I agree with you, the core is embodied in the Law with regards "one practiced
in the art". The problem seems to be that the "art" has moved from one of
engineering to one of Legal.
It's just what I've observed over the long
term and many discussions with various members, of one form or another, of the
Legal Field.
For example, you could go to Mr. Gene Quinn's patent blog
and ask him straight out if techies are qualified to understand the claims in a
patent. I would be surprised if he said yes.
Perhaps I'm mistaken and
it's a double-sided coin:
On the one side, for purposes of building the
invention, we are qualified to understand them
On the other side, for
the purposes of understanding the claims relative to a lawsuit, we are not
qualified to understand them
However you slice it the bottom line is that
we're the ones held accountable for trebble damages whether or not we can
realistically and/or officially actually understand the claims.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|