Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions

Innovation paradox (view source)

Revision as of 15:54, 12 October 2020

71 bytes added , 12 October 2020

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,915

edits

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 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 office manager’s  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 force. By the millennium, you didn’t even need a business case ''to get the internet''.
+By the nineties, the office manager’s refrain “''we don’t pay lawyers to type, son''” had lost its force. We had terminals on our desks, next to the executive model ''Dictaphone{{tm}}''. By the millennium, we didn’t even need a business case ''to get the internet''.
-Suddenly, you could spawn documents, tweak clauses, shove in [[rider|riders]] — endlessly futz around with words. Generating and sending documents was free and instantaneous. It was like the sorcerer’s apprentice
+Suddenly, we could spawn docs, tweak clauses, shove in [[rider|riders]] — ''endlessly'' futz around with words.  Generating and sending documents was free and instantaneous. It was like the sorcerer’s apprentice. {{author|Stanley Fish}}even wrote a [[How to Write a Sentence: And How to Read One - Book Review|book]] about it.
 Suddenly contracts were concluded in a flash, right?