Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions

Innovation paradox (view source)

Revision as of 14:44, 30 August 2019

252 bytes added , 30 August 2019

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,927

edits

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 === "We don't pay lawyers to type, son" ===
-Classic example: computers and the law. In 1975, when you wanted to edit a legal {{t|contract}} during the negotiation that would mean retyping the entire page. Hence, legal comments in a [[negotiation]] were necessarily bounded by the effort and time of recreating the document. There was an art to saying something once, clearly and precisely. Since editing was [[waste]]ful exercise, superficial amendment was not, [[for the avoidance of doubt]], the apparently<ref>But not actually. See: ''[[Waste]]''.</ref> costless frippery it is today.
+Classic example: computers and the law. Things weren’t so bad in 1975. There was a natural limit on legal wrangling. When you wanted to edit a legal {{t|contract}} during the negotiation that would mean ''retyping the entire page''. Hence, [[negotiation]] was necessarily bounded by the effort and time in recreating and circulating the document — by ''post''. The lawyer’s art was to say something once, clearly and precisely. Since any editing was clearly [[waste]]ful, superficial amendment was not the apparently<ref>But not actually. See: ''[[Waste]]''.</ref> costless frippery it is today.
-Things weren’t so bad in 1975. There was a natural limit on legal wrangling. The physical cost partly negated the [[anal paradox]].
-By 1995 lawyers had computers on their desks, and the traditional refrain<ref>I actually had an office manager say this to me, as a young attorney. True story</ref> "we don't pay lawyers to type, son" was beginning to lose its force.
+Twenty years later, lawyers had computers on their desks. The traditional refrain<ref>I actually had an office manager say this to me, as a young attorney. True story</ref> “..we don’t pay lawyers to type, son''” was losing its force. By the turn of the millennium, you didn’t even need a business case to have internet access.
-Suddenly, it was easy to re-spawn documents, to tweak clauses, shove in [[rider|riders]] — to futz around with words. Generating and sending documents was free and instantaneous. Negotiations quickly became convoluted and elongated. You argued about trifles because you ''could''. It also lowered the bar: certain types of contract, which previously could not justify their own existence, let alone legal negotiation, could now be thrashed out and argued about.
+Suddenly, it was easy to re-spawn documents, to tweak clauses, shove in [[rider|riders]] — to endlessly futz around with words. Generating and sending documents was free and instantaneous.
-Far from accelerating negotiations or enhancing productivity, [[technology]] gave us free rein to indulge our yen for pedantry. Are there any fewer lawyers today? No.<ref>There are more than ever: [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-as-number-of-solicitors-tops-140000/5063349.article The number of practising solicitors in England and Wales has reached another all-time high] — ''Law Gazette''.</ref> Are there more deals being done? No.<ref>The number of M&A deals peaked in — you guessed it - [[Global financial crisis|2007]]: [https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/ Number & value of M&A deals worldwide since 2000]  — ''The Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances''.</ref>. Is there more paper? You bet. Now, to be sure, I have no data for this last assertion — where would you get them? — but there is no doubt the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contracts}} ''exploded'' after 1990. The more technology we have thrown at it, the longer and crappier our contracts have become.
+Suddenly contracts were concluded in a flash, right?
+Wrong. Far from accelerating negotiations, [[technology]] gave us free rein to indulge our yen for pedantry. Negotiations got longer. The issues got more prolix. We argued about trifles because we ''could''. We danced on the head of a pin, because we ''could''.
+And technology lowered the bar: certain contracts, which previously could not justify their own existence, let alone legal negotiation, could now be thrashed out and argued about. We argued about ''cupcakes'' because we could.
+''That’s what lawyers do. [[It is not in my nature|It is in our nature]]''.
 Yet, yet yet: many painful artefacts of the analogue era — the gremlins and hair-balls you would expect [[technology]] to remove — persist to this day. We still have [[side letter]]s and [[amendment agreement]]s. We still, solemnly, write: “[[this page is intentionally left blank]]”. We still say “[[this clause is reserved]]”, as if we haven’t noticed [[Microsoft Word]] now has an automatic numbering system<ref>It is a truth universally acknowledged that no [[lawyer]] on God’s earth can competently format a document in Microsoft Word]].</ref>. Not only has [[reg tech|regtech]] ''failed'' to remove legacy complexities, ''it has created entirely new ones.''
+Are there any fewer lawyers today? No.<ref>There are more than ever: [https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warning-as-number-of-solicitors-tops-140000/5063349.article The number of practising solicitors in England and Wales has reached another all-time high] — ''Law Gazette''.</ref> Are there more deals being done? No.<ref>The number of M&A deals peaked in — you guessed it - [[Global financial crisis|2007]]: [https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/ Number & value of M&A deals worldwide since 2000]  — ''The Institute for Mergers, Acquisitions and Alliances''.</ref>. Is there more paper? You bet. Now, to be sure, I have no data for this last assertion — where would you get them? — but there is no doubt the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contracts}} ''exploded'' after 1990. The more technology we have thrown at it, the longer and crappier our contracts have become.
 [[File:Fractal.jpg|300px|thumb|right|A [[fractal]] yesterday. Can you see the [[lawyer]] descending towards it in his extra-vehicular lander?]]