|
Authored by: Tkilgore on Monday, March 11 2013 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
I assume that you are talking about the to-be-submitted document, not to the
background document.
> Topic 1; good
Good, but it should hit harder. This is where one keeps the reader's interest in
the rest of the document.
> Topic 2; too much text on the impossibility of s/w patent searches (for
want of
a better term). Cite it, then cite a study or two showing the actual economic
effects of s/w patent lawsuits, both in legal cost terms, and, more
importantly,
the freezing effect of lawsuits on product development.
Yes. There are those out there who would still insist that there is no problem.
> Topic 3; I still like the printing press analogy.
I do, too.
Topic 4; Don't introduce alien terminology. Leave semiotics out entirely. Use
an
analogy like a simple pictographic (no text) road sign. Everyone can understand
the difference between the 'sign holder' (plate and pole), the 'symbol' affixed
thereto (pictograph), and the 'meaning' of the symbol.
I strongly agree with this suggestion, and you have come up with a badly needed
down-to-earth analogy, too. Congratulations.
As to the question of mentioning a field like semiotics, the problem is that
those who are supposed to get something out of this document are neither
involved with computer hardware, nor with writing software, nor with
mathematics. They are struggling to believe/disbelieve whatever we are trying to
tell them. And then we bring up a third field, which is part of the social
sciences, in order to help us (people involved with computers) to explain the
basics of our own work to the USPTO and the legal profession? I am convinced
that it is not a good idea to do this if it can be avoided, and I think that you
have described the right method. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|