[tdaltonc]

I mean a "concept of precedent by which past decisions under similar fact patterns are used to inform decisions regarding new fact patterns." Without the need for territorial jurisdiction there will be many competing (but still distinct) common law groups. Signatories would pick a lineage at signing (npm install JAMS).

We'll start with human only arbiters, (panel of three from JAMS for example) then moved to mixed panels, then totally mechanical arbiters will handle most disputes once they're good enough.

[TheSpiceIsLife]

then totally mechanical arbiters will handle most disputes once they're good enough.

I'm not seeing it. Who's going to enforce the outcomes of machine dispute resolution? I mean, who's going to even want to sign up to the machine dispute resolution? Not me, no way, that's the freaky dystopian future we're supposed to be trying to avoid.

[MrRadar]

> I mean, who's going to even want to sign up to the machine dispute resolution? Not me, no way, that's the freaky dystopian future we're supposed to be trying to avoid.

Hell, that was a plot point in a 1987 episode of Max Headroom, "The Blanks", where a "blank" (someone who has erased themselves from all government databases, which is a crime in the world of Max Headroom) protests after she is tried by a computer that she has a right to be judged by a human but the prosecutor points out that as a "blank" she "has no rights" (implying that if she was not a "blank" she would have such a right).

[tdaltonc]

Business wants a reliable and predictable legal system. They don't care that the judge has a pulse. If the machine looses it and starts making terrible decisions, people would just start using a different arbitration group. You could probably even update old (well written) contracts to accommodate that.

[sandworm101]

Business wants a just and fair legal system.

Reliability and predictability are extraordinarily easy. For example: he who pays the most to the judge wins. That's very reliable, very predictable. It can be automated. Decisions can be taken instantaneously with absolute and perfect certainty as to who should be the victor. But it isn't just or fair, nor is it friendly to business.

[xtian]

Business wants to maximize profit. It supports justice and fairness to the extent that they aid the production of profit and absolutely no further.

A just legal system may be imposed upon businesses, but the desire of each business is to transform that system into one where it receives maximum benefit for minimum expenditure.

Your example isn't desirable because it maximizes expenditure, not because it minimizes justice.

[speeder]

I am from Brazil.

You are right, and wrong.

Your second paragraph is right.

Your first, depends. The tiny businessman will claim he wants fair courts, but the big business love the predictable and reliable courts, because they save time and money when making decisions with legal repercussions, and are great for those with money.

Brazil economy tanked recently in part BECAUSE courts suddenly become actually fair, sending several corrupted companies, and their thousands of (mostly innocent) employees to their doom, and making rich people wary of investing, because now they are unsure about their own future, and the corrupt ones fear for their future.

[GFK_of_xmaspast]

Business wants a legal system that will rule in their favor.

[anonbanker]

I cannot wait until I can do UNIDROIT[0]-compatible contracts in Rust using Parity[1]. building an implementation of UNCITRAL Model Law[2] would be the biggest market disruption I could think of. Imagine being able to do ex aequo et bono (think Judge Judy/small claims rules) arbitration; even with human (flawed/biased) arbitral tribunals, this would be amazing.

ROSS is killing the need for lawyers, and this is the path to killing the need for judges. Software is eating the world, and i couldn't be happier.

0. http://www.unidroit.org/english/principles/contracts/princip...

1. https://ethcore.io/parity.html

2. http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitrati...

[lukesed]

>then totally mechanical arbiters will handle most disputes once they're good enough.

It seems to me that any such arbiter would need to have the practical ability to interpret the human intent behind imprecise/incorrect language and author/fix code. I think that would be a major advance in computer science and the most important application would be writing software.