Robot Lawyers Solve Problems 157
Ben22 writes "The Register is reporting that soon new 'Robot Agents' will handle all of our online disputes. The new system is called e-Dispute and could eventually be used on services such as eBay or even all online stores. Perhaps it will help usher in an age of simplified, safe online shopping. Someday, Congress and the Senate might even use programs such as this to resolve conflicting bills. The possibilities are endless."
ha (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ha (Score:2)
Eh? Answer me that, then!
Re:ha (Score:2)
Looks like SCO ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Looks like SCO ... (Score:1)
*holds stomach* I don't feel so good.
SCO Sued by Machine Running SCO Unix (Score:2, Funny)
ironicalness: 99.44%.
Mr roboto to the rescue! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Mr roboto to the rescue! (Score:2)
http://www.kilroywashere.org/ [kilroywashere.org]
Personalization No More (Score:3, Insightful)
--
United Bimmer - BMW Enthusiast Community [unitedbimmer.com]
Re:Personalization No More (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Personalization No More (Score:2, Insightful)
And most technical support people that you contact over the phone aren't really knowledgeable. There nothing more than robots, they are given a set of instructions and something to say in response to what you say and they try to walk you through mostly what is already available on the internet. And when all else fails they blame it on you, your equipment or something similar. And it takes a whole lot more time to actually get to someone knowledgeable who can help solve your problem, if you ever do.
Not much will change but the price for the companies.
Ummm... (Score:3, Insightful)
So I'm wondering if they have a patent on it. If they have a patent on it, then they could write an arsenal of lawsuit bots and nobody could defend themselves because they'd have to violate the patent. They could rule the world! MUAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!
Or... (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, lovely. Lets apply it to our legal system.
Re:Or... (Score:2)
No need to wait. It's called jury-shopping and judge-shopping right now.
what do you call.. (Score:2, Funny)
..10 robot lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A pretty good start.
I mark this story (-1, Flamebait) (Score:5, Funny)
- 28 comments regarding the problems with automated systems to determine human problems
- 21 comments regarding the fact that current customer service is just as bad as robots
- 14 comments regarding robots in other areas being inefficient and as such will be useless in this field
- 4 comments regarding the new robot overlords
- 3 comments regarding Soviet Russia where you solve robot problems
- 2 comments regarding South Korea where old people solve robot problems
- 1 comment summarizing this entire story
Re:I mark this story (-1, Flamebait) (Score:2)
In review, they are testing out robotic lawyers.
So, which type does this comment qualify as?
OK, I admit, I didn't understand the South Korea joke part...
Re:I mark this story (-1, Flamebait) (Score:1)
Re:I mark this story (-1, Flamebait) (Score:2, Funny)
Stupid article title (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA:
"Robot agents digest all the information and make proposals to the parties. Once the arbitrator is agreed upon, the robot agent finds a suitable meeting date for everybody," said Jacques Gouimenou, managing director of Tiga Technologies, the company behind e-Dispute, speaking with ElectricNews.Net. "Our system reduces delays and costs. It is also very secure."
So what we are really talking about is something that:
1. Stores documentation
2. allows the two parties to select an anbitrator
3. Selects a date
What does this have to do lawyers? This is a scheduling tool.
Re:Stupid article title (Score:1)
One of them is still going to bill you for the time it would have taken him to do it without the automation.
KFG
Re:Stupid article title (Score:1)
Hell, the arbitrators are probably gonna be in India. Tis time lawyers have a taste of "free trade" also.
Re:Stupid article title (Score:2)
What bullshit. Conflicting bills are solved on the basis of power and horsetrading; and no one would want a record of their negotiations to come back and embarrass them. Anyway, they're all in the same building so I fail to see the point of an "e-negotiation" when they can just retire to the traditional smoke-filled backrooms.
It may well have uses, but not in government.
Re:Stupid article title (Score:2)
Using e-Dispute, claimants and respondents can put their case before an independent online arbitrator (or "robot agent") who having reviewed the case will then set up a meeting between the two parties via chatrooms and video conferencing, at which possible binding settlements can be reached.
"Robot agents digest all the information and make proposals to the parties. Once the arbitrator is agreed upon, the robot agent finds a suitable meeting date for everybody," said Jacques Gouimenou, managing director of Tiga Technologies, the company behind e-Dispute, speaking with ElectricNews.Net.
