WHEN it comes to the difficult problem of deciding who gets to keep the holiday home, the dog and the Barry Manilow albums, divorcing couples now have somewhere new to turn. Researchers in Australia have developed a computer program that relies on a branch of mathematics known as game theory to produce a fairer outcome when dividing property. Instead of the traditional approach of dividing a couple's property in half, the system, called Family Winner, guides the couple through a series of trade-offs and compensation strategies. According to John Zeleznikow, a computer scientist at Victoria University in Melbourne, who developed the software with his colleague Emilia Bellucci, the results are fairer because both parties end up with what they value most.

The software was tested last year on 50 divorcing couples, with the outcomes evaluated by Victoria Legal Aid. Each party is given a limited number of points, which they are asked to allocate to the items of property they wish to keep. Through a multi-step process of modification, the parties are encouraged to give priority to the items they most value. The researchers found that, using the software, each party ended up with 70-80% of what they originally wanted, rather than the usual 50-50 split.

Applying game theory in this way is a welcome development in an area of law where parties are normally encouraged to be combative when going through the courts, says Richard Susskind, a law professor who is technology adviser to England's Lord Chief Justice. In the eyes of the law, this approach to conflict resolution would appear to be superior, he says, because it produces a more equitable outcome than the courts. But, he notes, it can be employed only if both parties consent to its use, which is unlikely in the most acrimonious cases. “The ones that perhaps need it the most may be the ones most resistant to using it,” he warns.

Dr Zeleznikow admits that despite the system's merits, divorcing couples do not necessarily always want what is fair. But, he says, the system is intended for use by couples seeking out-of-court mediation as they separate, rather than those already involved in legal battles. The software will be aimed at mediation services when it goes on sale later this year.

This is not Dr Zeleznikow's first venture into the field of robolawyer software. Indeed, for those determined to take their former spouses for everything they've got, he has already developed a different program, called SplitUp, which can encourage them to reconsider mediation. It uses techniques from the field of artificial intelligence to draw inferences based on past rulings in the Family Court of Australia. This allows parties to play out risky or aggressive courtroom strategies to see just how successful they might actually be, but without any of the risks. “By going for the jugular, disputants generally diminish their prospects of getting what they want,” says Dr Zeleznikow. SplitUp can help people realise this, and thus encourage them to give mediation another look.

Game theory can be applied to many other fields besides family law, notes Dr Zeleznikow. The availability of a purely rational approach to dividing property means that the same approach could be particularly suitable for resolving industrial disputes, he suggests. By forcing the parties to focus on what matters most to them, it could bypass the emotional and political elements of a dispute that so often inhibit progress.

Resolving disputes more efficiently through software is a laudable aim. But is there not a risk that it might trigger a legal arms race? After all, says Dr Susskind, if a system can be developed to inject fairness and rationality into divorce, then someone else could just as easily design a system that suggests more aggressive or Machiavellian strategies—to help clients take their exes to the cleaners.