I have to say this is one of the more thought-provoking ideas to be posted here in a while. I agree with the cynics that it's probably not a good solution to th

I have to say this is one of the more thought-provoking ideas to be posted here in a while. I agree with the cynics that it's probably not a good solution to the problem of codifying laws. Legalese is already intended to act like code, but what separates it is the requirement for human interpretation, especially in applicability to unforeseen circumstances. For example, how do you codify concepts like, from easy to hard: assault; theft; copyright infringement; or software patents, in terms of the underlying social benefits and harms that these concepts are supposed to enshrine? Ideas about exactly what is "harm" or "benefit" (and their highly subjective nature) have been well explored in sci-fi. The short story "Liar!" by Isaac Asimov springs to mind in particular. On the other hand, I can see these ideas being more immediately useful for digital contracts. Some have pointed out that software can have bugs, but so can contracts. Some have pointed out that code isn't as accessible as plain writing, but contracts already aren't written in plain language. The very clear advantage of a purely code based contract is that you can query it without a lawyer. Imagine having a contract that you can literally ask questions, like "what will happen in the event of Foo?" and get a clear, unambiguous answer. Contracts today are open to interpretation. If you try to query a contract, you'll have to pay a lawyer a lot of money and get an answer like "Most likely this, but it may depend on a judge's opinion". Another advantage of code is that it can be refactored. This means if you have a large, complex contract, you can restructure it to produce smaller, simpler contracts that focus on specific areas that may be of more or less interest to different parties. This can be done while provably not destroying any information. That isn't possible if you merely summarise a contract.