Open Innovation, Open Banking and Open Justice

beyond Buzzword

Open Justice

Somehow the terms open innovation, open banking and open justice are impacting your life right now. If you use a smartphone with Android system, if you keep an active account in a fintech or if you have carried out a research of precedents to compose a judicial strategy, welcome to this reality.

Henry Chesbrough, an American professor, is said to have inaugurated the popular use of the term open innovation, describing it as a phenomenon of companies using external ideas and technologies in their own businesses. The concept undermines the dominant logic of the closed innovation model, allowing greater mobility of access to data in general and putting large corporations in dialogue with startups and the increasing access of these companies to venture capital.

Some of the benefits of the open innovation movement are visible even in the short term. Reduction of the time between development and commercialization of products and services. Creation of new markets. Increased possibility of product approval before the public, the generation of ideas and the broadening of the knowledge base in companies are some of them. Facebook’s “like”, Gmail, 3M’s Post-it, DreamWorks’ animations, such as Shrek’s friendly ogre, came from initiatives that honored the free circulation of ideas.

Open banking, on the other hand, is a set of rules on the use and sharing of financial data and information between institutions. It basically consists of three pillars: the first is the adoption of open Standard Programming Interface (Application Programming Interface) that allows other developers to create applications and services around that financial institution. The second is for more financial transparency options for bankers, from open data to private data. This is the case, for example, where bankers will be able to approve that third-party institutions have access to their banking data and thereby be able to concentrate all finance management in one app, website or platform. The third is consistent in the use of open source code to achieve the objectives mentioned.

The benefits of the open banking movement even generate social impact. Over-indebted people will be able to operate portability from one bank to another, with better rates and payment opportunities with better and more accessible conditions.

As for open justice, it would not be an exaggeration to call it a phenomenon. According to jurists Daniel Becker and Erik Navarro Wolkart, with the largest legal datalake in the world, Brazilian Courts have an inestimable wealth of data that, if structured and properly analyzed, may promote countless benefits to society, such as, for example, knowing the hypothesis of success of several types of lawsuits, understanding when it is worthwhile proposing an agreement, what is the best offer value, or even if it is worthwhile filing a certain lawsuit.

There are two important aspects in the idea of open justice when talking about the readability of the Judiciary’s data (and, consequently, of the data holders’ data). The first of these concerns access to legal information, an unfolding of the ideal of access to justice. The right to access to legal information requires that the legal system be easy to navigate.

The second, on the other hand, deals with the automatic (machine readable) readability of data, that is, the possibility of reading structured or unstructured data for the purposes of applying artificial intelligence techniques. Today, data from acts, records and judicial precedents are practically illegible for artificial intelligence. With friendly access to lawsuit data, according to jurists, the number of settlements may be substantially increased, generating optimal offer suggestions, with high chances of agreement by the litigants, once the jurisprudence and precedents become easily accessible, enabling the calculation of the expected value of the demand. Moreover, before that, once the chances of success and the financial prognosis of a lawsuit are well calculated, the potential to avoid the filing of new lawsuits is freed up. Furthermore, jurimetry applied to precedents is the only way to guarantee accountability to the Judiciary, whether legal-decisional or behavioral.

Important initiatives for the identification of these decision patterns are in agony due to the lack of data and a greater dedication of the Judiciary to the topic. As a result, lawtechs focused on analytics, jurimetrics, litigation financing, for example, are unable to prosper, hindering the development of technology companies focused on solutions for the legal market.

Among the three open movements cited, open justice is certainly the least evolved currently, wherever it is on the world map. And, interestingly, the one that is most beneficial, either from an economic or social point of view. It is time, therefore, to create a pact to collectively propose an agenda for progress. After all, the world, now, is open.