Welcome to the peer-powered, weekend summary edition of the Law Technology Digest! Using PinHawk's patented advanced big data analytics, this summary contains the best of the best from the week. These are the stories that you, our readers, found most interesting and informative from the week. Enjoy.
'I'm off the reservation a bit for this post, but I think it's both fun and a key victory for repairs. I mean don't we all fall into the category of "franchise owners, independent repair shops, and anyone who's had to bribe their kids with a chilly treat on lengthy road trips?" As a refresher "Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass a digital lock that protects a copyrighted work, such as a device's software, even when there is no copyright infringement." And it seems "Public Knowledge and iFixit jointly petitioned for a repair exemption covering diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of commercial and industrial equipment." Maybe they can join together again and try John Deer farm equipment next? Grab a McFlurry, pour it in a winners cup and hold it high while you read more at ars technica: US Copyright Office "frees the McFlurry," allowing repair of ice cream machines
'Were talking frames, but not picture frames, door frames or other types of mundane frames, but rather the kind that are "embedded in neural circuits," "linked to morals or values," and that are "evoked by language." There exists multiple other paragraphs on trying to define frames based on George Lakoff's book, "Don't think of an elephant." Why are frames important? Because we all have change management as part of our job descriptions and "Given that frames guide the way we think and act, change involves changing frames and this requires alterations in neural circuits associated with frames. Framing involves coming up with accurate ways of describing the desired goals of change and then communicating these new frames consistently over time, until they are accepted." Have some brown/purple/white candy corn as you read more at REAL KM: The role of frames and framing in communication and change
'This is great news if you're Robert Downey Jr.'s lawfirm! He plans on suing anyone who re-creates his likeness using AI - even after his death. I never gave that a lot of thought, but I suppose entertainment firms are all over AI replicas and that actors' estates would also want to continue to fight is just one more facet to the practice. I think it will be interesting when the technology gets to the point where a "person" can be fabricated, fed a script and programed to perform in a movie, will it be the demise of actors and actresses? And if AI can do a great job at scripting, then the entire industry could be automated. Personally I think RDJ is the quintessential Tony Stark and I can't see an AI version being better. If you've ever seen behind the scenes videos on how much he ad libs and improvises and how much better that makes the scenes, then I think you'd agree with me. Plus AI generated movies would mean no blooper reels. Given the day today and this particular post, I think this music is perfect for background listening as you read more at arc technica: Downey Jr. plans to fight AI re-creations from beyond the grave
'Mary Abraham's post this morning lends itself to me cherry picking some of her sentences. "If you believe law-firm marketing, you would be persuaded that the legal industry is filled with geniuses, and that your firm has more geniuses than most other firms." "We believe you're either smart or you're not, you've got it or you don't. It's a binary world, baby!" "We experience low levels of trust in and commitment to our organization. Our people will leave anytime to get a better deal elsewhere." And my absolute favorite, "The legal industry's special challenge is the presence of lawyers." (Emphasis added) I think Mary would certainly agree with me when I say that only "the brightest and the best" read the PinHawk! To figure out how all those sentences fit together, you need to be sure to read more at Above and Beyond KM: Your Genius Law Firm
