I prefer to view a lot of it as obfuscation myself. Prime example is the
willingness to change:
E=MC2
Into:
A method for
determining the energy equivalent of a mass comprising:
determining
the mass;and
multiplying the mass by the square of the speed of light,
thereby determining
the energy equivilent.
And if the USPTO still
denies it, modifying it further to be less easily understood from it's
original.
Definition of Obfuscate:
1.Render obscure, unclear, or
unintelligible
Personally, in my humble, non-legal, highly-technical
opinion, that's exactly what far too many Legal Representatives are willing to
do in order to win their case (or get their patent granted).
It's one
thing to argue "preventing a black woman from being able to sit down by having a
Law that decrees white people are more deserving of the seats is against
Constitutional Rights" is very different then doing one's best to confuse things
in order to get a flip of the coin ruling rather than a ruling based on actual
facts.
I'm sure Lawyers that like the tactic I speak of will argue that
isn't what really happens, the issues are really complex. But they'll never
convince me that obfuscating E=MC2 in order to get a patent granted
that was clearly denied is reasonable.
To put another way:
It's
one thing to zealously represent your client within the boundries of responsibly
applying the Law. It's something altogether different to zealously represent in
a way that ...... I'm not even too sure how to describe what we actually see.
To "not accept a patent denial under good grouds and instead apply obfuscation
techniques till it gets to the point the patent is granted".
I mean... if
E=MC2 is refused a patent because all it is is a mathetical formula
and that's non-patentable subject matter - should the attorney really be
concerned with a valid mal-practice suit for not applying the obfuscation in
order to get the patent? I don't think it should. And if that really is the
reality, then there's something seriously wrong with the Law in proper
applicaiton in my humble opinion.
As a result, to me the "I have a
responsibility to zealously represent" and "I'd get sued for mal-practice
otherwise" ring the same level of falseness as the CEO's who are draining
companies by means of bonuses while destroying product lines that are producing
the profit keeping the company alive using the excuse "I have a responsibility
to the stock holders".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