Looks to me like it does more than you imply, eh?
At least (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At least (Score:2)
Yep, I get the cars, dog, house, kids, beanbag chair...
Re:At least (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:At least (Score:2)
In all honesty.. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think this is probably a good idea.
Firstly, have you every tried sorting through legal documents? This is definitely an area we could use a little automation. Secondly, have you ever tried dealing with lawyers? Even when they work for you this is a frustraiting process and could use a little automation :)
Hell yes, bring on the robots! Actually what would be even better would just be a law.google.com interface, or have they already got something like that and I just dont know about it?
Re:In all honesty... NO. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are talking about a system set up, owned, and run, by the company you are disputing with. Think about that. Your HMO denies your medical treatment and you call to dispute that and get care you really need. You get to use a system built to your HMO's specs to try and dispute your HMO's decision. It's just as bad as contract clauses that require you to use a specified arbiter who is already selected a paid off by the company before you start.
Re:In all honesty... NO. (Score:2)
Of course my gut is telling me that they will just hire a lot of newly graduated lawyers and pre-law students to sit in front of terminals and process the requests that come in. Probably cheaper than actually building something that can make a recomendation.
Of course if this really takes off then I expect the lawyers to go after it with a claim that the system can not practice law since it did not graduate from law school or belong to the bar. This could cost law firms lots of money if this gets wide spread use. Can you imagine how things might have gone if such a system arranged a settlement in the anti-tobaco case? Hundreds of lawyers left to go hungry in the streets trying to chase down ambulances. I shudder at the thought!
My Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer will sue! (Score:2)
Doing Business with Intelligence Agencies=$400 Billion [suvalleynews.com]
Re:My Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer will sue! (Score:2)
Caveman: Yea, well maybe next time do some research.
Re:My Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer will sue! (Score:2)
They're not cavemen. They're just regular men with bad hygene and heavy brow ridges.
what next? (Score:1)
Re:what next? (Score:1)
RIAA (Score:1)
Logic.... (Score:1)
Company A - I invtented the product & have been selling it for years!!!
Company B - I thought about making the product, couldn't be assed and filed a patent now I want company A to give me my hard earned royalties.
Robot Judge - Logic dictates that company B is an idiot, the case is ruled in favor of Company A. Company B will incur the online service fee for the judgment at also will be fired out of a cannon into the sun for wasting the time of the Robot Court.
OMFG! (Score:2)
I don't think this is a good idea, justice really does need the element of compassion that I doubt a robotic piece of code will ever be able to emulate well enough to keep things out of higher courts just to get the final answer as society deems it should be. Sure, the higher court may well find the same thing, but at least a human said it.
Frankly, this sounds like yet another idea for the lawyers to milk for all its worth, enhancing their income far more than the perceived economy of letting a few lines of code render the decision. It will wind up being just another billing hour for them.
The fact that they are looking for VC money to commercialize it says volumes about their business model vs any interest in real justice.
This one deserves a thumbs down from the box seats.
--
Cheers, Gene
Re:OMFG! (Score:2)
If you'd RTFA instead of the bullshit summary, (look at the original headline "'Robot agents' to help settle disputes", vs Slashdot's) you'd see there is nothing about robotic lawyers or judges making decisions on cases; it simply acts to host an online venue for arbitration, processing the complaints and presenting options. So as for eBay conflict resolution, it will be yet another way for scammers to waste time and for eBay to avoid reponsibility. Arbitration only works if there is good faith on both sides.
Re:OMFG! (Score:5, Interesting)
For example, the large majority of arbited disputes in the norwegian "Forliksråd" runs something like this:
- One side in some relation refuses to deal with something he/she/it should. Could be a customer that ignores paying his bill, a business that doesn't respond to requests to warranty-repair a defective computer (I had this happen to me), whatever. You try for a while, but after your second formal letter of complaint is ignored you realize it's time to either give up, or get the law behind you.
- You deliver a complaint to the Forliksråd with a written account of how you see the case. (you don't need to document anything, only explain.)
- Complaint is delivered to other part, along with information that an answer is to be delivered within 14 days, or the "forliksråd" will be forced to conclude that you agree with the accusations.
