Template:Legaltech as rent-seeking: Difference between revisions

[[Legaltech]] addresses inefficiencies which manifest themselves as negative annuities: ongoing costs and resource drains for quotidian tasks with minimal value. It is generally predicated on the [[vendor]] earning not just a fee, ''but an annuity''. The thought process is this: if customers have an ongoing cost of ''ten'', they will be prepared to pay me an ongoing cost of ''two'' to remove it. Mathematically, unimpeachable logic.

But there is a [[paradox]] here: If your [[legaltech]] solution itself generates ongoing labour, soaking up costs and resources to keep working, such that that two represents an honest margin on that ongoing work, then ''itis not legaltech but something else.'' This is more like process-reengineering coupled with [[outsourcing]].<ref>[[Outsourcing]] has its own hidden costs and shortcomings, of course.</ref> That is ''not'' [[legaltech]]. That is [[Management consultant|''management consultancy'']].  

If your solution really ''is'' [[legaltech]]: if everything needed to remove the customer’s ongoing cost of ten is done upon implementation then, once the customer has paid for that implementation, why should it pay any more to operate the machine? Why should there be an ongoing marginal cost per unit?  

Here there is no longer an ongoing cost of ten: the customer’s problem is solved. The machine costs nothing<ref>As good as nothing. Electricity, processing power. But the customer does not need to rent these from you.</ref>. The customer’s question is now: what on earth am I paying this ongoing running cost ''for''?