Ever tried picking a side in a tech debate and realized… it’s not that simple?
Take the current face-off in AI: AMD vs. Nvidia. On one side is AMD, betting on ROCm, an open-source platform designed for collaboration and community. On the other, Nvidia’s CUDA—proprietary, polished, and tightly controlled. It looks like a classic battle: open vs. closed. But zoom out a bit, and it becomes clear—this isn’t just a licensing conversation. It’s a leadership one.
Lawyers Think in Rules. Engineers Think in Systems.
Legal training is built on precedent, precision, and control. Engineering approaches problems through systems, layers, loops, and trade-offs. Two different mindsets—both essential, but often operating in isolation.
When Lisa Su guided AMD toward an open approach with ROCm, it wasn’t just a technical pivot. It was a shift toward faster innovation, broader ecosystems, and shared ownership. That kind of leadership favors momentum over micromanagement. It focuses less on control and more on enabling possibility.
In legal contexts, leadership rarely gets framed this way. But it should.
Decisions around open vs. proprietary tools don’t just affect code—they influence scale, risk posture, and market speed. Open-source can unlock growth and community, but it also increases complexity around compliance and IP stewardship. Proprietary platforms offer clarity and control, but may limit flexibility and slow adoption. These are not just technical choices—they’re strategic ones.
Advising on AI infrastructure today means more than managing intellectual property. It means helping define how innovation spreads—and who has access to it.
Leadership, Like Code, Can Be Open or Closed
Engineering teams don’t chase perfect answers—they design around trade-offs. They test, iterate, and adapt. That mindset reflects a kind of leadership that welcomes complexity and plans for change.
Legal strategy benefits from the same approach. Looking at the broader system—how decisions impact not just contracts, but teams, timelines, and trust—can turn legal input from a bottleneck into a strategic advantage.
This shift in mindset can transform legal work from gatekeeping to ecosystem building. It’s a move from reactive to generative thinking. And that shift makes all the difference.
So, What Kind of Ecosystem Is Being Built?
Whether shaping policy, negotiating terms, or advising on market entry, the real question is: are these choices reinforcing silos, or enabling systems?
Lisa Su didn’t just evolve AMD’s product roadmap—she changed its posture in the ecosystem. That kind of thinking—strategic, adaptive, and system-aware—is becoming essential far beyond engineering.
The next generation of legal leaders won’t just interpret the rules. They’ll help design the environments where innovation happens.
Engineer leadership. Think in systems. Build for the future that’s being imagined.
Quick Recap:
The legal world has much to learn from engineering. Open vs. closed isn’t just a tech debate—it’s a lens on leadership. Lawyers who think in systems, not silos, don’t just support innovation—they help shape its direction.
