Innovation paradox: Difference between revisions

Are there more words? My oath there are.<ref>Now, to be sure, I have no data for this last assertion — where would you get them? — but there is no doubt the variety, length and textual density of legal {{t|contract}}s ''exploded'' after 1990.</ref>  

The more [[technology]] we have thrown at “[[the legal problem]]”, the longer and crappier our contracts have become. A curious fellow might pause to wonder ''why''. Surprisingly few have.<ref>Not even those professionally motivated to do so: futurologists of the law have forged whole academic careers by predicting a [[The Singularity is Near - Book Review|legal dystopia]] which seems, in thirty years, only sclerotically to have got any nearer.</ref> Let me hazard a guess. Why is it that technology isn’t helping? To be sure, Andy has given; it isn’t Bill this time, so who is it that is taking away?<ref>Let me [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law Google that cultural reference for you].</ref> ''We all are''. We [[Mediocre lawyer|nit-picky, care-worn, pedantic attorneys]]. It is a function of the [[incentive|incentives]] at play. We [[lawyer]]s and [[negotiator]]s are remunerated by the time we take and the value we add. We add value in the shape of words. We put them in and we take them out. We are rewarded for the complexity and sophistication of our analysis. That means, we ''fiddle''.