innovation paradox]] | *[[Innovation paradox]] | ||