Mr. Smith Goes to Harvard
November 30, 2005 | Filed Under Technology, In the News
That’s Microsoft GC Brad Smith, to be more precise.
Mr. Smith spoke on Monday at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. Mr. Smith’s lecture was on “”The Future of Software, the Internet, and Innovation.”
The event was blogged by John Palfrey, a Lecturer on Law at HLS, and Executive Director of the Berkman Center.
According to Mr. Palfrey, the MSFT GC spoke on such topics as innovation, consumer confidence and industry collaboration. On this latter topic, Mr. Smith noted that:
Co-opetition, is the new watchword. Firms should still differentiate themselves, but should also find ways to collaborate. […] He sees a bridge that will be built between the open source and proprietary software development communities — both of which, he says, are here to say.
Co-opetition. That’s a new one to me. Here’s one definition and there’s even a book of the same name.
It’s also interesting to see the mention of a “bridge” between open source and proprietary software. From Mr. Smith’s lecture, it’s clearly part of the Microsoft strategy. Attorney Larry Rosen sees some substance to these remarks.
But many more companies are apparently using open source software, they’re just not talking about it.
That means there’s more consumer confidence in open source software (Mr. Smith’s point #2). (Although some attorneys are predictably cautious). Many have known for some time that there is often more innovation in the open source community (Mr. Smith’s point #1).
The challenge for Microsoft is to build a bridge from its proprietary software to open source, and not have it turn out like this:
Web 2.0, Law Style
November 29, 2005 | Filed Under General
Following up from last week, a few thoughts about what Web 2.o might mean for the law.
First, a bit of a refresher: here’s two attributes of Web 2.0 courtesy of Wikipedia:
– a transition of websites from isolated information silos to sources of content and functionality
– an approach to creating and distributing Web content itself, characterized by open communication, decentralization of authority, freedom to share and re-use
Here’s how Amazon is using the concept, by integrating a Wiki into its website (via Church of the Customer Blog). It allows customers more involvement in Amazon’s web site, and by implication, their business.
If a law firm or corporate legal department (which let’s call the “Law Status Quo” or “LSQ”) tries to embrace some of these attributes, a threshold problem will likely arise: the LSQ didn’t get where it is by openly sharing information. Additionally, it probably isn’t teeming with decentralized authority. Large law firms, for example, are nothing if not hierarchical, and often guard internal information zealously. How do you open up for your clients if you don’t share with your staff?
Corporate legal departments aren’t immune either. Many have a history of being gatekeepers on all sorts of matters that aren’t really related to protecting the company’s legal interests.
I think as LSQ clients see more examples of non-legal businesses opening up and enabling easy two-way communication, they may come to expect a similar user experience from their lawyers.
This could have all sorts of ramifications as to what law firms are really selling (information or insight), how they are organized (partner/associate) and how they are valued (finders over minders over grinders). It may also mean that a corporate legal department lets more work be done by clients themselves.
In any likely scenario, Web 2.0 will be disruptive for the LSQ, because some measure of control will be lost. And its simple technical browser-based attributes will necessarily lower user costs. That is something that always grabs a client’s attention.
After giving it some thought, it is now clear to me that “What Web 2.0 means for the law” is more of a story being written than a question to be answered.
Next Tuesday, what Web 2.0 may mean for legal information merchants like West Group and Lexis/Nexis.
And Friday, I hope to have a “Wired GC — Unplugged” audiocast with one firm that is doing things a bit differently than the mainstream LSQ.
Update: Thanks to Dennis Kennedy for his kind words; we’ll watch with interest to see what’s next.
Making a List?
November 23, 2005 | Filed Under General
… be sure to check it twice to see that music from Lawtunes is on it. (The site can load a bit slow; adjust your speakers before you click and hear “Rainmaker Reindeer”…)
Here are samples from such law firm holiday party favorities as:
–”Billin’ on Christmas Eve”: mp3
– “You Don’t Wanna Cross Santa”: mp3
All this and more from New York attorney Lawrence Savell.
More info from the press release.
If it’s not your cup of nog for a party tape–why not have these playing while your clients are on hold?
Bill Gates 2.0
November 22, 2005 | Filed Under In the News, General
Two weeks ago on T3, a few ideas were relayed on the proper use of email. A key one: write less — emails don’t need to be “epic literature.”
Bill Gates recently launched a message of such Homeric proportions to Microsoft employees that The Economist termed it an application: memoware. These memos were so long even self-described “Microsoft Geek Blogger” Robert Scoble was taken aback.
But if you slog through the emails of Mr. Gates and his CTO Ray Ozzie (thanks to Dave Winer), you can catch a glimpse of where software is headed.
Short answer: to the Web. Or, in terms of those in the know, Web 2.0.
As The Economist points out:
At heart, said Mr Ozzie, Web 2.0 is about “services” (ranging from today’s web-based e-mail to tomorrow’s web-based word processor) delivered over the web without the need for users to install complicated software on their own computers. With a respectful nod to Google, the world’s most popular search engine and Microsoft’s arch-rival, Mr Ozzie reminded his colleagues that such services will tend to be free—ie, financed by targeted online advertising as opposed to traditional software-licence fees.
Web 2.0 must really be something when it has a primer, a conference, and coverage by the hardest working blawger in the business.
What does Web 2.0 mean for the law? Dennis Kennedy and Matt Homann have some early thoughts.
I’ll save mine for next Tuesday.
Straight Talk from GCs
November 21, 2005 | Filed Under Managing, Selling the GC
When Chief Legal Officers speak, I listen. I just might learn something.
Clients (once and future) should probably listen as well.
Marketing communications consultant Amy Campbell reports from last week’s meeting of the New England chapter of the Legal Marketing Association. She provides an excellent summary of what transpired.
– Here’s five of the top 10 “sound bites” from the three GCs present:
1. “I hire lawyers not firms…”
2. “Firms who churn their associates are very frustrating to us…”
3. “Word of mouth” is most reliable referral source…
4. “Cold calling” and “sending brochures” doesn’t work
5. “Cross marketing from a trusted partner can work…”
Also interesting to me were the following comments from Hasbro GC Barry Nagler.
– On how he uses outside counsel:
We use outside counsel as a cost minimization strategy… we have a large in-house department. Three criteria to keep work in-house: 1) is it core to strategic success of Hasbro? 2) is it an area of law where we have substantial repeat business?… one-offs go out. 3) what’s fun? We keep the entertainment law and send out the ERISA.
– On managing costs:
Rates aren’t as important as efficiency. You assume the quality piece… so if there are 40 qualified candidates, I can choose the most cost effective. We are billed hourly, but looking at getting discounts and ways to share risk and reward. The most important thing — no surprises! Need to put yourself in your client’s shoes. If you see costs going up, say something.. get proactive. It’s very important. We all know stuff happens, but ‘pick up the phone.’
Glad to see ACC GC Susan Hackett in attendance as well.
When an event like this allows an audience a peek inside the day-to-day life of the GC, much of what passes for legal marketing is relegated to the dustbin in the first 5 minutes. Traditional, comfortable and really expensive methods are probably not as effective today.
What law firms think they are selling (billable hours) are not what the GC is buying (results that support company strategy).
Ms. Campbell’s entire post is worth reading– she clearly seems to get it, legal marketing-wise.
Search
Powered By
Links
| ||||
 | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
|
||||