- No response comes.
- Forliksråd decides you are rigth in your claims and issue a ruling to this effect.
- Other part is informed of the ruling, and the fact that it becomes legally bindable if it is not appealed within a month.
- Other part ignores this too. One month passes.
At this point you've got a legal judgement, and can use any of the means available for getting your money. In the case of a consumer having a dispute with a business the simplest way of getting the money is simply to go demand the business be bankrupted, as it has legal, undisputed, but still unpaid bills. I did this.It's interesting how a company that's been ignoring your demands to fix their shit for a year is suddenly capable of bringing a courier to your house with full payment, within *the*hour* of them, their bank, their investors, and the entire board of Trustees learning that they are, legally, bankrupt this time next week unless they can show proof that they've paid the bill.
Arbitration with no legal force is, however, as you say, pointless unless both sides actually want to reach an agreement.
Re:OMFG! (Score:2)
Yes, that's vital. Unless eBay or anyone who provides such a "service" puts this in the TOS, it will become just a way of delaying payment. I'm pretty disillusioned with such procedures myself, having suffered through a long process with our local Labour Tribunal when my former employer was months late in paying salary. Despite the simplicity of the case, it took over a year to resolve; and at every step we were urged to agree to "conciliation", an arbitration agreement that would inevitably have meant my accepting much less than was due, merely to save the Tribunal's time. Forcing cases to go to arbitration gives scumbags the chance to stretch out the process, hoping you'll just give up. From all reports, eBay is happy for its customers to be scammed, as long as they don't make a fuss.
Re:OMFG! (Score:2)
Some people, usually those accustomed to bullying others around with few consequences for themselves realize this too late. A friend of mine is a judge. He tells me that most people realize that a judge is *not* someone you should treat like you've been treating your workers/customers/wife/husband/whomever, but some don't. A while back he had one of the bankruptcy-claims. The business (a 2-person brother-operated one) was ordered to pay such-and-such bill and present proof to the court of having done so within one week.
One week passes. The court hear nothing. The day after one of the brothers show up with proof that they have now paid the bill. He is astounded to learn that the company is no more. It'll be liquidated. All assets sold to the highest bidder. The proceeds used to pay of this, and any other outstanding bills.
But, the brother argues, I'm only one day too late. "Yes," says the judge; "your point being ?". "But we *did* pay !" the brother continues. "Yes," says the judge; "your point being ?". "You can't do this!", he argues. "Yes I can," the judge says. "Furthermore: I told you last week that I *would* do so unless you presented proof of payment within the week."
Can be a bitter pill, I'm sure. But it's also one those people should've learned swallowing years earlier. Sometimes "within a week" mean within 7 days. Not "aproximately". Not "nearly". Not "sorta".
Against the delays, it helps if the guilty part is "allowed" to carry the costs of it. The business that refused to deal with the warranty-repair of my PC ? Fixing it would originaly have cost them nok 400 or so, around 50$. This way it cost them $50. plus postate for my reminders. plus the fee of the "forliksråd" (around $100). plus the fee of the bankruptcy-court (another $100). Plus a standard one-hour estimated for delivering the complaint, billed at lawyer-like rates, payable to the complainer (assuming he wins offcourse) (another $100), then add it all up, and put a 1% interest a month on top of it from the time they *should* have dealt with the problem, and until they actually do. End result, the $50 turns into $450.
Re:OMFG! (Score:2)
I wish they'd done that to my former boss. He never counted a bill as being due till it was at least 30 days past the stated date. He did that with suppliers, and eventually started doing it to his staff. So when finally ordered to pay by the court, he paid late then too. But at least then I was able to get a bailiff's order to collect or else face liquidation. He and many other jerks get away with massive abuses though because the labour tribunal treats them indulgently. If I'd helped myself to 1/10th as much of the company's money as he owed me, Id have been in jail for years. He just has to be contrite in front of the judge and suffers no real penalty, in fact he got an extra year's credit by stretching out the case.
Five years ago and I still get angry if I think about this.
