On the other hand, legal systems have effectively been doing the equivalent of git since basically forever. There have been very few law books written from the ground up. All other law authoring, be it by kings, priests, dictators or parliaments, was I the form of diffs to an existing codebase.
1. An immutable set of standard terms, with variable references.
2. A collection of cover page variables, that modify the standard terms by reference.
3. A structured negotiation workflow, where users "propose changes" to the cover page variables with automatic "diff-ing" (redlining).
It's not a product targeted to software engineers, but has always appealed to me as a way to sneak in some engineering best-practices into the world of lawyering :)
Full disclosure: I'm an employee
I am not a lawyer so I don't know that anything in the previous paragraph is true; it's just based on a recollection of something I was told once a long time ago.
1. That's an overstatement: For "original works of authorship," copyright happens automatically upon "fixation" in a "tangible medium of expression" (e.g., saving to a file, maybe even just typing). [0] And it doesn't take much "original ... authorship" to qualify for copyright protection.
2. Here's A hypothetical example: Alice drafts a contract from scratch as Version 1 and saves it to a file. It's copyrighted; on these facts, Alice owns the copyright. [0] Then Bob takes Alice's Version 1 and modifies it to create Version 1.1: Bob's "original" contributions to Version 1.1 are themselves protected by copyright, which Bob owns, bu with two caveats:
(a) Bob has no claim to copyright in Alice's Version 1; and
(b) Bob's own contributions to Version 1.1 won't be protected unless one or both of the following is true: (1) Bob had Alice's permission to base his "derivative work" on Alice's Version 1; [1] and/or (2) Bob's use of Version 1 qualified as "fair use" (a complicated question in itself). [2]
NOTES:
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101; see also, e.g., https://www.adamsdrafting.com/the-contract-drafter-as-copyri...
The benefits of working at the proper level of abstraction compound. It enables tech like diffs and git, which then nicely solves a bunch of other problems as well. Using Word completely side-steps all those benefits. Sure, you get a few nice buttons, but that's literally it. You are trapped forever with no way forward.
This feels like actually programming in Word and manually highlighting comments to be green or something. It's a travesty IMO.
On top of that, all contemporary word processors I'm aware of have, of course, versioning with diffs. It is just different than git (or other programmer tools.) Just as you are using your tools of your trade and don't know much about MS Word, lawyers use their tools of their trade and don't know much about git. It's like saying that editing POs is superior to Trados, because for a programmer it is but a professional translator is going to tell you a different story.
(Of course, everybody everywhere should be using LaTeX for fine-looking documents in all circumstances. No argument here ;))
A lot of successful products have been built in this way. I've seen developers get upset with Apple for making successful products out of just giving a nice UI to a piece of open source tech that does the heavy lifting. Like it's cheating.
This even happened with Microsoft, they had so many false starts and changes in messaging that they killed their own portfolios. I suspect at least that is why they "embraced linux" because it was excellent at web, and web wasn't busy changing every month (it has been, but that's a different story).
Apple introduced Swift but besides new Xcode versions I get the general impression their tooling has been far more stable.
https://www.clio.com/lawyaw/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clio_(software_company)
Anyway that's my limited experience having dealt with a bunch of them - no expert.