'The next time you think your firm is stuck on old technology, you can give a thankful hat tip to Stephen Abram for this post. I am old enough to have used punch cards, cassettes, 8", 5.25" and 3.5" floppies, Bernoulli drives of all sizes and more. My first compuer, my Apple //e used 5/25" disks. It seems that the San Francisco Municipal Train Authority is stuck in the past, running it's light rail system on 5.25" floppies. I'm trying to picture how this works, something like the conductor inserting a boot disk into the train to start it up? Regardless, they have a serious problem and postponing it for 40 years is now going to make their serious problem a very costly one as well. Most people I'm sure wouldn't know where to get a floppy disk these days. (FYI - You can still get a 10-pack of DS/DD diskettes for $15 on Amazon.) Feel better about your organization. I mean you aren't the SFMTA or the German navy, which I understand is trying to figure out a replacement for 8-inch floppies. Read more at WIRED: San Francisco Will Pay $121 Million for Its Train System toi Ditch Floppy Disks
'Oguz Acar and Bob Bastian certainly know more about uncertainty then I do. According to them, uncertainty about AI can be summarized in three main categories: "state, effect and response uncertainty." Oguz and Bob say that seeing, thinking, doing, and shaping are four approaches to combat those uncertainties. If you are uncertain about uncertainties, then be sure to set aside some extra time and read more at Harvard Business Review: A Toolkit to Help You Manage Uncertainty Around AI
'A tip of the maple leaf to Stephen Abram who brings us legal news from the north. The Canadian Judicial Council has issued "Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts." At nine pages long, the guidelines' purpose is "to raise awareness of the risks of using any form of artificial intelligence in court administration and judicial decision-making and to prevent the delegation of decision-making authority while encouraging the safe, effective and appropriate uses of AI by the judiciary." The table of contents starts with awareness and education, cautions and leadership and ends with seven guidelines. I think it is worth a read whether you're or not you're Canadian, a judge, a barrister or solicitor or just some tech type interested in the intersection of law and AI. Read more at Canadian Judicial Council: Canadian Judicial Council issues Guidelines for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Canadian Courts
'Grant Gross says that in the world of generative artificial intelligence, two approaches are better than one. He writes, "IT leaders should embrace AI tools, such as copilots and assistants, to help employees get comfortable with more complex and impactful AI solutions, researchers say." MIT Center for Information Systems Research briefing, "Managing the Two Faces of Generative AI" talks about AI tools and AI solutions offering "two distinct opportunities for organizations interested in gen AI and may require separate approaches to deployment to succeed." I like that the report says, "The key to getting value from both AI tools and AI solutions is to deploy them in the right way with the right expectations." Get some value for yourself by reading more at CIO: Why CIOs need a two-tier approach to gen AI
'Here are two posts that I think perfectly demonstrate the push and pull in legal over adoption of artificial intelligence. And as is the case much of the time, reality is most likely in-between the two. On the one hand we Aaron Boersma, an innovation lead with Ford Motor Company who just released his Law.com Pro Fellows report, "Keeping Pace: Law Firms in the Era of AI-Driven Business." According to him, legal is simply not doing enough with AI and is too slow to match the pace of the corporate world's adoption of AI. Contrast that with Jonathan Goldsmith, Law Society Council member for EU matters and a former secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, who writes about the hype and downside of AI, writing "maybe we should all cry 'Stop!' and think about the consequences." I'd love to know where Aaron is coming from. He was a pricing analyst at both Baker & McKenzie and Butler Snow for a short time, so I would think he would understand the challenges of legal better. I'd also love to read Aaron's report. Does anyone have a copy? An additional hat tip to Jonathan Goldsmith for making me look up the word "Panglosses." Read more at: The American Lawyer: Law Firms 'Still Lacing Up Their Shoes' in Gen AI Race, Report Says Law Society Gazette: Is it time to turn luddite against legal AI?