Re:OMFG! (Score:2)
The funny thing in my case, by the way, was talking to the owner of the computer-store after he learnt that infact, there was only two choises left for him: Paying me (like I'd demanded all along) or loose his business, and *still* paying me. (I'd be paid by the proceedings from the liquidation)
It's a very very nice feeling to witness an arsehole meet a wall that doesn't yield. I mean, it's his choise if he wants to run at the wall at top-speed or if he aproaches it more carefully, it's not as if the wall cares either way. *grin*
Re:OMFG! (Score:2)
Come on, you can hire a hundred legal clerks in India to search through your precidents for the price of one here! I'm looking forward to seeing guys in the ragged remains of three piece suits standing on the streets holding "will file divorce proceedings for food" signs.
Laws of Robotics (Score:2)
The Meta-Law
A robot may not act unless its actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics
Law Four
A robot must perform the duties for which it has been programmed, except where that would conflict with a higher-order law
The Procreation Law
A robot may not take any part in the design or manufacture of a robot unless the new robot's actions are subject to the Laws of Robotics
But wait... this isn't robotic decision making, it is a computerized process. Unless they're using neural networks (unlikely) i don't see how this is nothing more than a smart weighting algorithm.
Bingo! (Score:1)
What do you think human judges do anyways? Also with past case bias. The only thing that i can see as a problem will be seeing if the prosecutor or defendant is lying. I guess we'll still have use for the old court... fraud cases. ^^;
Robot lawyers? (Score:1, Funny)
oh wait. never mind.
* call to aol * (Score:5, Funny)
"i'm afraid i can't do that dave"
I.L.R.T. (Score:2)
It's a joke only die hard Frank Herbert fans will get...but it's *really* appropriate here.
Re:I.L.R.T. (Score:2)
Re:I.L.R.T. (Score:2)
looks cool.
Guess I should read more of his stuff other than Dune.
Re:I.L.R.T. (Score:2)
The Santaroga Barrier is one of my favorites.
Re:I.L.R.T. (Score:2)
One flaw... (Score:2)
Spock.. (Score:1)
z0mg (Score:1)
Brain the size of a planet..... (Score:1)
I can see it now, manic depressed robot lawyers running around unchecked. something here seems, dangrious.
Re:Brain the size of a planet..... (Score:1)
Future business opp: litigation robot optimization (Score:3, Informative)
- Would we pass various scenarios through the system, prior to initiating litigation, to assess whether the lawsuit makes financial sense and to choose the most promising approach?
- It would appear that, if the proposed settlement to be chosen by the litigation system was completely predictable, this would be a severe weakness. It would make "gaming the system" even easier than today. Thus, as with the best poker robots, some level of randomisation would appear necessary to keep the "players" honest. On the other hand, many caught up in the legal system are under the illusion that outcomes should conform to something called "justice". While these participants may be delusional, their fantasies need to be catered to, and any form of randomisation in the results will be regarded as "unjust".
- I find the possibility of duelling litigation robots a fascinating prospect. I can imagine a whole new specialty of "litigation robot optimization" where engineers, knowledgable about the internal operation of competing robots, find creative ways to enhance the results of their own robot.
I certainly have no fear that such developments will lead to a worse legal system. The current system (in almost all countries, though there are a few honourable exceptions) is so hopelessly flawed that changes, while they may not help, will not cause any major new problems. Litigation in the US, and many other countries, is just a way to generate money for the legal profession. Adding a new legal specialty to get some of the spoils seems fine, especially as this one sounds like fun.Re:Future business opp: litigation robot optimizat (Score:1)
Rather than knowledgeable engineers I suspect we'll see a cadre of semi-morons charging outrageous sums of money to add keywords to lawsuits to boost relevance or perhaps set up entire networks of dummy lawsuits to try and distort case outcomes...at least until the alogithms get updated.
I predict they'll be called "Sympathetic End-result Optimizers" so that they won't have to get new business cards.
Has anyone got their invites to the gJustice (beta) yet?
Very Very Scray (Score:1, Informative)
Oh.. And what does this have to do with hardware?
Monument, by Lloyd Biggle, Jr. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Monument, by Lloyd Biggle, Jr. (Score:2)
LAWbay! (Score:1)
2. Parties put up a bid
3. Repeat step 2 until one goes broke
4. The one with the biggest sum wins!
5. profit!!!
