82,853
edits
LegalHub: theory: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
The reg tech proposition: automation, network, disintermediation is obvious. So why doesn’t it work, and what can we do about it? | The reg tech proposition: automation, network, disintermediation is obvious. So why doesn’t it work, and what can we do about it? | ||
First, state the manifest failings of [[reg tech]] as we see | First, state the manifest failings of [[reg tech]] as we see them present in different ways but boil down to consequences of the same thing: ''[[rent-seeking]]''. ''[[iatrogenics|The cure tends, in practice, to be worse than the disease]]''. Furthermore, the [[proprietary]] nature of conventional [[reg tech]] means it is tightly controlled, top-down managed and targeted abstractly at a ''perceived'' demand and an ''anticipated'' future state,<ref>[[Thought leader]]s are no better at predicting the future of [[Legal services delivery|legal services]] than they have been at anything else.</ref> neither of which will necessarily address the exact problem a user is trying to solve, nor continue to cope with it, as that problem develops. Reg technology, if not continually maintained, is innately prone to un[[planned obsolescence]]. | ||
==The problem== | ==The problem== | ||
===[[Rent-seeking]]=== | ===[[Rent-seeking]]=== | ||