Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuaheard | Hacker News Reader

I'm a lawyer, but not an AI engineer. It seems to me that we do not have an AI good enough to analyze, that is apply a given set of rules to a unique situation. As far as I know, the current state of the art of AI is merely algorithmic pattern recognition. This would not be good enough to replace a lawyer.

Also, some quibbles about the article. Anything one writes, such as a contract or blog post, is automatically granted a copyright. Also, the blogger seems to think contracts are some sort of public reference like a statute. They are not. While you can find form books (private), contracts are drafted by lawyers for their clients and are private property.

The author's one interesting idea is a software-type patent on contract clauses. If you could patent, say a non-compete clause, well, that would certainly transform the legal world. I don't think it is feasible, though, and shows the folly of software patents.

View on HN

"This would not be good enough to replace a lawyer."

And proof checkers doesn't replace mathematicians. But the existence of proof checkers puts (a subset of) mathematics into the software realm.

I feel that it is probably inevitable that at some point we will have computer assisted legal analysis.

Michael Kirby, formerly of the High Court of Australia, etc etc would seem to agree with you, and he has for some time.

Here's a speech of his touching on this very topic from the '80s.

http://www.michaelkirby.com.au/images/stories/speeches/1980s...

These are very good points. Computer assisted legal analysis would be a big win in terms of cost, efficiency and accuracy. And it would allow lawyers to spend more of their time being productive in highly creative and impactful ways.

For example, if a lawyer knows which arguments have the highest probability of success, she can focus on framing the facts of her case in the way that best supports those arguments. A system that does this would not replace lawyers - but would assist them in some very important tasks - and would be a big step forward.

I also believe these technologies are inevitable, and (plug) at http://www.judicata.com we are working to make that vision a reality.

"I don't think it is feasible, though, and shows the folly of software patents."

INAL. But I'm curious. In the movies, there's always some obscure precedent that swings the case one way or another. Now in this example of attempting the copyright a clause in a contract, is there a possibility that any ruling ( one way or another ) would create a precedent that could be applied in software patent cases?

If a case like this did occur, and a judge ruled that clauses in contracts can not be copyrighted, what would his argument look like. And would it be specific enough to exclude software patents.

Whole contracts can be, and are, copyrighted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com