82,891
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
It’s too early to stand on the poop-deck in front of a mission accomplished banner, but OneNDA is getting there. We remain hopeful and optimistic. So, here some observations about what it could all mean. | It’s too early to stand on the poop-deck in front of a mission accomplished banner, but OneNDA is getting there. We remain hopeful and optimistic. So, here some observations about what it could all mean. | ||
====Simplification beats technology — and ''helps'' it.==== | ====Simplification beats [[technology]] — and ''helps'' it.==== | ||
''If you simplify, you may not need technology''. There is no need for automation, document assembly, even a mail merge | ''If you simplify, you may not need [[technology]]''. There is no need for [[Automated contract review|automation]], [[document assembly]], even a mail-merge gilds the lilly. Despite what the [[Thought leader|thought-leaders]] say, the problem facing modern [[legal eagles]] is not ''[[service delivery]]'', but ''[[Legal service|service]]'' itself. | ||
Fix the content, and the delivery challenges fix themselves. | ''Fix the content, and the delivery challenges fix themselves''. | ||
An ironic consequence: | An ironic consequence: ''if you fix the content, you need less [[technology]], '''and''' the [[technology]] tends to work better''. To design for technology, design for ''no'' technology. The fewer options, subroutines, [[Caveat|caveats]] and [[conditions precedent]] in your legal forms, the easier they will be to automate. You will get all kinds of second order benefits too: fewer complaints, fewer comments, less time auditing your monstrous catalogue of hateful templates. | ||
{{maxim|First, cut out the pies}}. | |||
====It’s not the [[form]], or even the content, but '''''consensus''''' that matters==== | ====It’s not the [[form]], or even the content, but '''''consensus''''' that matters==== | ||
Once upon a time — until 2021 | Once upon a time — until 2021 — if you devised your own [[NDA]], however brief or elegant, you could expect it to be ''rejected''<ref>There ''is'' a “battle of the forms”, even if not apparent to the [[doyen of drafting]].</ref> or [[Mark-up|marked up]] to ''oblivion'' by the [[rent-seeking]] massive.<ref>The [[JC]] knows this, because he’s tried it. No [[counterparts]] clause! No waiver of jury trials! It was still worth doing, but it didn’t solve the problem.</ref> Your voice was but a guttering candle in a gale of [[special pleading]]. Collectively we despaired of NDAs, but, taken individually, we found ourselves curiously ''invested'' in them. Hence, slit trenches. | ||
But | But an outbreak of public spiritedness can change that, and that was OneNDA: interested people came from far and wide to help; everyone<ref>Everyone except the [[doyen of drafting]] himself, that is: [https://www.adamsdrafting.com/onenda-is-mediocrenda-thoughts-on-a-proposed-standard-nondisclosure-agreement/ toys: say goodbye to pram!] </ref> checked their agendas at the door. This was what Wikipedians call a “[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barn_raising barn-raising]”. The community came together for the greater good of all. | ||
Now once a barn is raised and community feels ownership in it, it is the very ''fact'' of the barn, rather than how it was built or what it is made of, that is its value. Community assets accrue to the benefit of everyone. The structure | Now once a barn is raised and community feels ownership in it, it is the very ''fact'' of the barn, rather than how it was built or what it is made of, that is its value. Community assets accrue to the benefit of everyone. The structure might not be perfect but nor is there any interest in undermining it, much less setting fire to the roof: ''everyone has a stake in the barn.'' ''Everyone'' has [[skin in the game]]. The more it is used, the stronger it gets. | ||
The more people use it, the more [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough|“good enough” ''becomes'' “perfection”]]. | The more people use it, the more [[Perfection is the enemy of good enough|“good enough” ''becomes'' “perfection”]]. | ||
Thus, tiresome complaints that, for example, it refers to “information that is in the public domain” and not just “information that is public” — I mean, what a [[Knee-slide and jet wings|zinger]] — fall away because no-one '' | Thus, tiresome complaints that, for example, it refers to “information that is in the public domain” and not just “information that is public” — I mean, what a [[Knee-slide and jet wings|zinger]] — fall away because ''no-one cares''. ''Who'' would take that point?<ref>I can think of one person.</ref> Why? ''Everyone knows what it means''. | ||
Community consensus, like an internet protocol, benefits everyone. | Community consensus, like an internet protocol, benefits everyone. | ||
====The hard lines discourage [[rentsmithing]] around the edges==== | ====The hard lines discourage [[rentsmithing]] around the edges==== | ||
Once | And it gets better. Once a common standard exists, the hard lines around it dampen [[rentsmithing|peripheral legal-eaglery]] around edge cases, because ''it isn’t worth it'' to argue them. Not even for a [[pedantry|pedant]]. | ||
We all know the common fripperies thrown into an NDA negotiation by way of a dominance display: [[indemnities]]; [[Exclusive licence|exclusivities]]; [[non-solicitation]] and so on. These | We all know the common fripperies thrown into an NDA negotiation by way of a dominance display: [[indemnities]]; [[Exclusive licence|exclusivities]]; [[non-solicitation]] and so on. These are quickly rejected out of hand, but the courtship ritual of inserting then removing them is not just [[tedious]]: It is costly, distracting, and takes time. | ||
By | By insisting on hard lines around itself, OneNDA makes itself unavailable to host that kind of pointless ''rutting''. And it is hard to [[rentsmith]] without a “host” contract. To do it, the [[Rentsmith|rentsmithor]] must find a new host agreement, or make one, for a plainly cosmetic purpose. It will be discouraged from doing that for fear of looking stupid. | ||
''A standardised form discourages peripheral negotiation''. | ''A standardised form discourages peripheral negotiation''. |