Hmm, you bring up some good points. But there&#x27;s a spectrum of legal disputes, and a range of outcomes that actors are expecting from adjudication.<p>Obviously an acquisition is an incredibly complicated transaction, requiring an enormous amount of effort. The stakes are incredibly high.<p>There&#x27;s plenty of low-stakes commercial endeavors that aren&#x27;t so complicated, but could still use computerized dispute resolution.<p>Take a ride share. The people involved are looking to mitigate various kinds of risk. The driver wants to make sure you won&#x27;t puke in his car, that he&#x27;ll get paid, etc. etc. The rider wants to make sure that the driver has insurance, that he&#x27;ll show up on time, and other kinds of guarantees.<p>So you can set a flexible system whereby should either party break the terms of the contract, the software provides a path to redress. Each of these guarantees can be modeled in the software, with systems for, say, uploading photos with timestamps if the customer actually does puke in the car.<p>The record, plus the collected history of adjudication results, provides a way for both parties to come to a conclusion about this particular dispute. Then both parties can decide whether to accept it and move on, or escalate.<p>If one chooses to escalate, then the record of the transaction can be pulled by an appointed arbitrator and then he can add the needed human touch to create a resolution. Again, if one party is not satisfied, then he can escalate to an actual lawsuit.<p>Over years of refinement, escalation, arbitration, the system can be tuned to such a degree that lawsuits in that arena become practically non-existent. Profits generated by the system can be re-allocated towards new market-making activities.