|
|
|
| Authored by: Tkilgore on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 03:07 PM EDT |
> Thanks.
Accepted. What I was trying to do is very simple, actually. I think that the
document needs to say better and more effectively what it seems to want to say.
> There are a couple points of patent law that may explain some sentences
that
seem unclear to you.
I do not claim to be a specialist in patent law, by a long shot. But the lack of
clarity can to a great extent be put down to a rather often-occurring problem of
writers trying to explain something. Namely, it is the problem of not saying
enough to explain in some places and saying too much in others. Thus, I could
have been deliberately obtuse in some of my critique in order to put across the
point that the explanation is falling short.
I will point out that two sets of people, at least, are the intended audience:
The first set of people is the set of specialists, the patent office, the patent
attorneys, and the federal judiciary. These people may very well know all the
fine points and technical jargon. But be mindful of the fact that many of these
people will not want to understand what is written here. Let's try to make it as
difficult as possible for those who do not want to understand, or who want to
misunderstand, to follow their baser instincts.
The second set of people is the set of non-specialists in the law, the general
public. Try to make the document comprehensible to them, as well. Attempts in
this direction will also serve the dual purpose of making the communication with
the specialists more effective, too.
> In US patent law what is recited in the claim is always called "the
invention", even if it is not new or obvious. The idea is there is no
legal
test of whether or not there is an invention. Therefore, in this sense, there
is
always an "invention" even when nothing is actually invented. So when
we say "make the invention" it legally means "make whatever is
recited in the claim".
Then this should be pointed out on appropriate occasions in the document.
> The second point is that the words of the claim control. When a process is
claimed, we must always refer to the claim to know what the process is. If
there
is a limitation in the claim on whatever the bits or the printed matter must
mean, this is legally part of the process, technical reality notwithstanding.
If
we print a different book it is a different process because from a claim
perspective the limitation is different. A different book is being named. This
is critical because this is how the courts have determined that each
computation
is a different process based on the meaning of the data. We all know that in
the
computer this is all arithmetic and boolean operations. But the courts don't
look at the computer. They look at the claim. For them bits that count apples
are different from bits that count oranges because the claims use different
words to describe them. Part of the printed press analogy is to show how stupid
this view is.
The question is not whether or not I understand such things from my life
experience without having read this yesterday, nor, for that matter, whether I
personally agree or disagree. The question is, how well does the document
communicate. Improvement is possible, and effort put in that direction would
obviously be well directed.
As one example of a problem, let me mention the appeal to semiotics. A lot of
posts have here have addressed themselves to the question of why this has been
put in. Then finally one sees a post which points out that semiotics is actually
relevant in copyright law. If this is indeed the case, a lead-in to the mention
of semiotics which points out the relevance of semiotics in copyright law would
be most helpful to the reader. From what has been said by way of explaining or
defending the appeal to semiotics, I would assume that there are actual
copyright cases or learned treatises on copyright where semiotics has been
brought up by name, to further the goals of explaining just what is permitted or
not, with respect to copyright. I, the non-specialist, would not have known
that. Neither, I submit, might a specialist in patents know very much about case
law and established doctrine in copyright law, either. And the specialist in
patents might be someone who is dismissive and eager not to understand,
moreover, not someone who will engage in the give-and-take of a Groklaw
discussion. By all means, provide some explanation at the appropriate place
within the document. Keep it short, of course, but something ought to be there.
As things stand now, the mention of semiotics seems to arise out of thin air.
The above is but one example of a place where "glue" seems to be
missing in the document. There are some others, too, as well as still other
places where a little compression or cutting would help.
Also I will point out something of a different sort. The section which compares
the computer to a printer and patents on the computer doing X or Y to the
prospect of patenting a printer which prints a certain book ends with the
sentence
"The consequence is a proliferation of patents on the expressions of
ideas."
Is this exactly right, or should it perhaps better read as
"The consequence is a proliferation of patents on ideas."
Or should it say yet some third thing? Everyone agrees that it is something very
bad, but how exactly to pinpoint the sin?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tkilgore on Tuesday, March 12 2013 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
Since I get the distinct impression that you are one of the people who have
written this document, please answer the question in the message header. I ask
because of the paragraph
"This suggests a test similar to the printed matter doctrine. This test is
best described using the concepts and vocabulary of a social science called
semiotics."
Also, is it true or is it false, that semiotics has already been appealed to in
order to settle questions relating to copyrights?
Trying to do a second rewrite and to handle myself some of the criticisms which
I have noted in previous posts, but I am hindered because there are a few things
that I do not know. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
