Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When More Information Isn't a Good Thing

Posted by Zonk on from the gobbling-money-pac-man-style dept.

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "'Most of the time, speedier, cheaper information allows the economy to produce more from less, often by eliminating mistakes, cutting wasted effort and shrinking doubt,' David Wessel writes in the Wall Street Journal. But better information through technology has a downside; sometimes, efficiency benefits certain players to the detriment of society. One example Wessel cites: software that tells patent litigants which courts have the most favorable historical record for their side. 'It doesn't help the economy produce more goods or services. It creates nothing of beauty or pleasure,' he writes. 'It simply helps someone get a bigger slice of the pie.'"

6 of 200 comments (clear)

  1. And if the case goes to trial... by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ... there's SmartJury. I worked at a client site where they were considering this software/service that would allow an attorney to assess how jurors might vote on a case from within the courtroom. This not only helps attorneys guess how the case is going to go, but whether or not they ought to use one of their "free strikes" against a given juror based on any criteria they choose, including race, economic stratum, political affiliation, you name it!

    Unfortunately, we can moan all we want, it's a fact of life. About the best we can do is convince judges to prohibit use of the Internet from within the courtroom.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
  2. Finally... somebody discovered the TRUTH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I've always said insurance is communism under disguise but nobody believed me. It's time people see through this corrupt practice.

  3. WSJ = Dow Jones Private Info Services by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    More information, even info like this (weakness in patent vetting system) is a good thing. But only when it's more info consumed by more people. Unfair access to these kinds of stats has always been the privilege of the rich, the connected, the Harvard Law School. Tech makes it cheap enough to be more widely available. That means a "level playing field". And quite possibly closing the holes revealed by the stats. If only because the Harvard Law School needs to keep equitable access to system vulnerabilities as proprietary knowledge, closing the holes that offer nonmembers any comparative advantage. No surprise that the Wall Street Journal wants this cheap dirt off the streets, and back in the boardrooms where (they think) it belongs.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  4. Arrow has contradicted himself by vikstar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    After RTFAing...

    How about the service offered by LegalMetric LLC, a start-up founded by patent lawyer Greg Upchurch? Contemplating a patent-infringement case in Delaware? For $795, Mr. Upchurch will tell you which judges rule most swiftly and which tend to favor patent holders. Making a motion for summary judgment? Mr. Upchurch can tell you how the judge has ruled on similar motions versus his peers.
    - Will possibly make apparent significant biases of one judge over another, and allow procedures to be setup which monitor or train judges to become less biased?

    Imagine a place with uncertain weather where food is plentiful in rainy spots, but not in others. Residents, in essence, buy insurance. The lucky feed the unlucky. No one starves. Then it becomes possible to buy accurate weather forecasts. One who buys the forecast knows whether he needs insurance or not; he profits. But the total amount of food available is unchanged. And if everyone buys the weather forecast, the insurance market becomes impossible.
    - Knowing where food can be produced and where it cannot can help people choose where to live. Perhaps even develop a more effecient way to produce the food.

    If deciphering the human genome allows each of us to know the precise odds of contracting a dread disease, life and health insurance will be very tricky.
    - Identifying which genes lead to diseases is the first step to preventing/eradicating them at the genome level for everyone.

    The only time that "too much information" could be harmful socialy, as Arrow put it, is when that information is shown to a minority and withheld from the majority. In fact, this is the lack of information that is not beneficial.

    Ultimately what Arrow is trying to say is that information given to one party but withheld from another can be detrimental to the later. Seems common sense to me.

    --
    The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
  5. Re:guns as a tool by Kiashien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hunting.

    You know, killing a large animal for food.

    Or the damned huge bear behind your house, trying to eat your child.

    Don't get me wrong, stronger gun laws are a -good- thing.

    But to say a gun can't be a tool, is just plain ignorant.

    --
    Code. Writing. Writing Code. Writing in general. What? They aren't -that- differnet.
  6. Re:This is along the lines of by carsamba · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There were always those who had the knowledge, and hoarded it jealously. The bias of some particular court is probably well known to a number of people. But when that knowledge becomes "public", somebody starts to complain. More knowledge spread around, a more level playing field.. Obviously those who had the high ground is bound to complain.