[bjr-]

The law can be interpreted as a set of rules matched against an action in a particular context to determine whether said action is legal.

Right now lots of people do this manually.

Maybe computers can do it better.

If computers can do it better, maybe people could focus on writing new laws and refactoring old ones instead of repeatedly interpreting old laws for each case.

[BenoitEssiambre]

Yup, legal code isn't that different from computer code where a judge is the interpreter and evidence is fed as input.

If we could invent a computer interpreter that acts as a judge, laws and contracts being its code might make it obvious to lawyers why it doesn't make sense to allow code to be patented.

Every time lawyers would write laws or contracts they would have to avoid using legal ideas that have already been patented subjecting them to the same legal difficulties software developers face every time they write code.

I guess I should patent that invention.

[rhizome]

You could also add in EDGAR data that touches the laws to make estimates on the way the judiciary would interpet a certain action. It could also be used to find loopholes, conviction-free zones near boundaries in the law that could be closed.

[jacques_chester]

> I guess I should patent that invention.

Your comment above would potentially count as disclosure. I and probably others have previously used the black-box analogy too.

[vdaniuk]

Hey, that is one quite interesting idea about law and code. Thanks!

[rottyguy]

RobotWars for Lawyers invariably leading to digitizing the whole judicial process.