Legaltech startup conference: Difference between revisions

Legaltech startup conference (view source)

Revision as of 08:37, 10 October 2021

684 bytes added , 10 October 2021

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,101

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|devil|
-[[File:Kids say the funniest things.png|450px|thumb|center|An occasional column devoted to gems from the IT profession]]
+[[File:Kids say the funniest things.png|400px|thumb|center|An occasional column devoted to gems from the IT profession]]
 }}We define a [[legaltech start-up conference]] as “opportunities for [[Reg tech entrepreneur|fantasists]] to meet the [[General counsel|credulous]] to try to sell them [[Legal tech landscape|stuff they don’t need]] with [[When budget allows|budgets they don’t have]]”.
-Here is an interesting list for the [[neural network]] to parse: here are the two hundred and seventy-seven (277) [[Vendor|Vendors]] listed in the Legal Geek “Startup Map”<ref>I am not making this up: https://www.legalgeek.co/startup-map/. There could be more: the utterly bamboozling way it is set out made it hard to be sure I had go them all.</ref> Now I confess, not all of these are necessarily for profit businesses (by which I mean ''intending'' to make a profit; a large portion of them, however well disposed to the ''idea'' of making a profit, won’t ''actually'' make one) — there are some, even at a quick scan, that don’t.  But it is a minority.
+Here is an interesting list for the [[neural network]] to parse: here are the two hundred and seventy-seven (277) [[Vendor|Vendors]] listed in the Legal Geek “Startup Map”<ref>I am not making this up: https://www.legalgeek.co/startup-map/. There could be more: the utterly bamboozling way it is set out made it hard to be sure I had go them all.</ref> Now I confess, not all of these are necessarily for profit businesses (by which I mean ''intending'' to make a profit; a large portion of them, however well disposed to the ''idea'' of making a profit, won’t ''actually'' make one) — there are some, even at a quick scan, that don’t even try. But it is a minority.
-But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that the rest do. Now there can be no doubt that the amount a multinational is prepared to spend in the pursuit, defence and analysis of its legal rights and obligations is, as far as makes any difference, infinite, but the ''categories of problem'' it encounters when doing that, that [[legaltech]] can profitably solve, are not.
+Now there can be no doubt that the amount a multinational is prepared to spend in the pursuit, defence and analysis of its legal rights and obligations is, as far as makes any difference, infinite, but the ''categories of problem'' it encounters when doing that, that [[legaltech]] can profitably solve, are not.
-The [[legaltech entrepreneur]]’s assumption is this: even a tiny fraction of an enormous number is still, for a couple of guys in a WeWork office in Shoreditch with laptop, a SquareSpace account and a Bulgarian coder they found on UpWork, a bloody big number.
+Now a tiny fraction of an enormous number is still, for a couple of guys in a WeWork office in Shoreditch with laptop, a SquareSpace account and a Bulgarian coder they found on UpWork, a bloody big number. That is the [[legaltech]] promise.
-This logic might fly — ''might'' — were there only one'' such “startup” with the bright idea, but, per the above, there are ''at least two hundred and seventy of them''.
+It might make good on that promise — ''might'' — were there only ''one'' such “startup” with the bright idea, but, per the above, there are literally ''hundreds'' of them.
-''There are only so many uses you can put technology to''. Do not confuse quantum of spend and things to spend it on. They are very different.
+Even leaving aside the [[JC]]’s usual perorations about scale and [[rent-extraction threshold]]s — plainly these are to be ignored — just the length of this list ought to prompt some questions.
-Even leaving aside the [[JC]]”s usual perorations about scale and [[rent-extraction threshold]]s — plainly these are to be ignored — just the length of this list ought to prompt some questions.
+Consider the humble word processor. There are ''billions'' of users of word processing software. There are, to all intents, two viable word-processing applications in the world, and one of them is free.  If word perfect can't make a fist of it, how is [[Lexrifyly]]?
-There are ''billions'' of users of word processing software. There are, to all intents, two word-processing applications in the world, and one of them is freeware. This is something that makers of contract automation software might reflect upon.
+It strikes us there are two explanations for this bafflingly rich microcosm; neither of them predict a stable equilibrium.
-It strikes me there are two explanations for this rich microcosm. One is that it is right and overdue for consolidation. If the founders of 15 basically interchangeable contract automation tools were to swallow their pride and amalgamate, pooling resources, expertise and clients, then a a apex predator might emerge to sort out this baffling landscape. One or two more sophisticated vendors are already doing that. The other is that there is a reason for for the the variety. As we have posted elsewhere [[tedium is particular, not generic]]. Perhaps these firms owe their continued survival to the single, unique problem they solve for each of their clients. It stands to reason that you orient your product and develop it according to the expectations of your anchor client.  This same reason may be the barrier to acquiring that second client whose user proposition does not quite match.
+One is that the sector is simply overdue for the consolidation that will push it into the mainstream. These are all good little ideas but, un-knitted, they are too tepid to get anywhere. Once the power of affiliation dawns on them — the founders of 15 basically interchangeable [[contract automation]] tools were to swallow their pride and amalgamate, pooling resources, expertise and clients, then an apex predator might emerge to thin out the gene pool. One or two vendors are starting to do this
-But does this not, in itself ask difficult questions about the the real promise of [[legaltech]]? How do you reconcile an ecosystem brimming with solutions so wooden, inflexible and difficult to iterate with the breathless promise of artificial intelligence?
+This, we think, is the optimistic view: all this excitement; all these inflated expectations will eventually settle down and a stable, smart set of tools will emerge.
+The other view is pessimistic: there is a reason for for the the variety. As we have posted elsewhere [[tedium is particular, not generic]].  And, also, consider two very well-funded, sophisticated market participants who are ''perfectly positioned'' clean up in this sector, but who, despite twenty years of opportunity, haven’t: Microsoft and Google. You have to wonder whether they know something these three hundred legaltech gurus don’t. Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
+On this view, these little firms owe their continued survival to the single, unique problem they solve for their limited range of clients. Many have one or two clients each. It stands to reason that you orient your product and develop it according to the expectations of your anchor tenant.  This same unique use case may be a barrier to acquiring that second client, whose unique conundrum does not quite match.
+But does this not, in itself ask difficult questions about the the real promise of [[legaltech]]? Does this not give the lie to how clever this technology really is? How do you reconcile an ecosystem brimming with solutions so wooden and inflexible that they can’t easily iterate, with the breathless promise of [[artificial intelligence]]?
 Either there is a winner, and it will be an order of magnitude better than the rest, or this is a busted flush, only sustained by the wilful suspension of disbelief that accompanies dying days of a bubble.
-By the way, for most participants, expect an ice age.
+Either way, most participants, expect an ice age. Winter is coming.
-Winter is coming.
 ===These solutions cannot all be different===