|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
Perhaps a lawyer named as an inventor ought to be deposed to explain the
invention next time.
But then again, the lawyers seem to be inventors in software patents: taking the
clear, algorithmic description of how to built the software, taking that as a
starting point and inventing a whole new invention that no one skilled in the
art of programming can understand, only other lawyers.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 08 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT |
A subgroup of lawyers are incredibly good as a class for
inventing new varieties, classes and instances of
victimhood, and exploiting their invention for hire and
profit. Imagine: We now have "bias crimes" and "hate
crimes"--isn't murdering someone bad enough? No, _this_
murder is worse because of how and what you were _thinking_
when you killed. George Orwell is rolling over.
But remember that judges, brilliant and warped and in
between, also rise from the ranks of lawyers.
Oh, and then there is the lawyer you need to handle any
routine contractish work, plus the lawyer or team of lawyers
that/who defend(s) you or sues on your behalf.
For any characteristic of humanity you wish to ascribe,
there is a bell-shaped curve that describes the amplitude of
its presence or prevalence across your chosen sampling/sort
of population. So it is with honesty, avarice, intelligence,
trustworthiness, thickheadedness, whatever, across the
subclass of humans known as lawyers.
So there's no need to generalize, and little value in
generalizing. Makes good clickbait, though. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|