Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 7: Line 7:


=== "We don't pay lawyers to type, son" ===
=== "We don't pay lawyers to type, son" ===
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. Making any edit during a negotiation would mean ''retyping the entire page''. And posting it in. And having it posted back. In carbon triplicate.
 
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.


Twenty years later, lawyers had computers on their desks. The traditional refrain<ref>I 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 millennium, you didn’t even need a business case to have internet access.  
Twenty years later, lawyers had computers on their desks. The traditional refrain<ref>I 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 millennium, you didn’t even need a business case to have internet access.