The argument that complex legal theories are bad for business has been around for decades.
But as complex legal ideas get more sophisticated and more complex, it’s getting harder and harder for companies to keep pace with the innovations they need to fight complex problems.
“It’s not a question of if complex legal theory is going to be bad for the industry, but when,” writes Mark Rozema in his book “The Business of Complexity.”
“The best thing you can do in a complex world is not to invest in it, but to learn from it.”
So why is this the case?
In the book, Rozema offers a number of reasons.
First, as businesses become more sophisticated, they need a lot more lawyers to argue complex legal issues.
Second, as the complexity of legal theories gets worse, it means that companies are more likely to settle.
And third, when companies settle, they’re likely to make more money.
And Rozema argues that this means that the whole argument that the complexity argument is bad for businesses is wrong.
And he offers a couple of reasons why.
First is that complex theories can lead to problems with fairness.
For example, a theory like “there’s only one party in a transaction” is an inherently unfair way of looking at a contract.
It’s not just that the parties aren’t getting equal value for their money; they’re getting less value.
This means that if a company wants to get a contract done, they’ll have to look at every single detail.
And if there’s a dispute over the value of a transaction, the company might be less able to use that evidence against the other party.
If the other side claims that there’s no one to sue, then the only way for the company to fight the case is to settle with the other.
This is why the complexity doctrine is so important.
It makes sure that all parties get fair treatment.
Rozema also argues that it’s a problem when complex legal arguments are so easy for a company to win.
A classic example of this is a case where the defendant argues that the defendant’s use of an intangible is unfair.
If you’re a software company, this is an easy argument.
It can be argued that the use of software has some sort of value.
The intangible can be used to differentiate software from a competing product.
Or the intangible can just be used as an incentive to buy more software.
But if a judge can just find out that the intangible is used to create a different product, then he’s not allowed to get that intangible back.
This isn’t to say that companies can’t win cases on complex legal grounds.
But they should do so much better than they do now.
That’s because companies need to do a better job at figuring out what’s fair.
And because they have less time to think about the complexities of a complicated argument, they often end up settling too early, and they end up losing the larger cases.
This has real consequences for the overall business of a company.
When a company has a difficult case, it often doesn’t pay attention to the legal complexities of the dispute.
And as the case drags on, it becomes increasingly difficult for a court to understand why the defendant didn’t have a better case to defend.
“I think the biggest problem in complex litigation today is the way that companies tend to settle,” says John Bowerman, a partner at law firm DLA Piper and author of “The Law of Complexities.”
“Because it’s so easy to get involved, and so easy, that the court is just not able to understand the complexity and the issues in a good way.”
In a case like this, a judge might think that the case isn’t fair.
Or he might think the parties’ evidence was too weak to show that the issue was so important that the trial court should have tried to reach a better decision.
But it’s hard to imagine a scenario in which the judge would agree with the defendant, and he might find it difficult to reach an amicable resolution.
“That’s what I think is really worrying,” Bowerham says.
“The ability to win cases in complex disputes and make money in the process, when it comes to complex litigation it’s not good for business.”
There are other ways that complexity can harm businesses.
Complex legal arguments can lead companies to focus on more profitable cases and avoid difficult legal cases.
It may lead companies in certain industries to focus more on complex financial situations, which can result in a greater financial loss for the companies.
It also means that many companies are not able or willing to invest the time and money to fight complicated cases.
And in some cases, these cases have been settled in the past because it’s cheaper for companies that can afford it.
These factors can lead some companies to make the wrong decisions.
And they can lead the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to say, “We think the complexity law is a disaster for business and should be repealed.” But Rozema