82,853
edits
Mark-up: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
1. ''([[Brokerage]])'': A ''broker’s'' mark-up (or [[mark-down]]) is a [[dealer]]’s way of making money: the equivalent in a [[principal]] arrangement to [[commission]] paid to an [[agent]]. | 1. ''([[Brokerage]])'': A ''broker’s'' mark-up (or [[mark-down]]) is a [[dealer]]’s way of making money: the equivalent in a [[principal]] arrangement to [[commission]] paid to an [[agent]]. | ||
2. ''(Institutionalised pedantry''): [[legal mark-up|''Legal'' mark-up]] is an impenetrable melange of [[passive|passives]], [[passive-aggressive]]s, [[redundancy|redundancies]], {{tag|flannel}} and [[non-sequitur]]s injected into a perfectly sensible {{tag|contract}} by a perfectly tedious [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. The sheer inscrutability of one’s mark-up is a criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]]. | 2. (''~ language)'': A way of coding ordinary text in a way that [[Machines are fungible|machines]] can understand. This works quite well sometimes: The internet runs on [[hypertext mark-up language]] — “[[html]]”— an acquired taste but one which any fule can understand with a little patience; the fabulous MediaWiki runs on [[wiki mark-up]], which even dear old five-thumbed [[Jolly Contrarian]] can understand — but other adventures have been less successful. There are lawyers at Linklaters who still can’t communicate unemotionally, having coded the entirety of the [[2011 Equity Derivatives Definitions]]— remember those? No? — in [[Financial products Markup Language]]. | ||
3. ''(Institutionalised pedantry''): [[legal mark-up|''Legal'' mark-up]] is an impenetrable melange of [[passive|passives]], [[passive-aggressive]]s, [[redundancy|redundancies]], {{tag|flannel}} and [[non-sequitur]]s injected into a perfectly sensible {{tag|contract}} by a perfectly tedious [[mediocre lawyer|attorney]]. The sheer inscrutability of one’s mark-up is a criteria for [[inhouse legal team of the year]]. | |||
Legal mark-up, being the fossil record of a legal [[negotiation]] between [[legal eagle]]s, bears a striking similarity to a playground argument. It will start as a broad, wide-ranging, harangue; each side adopting fundamentally opposed positions largely for the sake of it, yet summoning commendable outrage at the other’s position, notwithstanding it’s fundamental arbitrariness. | Legal mark-up, being the fossil record of a legal [[negotiation]] between [[legal eagle]]s, bears a striking similarity to a playground argument. It will start as a broad, wide-ranging, harangue; each side adopting fundamentally opposed positions largely for the sake of it, yet summoning commendable outrage at the other’s position, notwithstanding it’s fundamental arbitrariness. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found. | Both sides will walk away declaring victory, but silently resenting the disappointing but pragmatic middle ground they have found. | ||
In the analogue days, mark-up found its voice in spidery handwritten annotations, balloons, glyphs and [[Rider|riders]] defacing carefully-typed pages of copy — hard enough to decrypt in their native form, and then faxed between institutions, making it harder still.<ref>The process was not without its serendipities: the [[Biggs hoson]] was discovered this way.</ref> Since legal employers have discovered they can and should pay their lawyers to type after all, | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Redline]] | *[[Redline]] | ||
*[[Deltaview Force: An Opco Boone Adventure]] | |||
*[[Inhouse legal team of the year]] | *[[Inhouse legal team of the year]] | ||
{{ref}} | |||