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 | # ]
|