I'm off the reservation a bit for this post, but I think it's both fun and a key victory for repairs. I mean don't we all fall into the category of "franchise owners, independent repair shops, and anyone who's had to bribe their kids with a chilly treat on lengthy road trips?" As a refresher "Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it illegal to bypass a digital lock that protects a copyrighted work, such as a device's software, even when there is no copyright infringement." And it seems "Public Knowledge and iFixit jointly petitioned for a repair exemption covering diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of commercial and industrial equipment." Maybe they can join together again and try John Deer farm equipment next? Grab a McFlurry, pour it in a winners cup and hold it high while you read more at ars technica: 
Were talking frames, but not picture frames, door frames or other types of mundane frames, but rather the kind that are "embedded in neural circuits," "linked to morals or values," and that are "evoked by language." There exists multiple other paragraphs on trying to define frames based on George Lakoff's book, "Don't think of an elephant." Why are frames important? Because we all have change management as part of our job descriptions and "Given that frames guide the way we think and act, change involves changing frames and this requires alterations in neural circuits associated with frames. Framing involves coming up with accurate ways of describing the desired goals of change and then communicating these new frames consistently over time, until they are accepted." Have some brown/purple/white candy corn as you read more at REAL KM: 
This is great news if you're Robert Downey Jr.'s lawfirm! He plans on suing anyone who re-creates his likeness using AI - even after his death. I never gave that a lot of thought, but I suppose entertainment firms are all over AI replicas and that actors' estates would also want to continue to fight is just one more facet to the practice. I think it will be interesting when the technology gets to the point where a "person" can be fabricated, fed a script and programed to perform in a movie, will it be the demise of actors and actresses? And if AI can do a great job at scripting, then the entire industry could be automated. Personally I think RDJ is the quintessential Tony Stark and I can't see an AI version being better. If you've ever seen behind the scenes videos on how much he ad libs and improvises and how much better that makes the scenes, then I think you'd agree with me. Plus AI generated movies would mean no blooper reels. Given the day today and this particular post, 
Mary Abraham's post this morning lends itself to me cherry picking some of her sentences. "If you believe law-firm marketing, you would be persuaded that the legal industry is filled with geniuses, and that your firm has more geniuses than most other firms." "We believe you're either smart or you're not, you've got it or you don't. It's a binary world, baby!" "We experience low levels of trust in and commitment to our organization. Our people will leave anytime to get a better deal elsewhere." And my absolute favorite, "The legal industry's special challenge is the presence of lawyers." (Emphasis added) I think Mary would certainly agree with me when I say that only "the brightest and the best" read the PinHawk! To figure out how all those sentences fit together, you need to be sure to read more at Above and Beyond KM: 
The next time you think your firm is stuck on old technology, you can give a thankful hat tip to 
Oguz Acar and Bob Bastian certainly know more about uncertainty then I do. According to them, uncertainty about AI can be summarized in three main categories: "state, effect and response uncertainty." Oguz and Bob say that seeing, thinking, doing, and shaping are four approaches to combat those uncertainties. If you are uncertain about uncertainties, then be sure to set aside some extra time and read more at Harvard Business Review: 
Marlene Gebauer has a great breakdown on RAG or Retrieval-Augmented Generation. She covers the different types of rag models and their legal applications, moving from Simple to Advanced, and from Modular to Graph and Agentic. 
A tip of the maple leaf to 
Grant Gross says that in the world of generative artificial intelligence, two approaches are better than one. He writes, "IT leaders should embrace AI tools, such as copilots and assistants, to help employees get comfortable with more complex and impactful AI solutions, researchers say." MIT Center for Information Systems Research briefing, "Managing the Two Faces of Generative AI" talks about AI tools and AI solutions offering "two distinct opportunities for organizations interested in gen AI and may require separate approaches to deployment to succeed." I like that the report says, "The key to getting value from both AI tools and AI solutions is to deploy them in the right way with the right expectations." Get some value for yourself by reading more at CIO: 
Here are two posts that I think perfectly demonstrate the push and pull in legal over adoption of artificial intelligence. And as is the case much of the time, reality is most likely in-between the two. On the one hand we Aaron Boersma, an innovation lead with Ford Motor Company who just released his Law.com Pro Fellows report, "Keeping Pace: Law Firms in the Era of AI-Driven Business." According to him, legal is simply not doing enough with AI and is too slow to match the pace of the corporate world's adoption of AI. Contrast that with Jonathan Goldsmith, Law Society Council member for EU matters and a former secretary general of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe, who writes about the hype and downside of AI, writing "maybe we should all cry 'Stop!' and think about the consequences." I'd love to know where Aaron is coming from. He was a pricing analyst at both Baker & McKenzie and Butler Snow for a short time, so I would think he would understand the challenges of legal better. I'd also love to read Aaron's report. Does anyone have a copy? An additional hat tip to Jonathan Goldsmith for making me look up the word "Panglosses." Read more at: