Legaltech startup conference: Difference between revisions

}}We define a [[legal tech start-up conference]] as “opportunities for fantasists to meet the credulous and sell them stuff they don't need,” and a successful one where the credulous side of the room have meaningful budgets and a mandate to modernise and innovate at all costs. This is not nearly as implausible as it sounds, or ought to be.

Here is an interesting list for the neural network to parse and analyse: here are the two hundred and seventy-seven [[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, clearly won’t ever ''actually'' make one) — there are some, even at a equick scan, that don’t such as ''The Crafty Counsel''. But let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that most do. Now there can be no doubt that the amounts spent in the pursuit and defence and analysis of one’s legal rights and obligations are, to all intents, infinite, but the particular problems to be solved by tech are not. ''There are only so many uses you can but technology to''. Do not confuse value 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 scale of this list ought to prompt some questions.