Well yes. This is all academic. I already said in the first comment that they have a financial incentive to stall the courts.
>You're just asking who you want to have refuse to do it....
I just want efficiency. It's a shame we can't have that when it comes to things that might help the people and hurt billionaires.
So what's really wrong with what I'm asking?
They have a financial incentive to not be found in contempt of court. And another financial incentive to not disclose sensitive information they're not supposed to disclose.
When false positives and false negatives are both very expensive, what's left is a resource-intensive slog to make sure everything is on the right side of the line. "Use the new thing that sacrifices accuracy for haste" is not a solution.
> I just want efficiency.
Asking for efficiency from the court system is like asking for speed from geology. That's not typically where you find that and if it is you're probably about to have a bad time.
The way you actually get efficiency is by having a larger number of smaller companies, so they're not massive vertically integrated conglomerates that you need something the size and speed of the US government to hold them in check.
Why do we accept mediocrity from the government we pay our taxes to? They can't be as fast and lean as a small team, but there are surely optimizations we can make in process, especially as technology improves.
>by having a larger number of smaller companies, so they're not massive vertically integrated conglomerates that you need something the size and speed of the US government to hold them in check.
Agreed. Now I'd also like to have that sometime within my (maybe your) lifetime.
But these two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.