decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Lawyers are really smart people | 478 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Lawyers are really smart people
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 07 2012 @ 04:50 PM EDT
Then why don't you become a patent agent, yourself?
because I don't intend to sink that low on the evolutionary scale.

I didn't say the filing lawyer, I said the ones named on the invention.

However, as to the filing lawyer re-writing in legalese, you are aware that the USPTO advises patent proposers how the specifications ought to be written and the number of software patents that are not in "full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the technological area to which the invention pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same" is a substantial indication of the rewriting by non-inventors of software inventions (which means the specifications are no longer in the terms required by a skilled practitioner!) and unless the re-writer is also fully cogniscent of the original technology, it cannot be guaranteed to be an exact translation of the original, nor can translation out of legalese guarantee to be correct.

As an example, using the [old] Yahoo babel fish translator the French phrase "Il pleut des hallebardes" translated correctly into English; assuming you know no French you can now understand that phrase. However, putting the given translation back into babel fish and re-translating it back into French, the result was totally wrong - a Frenchman would not understand what you mean. [Since moving to Bing, it gets the French-English translation wrong as well.]

There is exactly the same problem caused by having the software building instructions translated into legalese: there is no guarantee that they will translate back into software building instructions correctly, or as the original instructions - meaning the patent is not for the original invention and thus should be, by default, invalid.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )