|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 13 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
Your arguments about the meaning of the word animals is specious.
It's not the meaning that the town council had in mind that matters, but the
legal meaning of the word, and if that word is a simple one and not specifically
defined in the law that uses it or in a case where the use of the word is
directly on all fours with the use in question (and the understanding that lead
to that case has not changed over time), then courts look to its everyday
meaning, including by comparing dictionary definitions.
Your example here only works because there are different technical and everyday
(non-technical) definitions of a word AND it is clear that the everyday
definition is the one that is being used. That is not the case with patent law
- there is no reasonable definition of "mathematics",
"calculation", or "computation" that qualifies as a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof" under any reasonable definitions of
those terms.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
