Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Robolawyer to Handle Clickwraps?

Posted by michael on from the fatally-flawed-ideas dept.

adelord writes "Recently Wired published an essay by Mark D. Rasch describing the need for a 'browser-based automaton that could be adjusted to match your tolerance for legal mumbo jumbo' to help the user navigate the torrent of user agreements most of us click through without reading. Is this a job for Google Labs, and if not, who else would write the software for it? Do you think it is a good idea? While the legal exposure from writing software that partially fills the role of a lawyer could be enormous, I sure that it would have an ironclad user agreement that I would simply click through in my excitement to use it."

4 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. Do you think it is a good idea? by darth_MALL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hmmmm. If they end up with a product that works as hit-and-miss as Babelfish, wouldn't that jeopordize the correct translation of legalese? Are you still bound to the original mumbo-jumbo if you only understood a flawed translation? Doesn't seem feasable. Why not just dumb down the actual legal language?

    1. Re:Do you think it is a good idea? by rubberbando · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think that lawyers themselves understand legalese properly.

      I agree. I took a law class in High School. The problem with today's law is it has gotten so complex. Interpeting law is about on the same level as interpeting the christian bible. Anyone can interpet just about anything one way or another. If they need backup, there is always some previous person/case that they could look up showing the same interpetation to help argue their case. However, the other lawyer can do the same thing to show a completely different interpetation to argue their side. In the end, the lawyer that wins is the one who puts the best spin onto their argument to properly sway the judge and/or jury.

      And people wonder why most politicians used to be lawyers.. :-/

      --
      DEAD DEAD DEAD DELETE ME
  2. Simpler solution by LastToKnow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd prefer it if we just required companies to add summaries to their legal aggreements. Like a little bit at the top that says thing like

    * You're not allowed to re-sell this software
    * We can use our update feature to install whatever we want on your computer
    * Your soul belongs to us

    Followed by all the legal mumbo jumbo required to make it all hold up in a court.

  3. The obvious question? by scribblej · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My first thought is, if you have a peice of software "signing" these EULAs for you -- who's bound by the "contract?"