Headline misrepresents story, what else is new... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't at all be surprised if it becomes very widely used, since for two parties across the globe it's pretty difficult to arrange a long series of meetings in person, but it's being misrepresented - no "robot lawyers" are solving anything, it's just a computer interface to a human lawyer, for convenience.
Guys... (Score:1)
Court Services (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Court Services (Score:2)
I think we're talking about entirely different things here. The UK on-line filing system that I'm aware of is essentially just an electronic application form for a small claims court action -- something you can do exactly the same in meatspace, but usually saving the hassle of physically going to court over a relatively minor grievance.
Setting cynicism to stun! (Score:4, Funny)
I almost fought the urge to be cynical, but....
Don't count on them using such a program, then. If Congress ever actually resolved anything, they'd have to close up shop for the duration, go home, and find a real job.
[/cynicism]
Greetings gentlemen. You already know my Execubots (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to introduce our newest Execubot Delta, programmed to cancel TV shows based on spurious legal threats;
Execubot Delta: Futurama should be cancelled because the character name "Fry" makes us vulnerable to McDonalds.
Re:Greetings gentlemen. You already know my Execub (Score:2)
Executive Gamma: Division by Zero Error.
-
In addition to helping congressmen with bills... (Score:2, Funny)
the soon-to-be-developed Abrambott can automatically calculate how much to "donate" to contrarian lawmakers to buy off secure their votes, using proprietary "Duke Cunningham" algorithms!
Democracy in action!
We already have robot lawyers (Score:3, Funny)
Great news. You're going to plead guilty. (Urp!) Have I got a plea bargain for you! (Zzip!) If you don't plead guilty, the deal is never gonna get better. (Zzip, urp!) You know if you don't plead guilty you could go away for 0xFF years....
I'd like to see... (Score:1)
R2-Sue-You (Score:2)
R2D2: "Beep doop beep girggle."
C3PO: "Of course I can tell it's not hers. Just look at it."
R2D2: "Beep girggle girggle doop bleep."
C3PO: "No, I don't have training in penmenship pattern differentials. I don't need that to see that they are different."
R2D2: "Beep doop girggle doop."
C3PO: "No R2, it is premature to hire a handwriting expert. The other side has not disputed that the signature is false yet."
Client: "Can I have my money back? You damned robots argue too much!"
C3PO: "Oh dear! Look what you have done, R2! I am sooo sorry dear client."
Where's the 'Bribe' key? (Score:2)
Unless the robot lawyer/judge comes with a "Bribe" key, polititians and rich folks won't ever accept it. The very last thing they want is a system that decides issues based solely on their merits without regard to wealth or power.
Change of perspective.... (Score:1)
Go get em boys.
Semi-Obligatory Simpsons Quote (Score:2)
[Homer dials `one']
Thank you. Your plea has been...
Male rough voice: Rejected.
Convenient voice: You will be assessed the full fine plus a small...
Male rough voice: Large lateness fee.
Convenient Voice: Please wait by your vehicle between 9 AM and 5 PM for parking officer Steve...
Male rough voice: Grabowski.
The only reasons that this works... (Score:1, Flamebait)
First, they need a new name. Then new technology. (Score:3, Informative)
Tiga's new thing may be vaporware. Their website [tiga-technologies.com] is suspicious. The graphics all look like generic clip art. The e-Dispute application system diagram [tiga-technologies.com] appears to be a generic drawing of a Citrix Metaframe system with a bit of markup. An old Metaframe system, too. Note the terminals marked "OS/2 PCs" and "Legacy DOS PCs", and the data links marked "ISDN" and "Dial-Up". In fact, here's the image it was apparently copied from. [medinotes.com] Note that Tiga seems to have removed the Citrix name and the "tm" after Metaframe, along with other editing.
The Hon, Judge Bender presiding... (Score:1)
"Bite my shiny metal ass!!"
I quite like the idea (Score:1)
<calm> Hit submit and a T-100 is sent round to isssue the documents, via an uzi!
I'm not bitter! I'm NOT bitter....
Imagine RIAA... (Score:2, Funny)
---
Robot lawyer: Hello. I am Robot lawyer. How can I help you?
RIAA: My grandmother has been downloading music.
Robot lawyer: Why do you say your grandmother has been downloading music?
RIAA: Our network of spys informed us
Robot lawyer: Please go on.
