82,891
edits
Gizmo pelmanism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
''Another possible reason is that it is sheer blinding idiocy. It couldn’t possibly be ''that'' could it?''” | ''Another possible reason is that it is sheer blinding idiocy. It couldn’t possibly be ''that'' could it?''” | ||
:— Douglas Adams}} | :— Douglas Adams (1994)}} | ||
“[[Gizmo pelmanism]]” is such a beautiful concept. It could describe much of modern legal practice. | “[[Gizmo pelmanism]]” is such a beautiful concept. It could describe much of modern legal practice. | ||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
The information revolution has enabled our “drift to [[Complicated|complicatedness]]” — with that drift, a view has congealed in the collective that the resulting “legal technology” that we can now so easily generate somehow has intrinsic value — is proprietary, deserving of commercial protection. but is it not better to see good market-standard contractual terms as a common interface between market participants: a ''public utility'' that enables business to get done with minimal friction? Contract ''technology'' should not ''proprietary''; rather contracts — agreements ''made out of'' contract technology — may be ''confidential''. To confuse a contractual ''confidence'' with a proprietary right in [[intellectual property]] comprising the contract is to make a category error. | The information revolution has enabled our “drift to [[Complicated|complicatedness]]” — with that drift, a view has congealed in the collective that the resulting “legal technology” that we can now so easily generate somehow has intrinsic value — is proprietary, deserving of commercial protection. but is it not better to see good market-standard contractual terms as a common interface between market participants: a ''public utility'' that enables business to get done with minimal friction? Contract ''technology'' should not ''proprietary''; rather contracts — agreements ''made out of'' contract technology — may be ''confidential''. To confuse a contractual ''confidence'' with a proprietary right in [[intellectual property]] comprising the contract is to make a category error. | ||
This is our challenge: to overcome our ingrained instinct to regard the quotidian tools of our trade assomehow [[Secret sauce|special]]. For we do not add value with our [[boilerplate]]. | This is our challenge: to overcome our ingrained instinct to regard the quotidian tools of our trade assomehow [[Secret sauce|special]]. For we do not add value with our [[boilerplate]]. So here is our wishful prayer of hearty success to the [[OneNDA]] project. A standardised NDA might seem a small step for an open-source start up but, in spirit, a giant leap for [[legal eagle|eagle-kind]]? | ||
Set your loved ones free, [[legal eagle]]s: contributing to a common fund allows the wisdom of the crowd to winnow down and fitness-select the best terms for everyone: ''stop claiming false propriety over common public standards. | Set your loved ones free, [[legal eagle]]s: contributing to a common fund allows the wisdom of the crowd to winnow down and fitness-select the best terms for everyone: ''stop claiming false propriety over common public standards. | ||
No more | No more gizmo pelmanism. | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[OneNDA]] | |||
*[[ClauseHub]] | *[[ClauseHub]] | ||
*[[Secret sauce]] | *[[Secret sauce]] | ||