Question
| I want to have Charley Cooper’s speech from the following video to be rewritten from another (ignore his comments about his personal). Please write from Cooper’s point of view (write the speech as he would read it, only you’re using a different perspective) Link for the video: https://vimeo.com/207811948 |
Answer
My task entails talking about how to draw out differences between technical challenges affecting smart contracts as opposed to legal challenges. It is a difficult task because the two cannot be fully pulled apart (Menell 2644; Wang 308). Contracts are written by people; similarly computer software is written by people. However, these people are not the same in terms of approaches used. I graduated from my law school and have learned about contracts but I had never read one; I studied property and I had never read a lease, a title, or a piece of property; the same case applies to studying criminal law without ever having read a police report. Law schools operate in theories by teaching case study models. They teach students how to think and then they go outside and get on-the-job training in the law firms. One figures out about a concept when they are given a task by their partner in the law firm.
As a lawyer, I was not also taught how to write computer codes. This leads us to the first technological challenge. It is a technological problem when we do not have people who know how to write both contracts and codes. The legal component and the code component areboth important to smart contracts. Therefore, I do not understand whether the solution is to teach lawyers how to write codes or coders how to interpret contracts, or to adopt some elements of both. What is certain is that there is no robust effort or generalized effort across the educational community in the world that is going to teach lawyers how to write smart contracts.
The second problem entails the application or software bugs. There will always be unheard limitations to technology. However, technology will keep evolving and it will continue to be adopted widely (Menell 1335). It is impossible for the industry, lawyers, or regulators to wait for technology to be perfect for us to adopt it. We have to be flexible enough to understand the evolution of technology, put it into context, and be willing to adopt it. It cannot be substituted in one instance with a perfect technology. It has to keep evolving. Even in the case of a fast-paced technology, it is impossible for that technology to be invented and deployed immediately.
The third challenge concerns interoperability. It is our prayer that the distributed ledger space will evolve to allow separate networks to be able to talk to each other. That will take some time but it does not mean it is insurmountable. It is already being done. We are working on a trade finance project where the shipping industry, as an example, might adopt a net solution written on a theorem for a distributed ledger technology and the banks adopt the Corel, which we are building as the solution. Ultimately, the shipping industry and the bank will have to work together to get their trade finance deal done. However, for this to be done, networks have to interoperate and the smart contracts written on top of these various networks to be interoperable depending on the different systems, as this will ultimately enhance contractual relationships (Mayer and Argyres 397).
Finally, there is an issue that is not yet an impediment, but it touches on the power of smart contracts to unleash their full potential. It revolves around the idea of machine learning and the ability of smart contracts to make themselves smarter. We are designing a system that will be able to point out to external legal natural language documents that allows for things like legal disputes resolution and cross-order enforceability. However, the aforementioned barriers have to be overcome first, and it will not happen overnight.
Work Cited
Mayer, Kyle. J. and Argyres, Nicholas. S. “Learning to Contract: Evidence from thePersonal Computer Industry.” Organization Science, 15.4 (2004): 394–410. Print.
Menell, Peter. S. “Tailoring Legal Protection for Computer Software.” Stanford Law Review, 39 (1986): 1329-1372.
Menell, Peter. S. “The Challenges of Reforming Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software.” Columbia Law Review, 94 (1994): 2644-2654. Print.
Whang, Seungjin. “Contracting for Software Development.” Management Science, 38.3 (1992): 307 – 324. Print.
Yale Law School. Blockchain: Smart Contracts. https://vimeo.com/207811948.Web.
USE THE FOLLOWING COUPON CODE :
SPRINGDISCOUNT