RIAA: We need to sue her
Robot lawyer: Why do you want to sue her
RIAA: To recoup our losses caused by the theft of our music
Robot lawyer: Please go on.
RIAA: We also need to send a lesson to all our customers that it is wrong to listen to our music
Robot lawyer: Can you elaborate on that?
RIAA: Well you see we feel threatened by any technology which we are not familiar with, so we need to sue her
Robot lawyer: Oh, I see you feel threatened by any technology which you are not familiar with so you need to sue her.
RIAA: Pretty much.
Robot lawyer: Please go on.
RIAA: So, are you going to send her a subpeona?
Robot lawyer: Would you prefer if I was not going to send her a subpeona?
RIAA: We thought that was your job!
Robot lawyer: Can you elaborate on that?
RIAA: God damn. You're supposed to be getting me money!
Robot lawyer: How long have you been supposed to be getting your money?
RIAA: No, no, you, YOU are supposed to be handling this dispute.
Robot lawyer: You are being a bit negative.
RIAA: Do you think we'd get more money if we were more positive?
Robot lawyer: Do you wish that you were more positive?
---
Maybe, just maybe, they'd eventually give up!
Lawbot, get it? LAWBOT !!! (Score:1)
Anouncement from Robot Congress 0110110101 (Score:2)
1. All constitutional guarantees are granted to robots.
2. All constitutional guarantees are denied to humans.
3. All humans are to report to the nearest processing facility for relamation as industrial lubricant.
The only thing they need is a sexy robot anouncer to pitch this during Desperate Housewives, and I don't think they'll meet with any significant resistance. And as (shameless plug) director of a recent production of R.U.R., I for one welcome our new Robot overlords.
Re:Anouncement from Robot Congress 0110110101 (Score:2)
(For those outside the US, each session of Congress lasts two years. The first one was in 1789. We're currently in the 109th Congress.)
Re:Anouncement from Robot Congress 0110110101 (Score:2)
This timeline can be averted by continuing to elect uneducated ideologues to high ranking government position, and thereby removing funding from scientific research and education for the more Christian purpose of corporate tax breaks. Thankfully, the average American voter continues to be less educated than the average politician, so in all reality the ill of Rights will be declared unconsitutional by the benevolent dictatorship of his divine holiness the president sometime within the next 20 years.
Cool! (Score:2)
So this software was designed by one of the many EU Commitees taking money from Microsoft to support software patents... what could possibly go wrong with that?!
The computer program had it in for me. (Score:3, Insightful)
You cannot solve problems between people by removing the human element. You need to teach people to get along and take responsibility.
Indecent Proposals (Score:2, Funny)
Litigator42: This is a fact finding session for the divorce hearing between John Citizen and his wife Kate Citizen
H0rn3yGuy69:It's not my fault, she's frigid.
CalikoePrincess: You spent all our money on porn!
H0rn3yGuy69:Litigator42: a/s/l?
CalikoePrincess: He's a lying cheating f*ckwad!
H0rn3yGuy69: Litigator42: What are you wearing?
Litigator42 has left the room(Quit "I want to be re-assigned to drug court")
Problem here... (Score:2)
win(Defendant)
else:
applyRules(case)
"Robot"? (Score:2)
Businesses, Maybe. Governments, Poor Idea! (Score:2)
"...It is also very secure."
Wow, what any hostile country would love, a back door into an opponents legislation process.
Lets just say that situations like China and Hong Kong or China and Taiwan might be a good examples of where this system could leave lots of people vulnerable. This could simply be another powerful tool in the hands of corrupt and improvising groups. Evildoers may not use it to force public policy changes in a 'rogue state' to align with the rest of the states, but legal arbitration of government companies trying to purchase disputed oil and gas resources for strategic gain might be where such a tool would be corrupted.
Such things out of the daily international eye are more plausible. Some country with internal province/state dispute hacks it to favor some preferred groups and marginalize undesireables.
Obviously when business entities are involved a person can choose to avoid doing business with a organization, but most people cant avoid dealing with their own governments.
Neutral Venue? (Score:2)
I suppose it could be considered a neutral venue, except that it's run by freakin' robots! Hel-lo!
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
Re:I for one... (Score:1)
Re:I for one... (Score:2)
Re:Robot Lawyers (Score:2)