|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 05 2013 @ 03:16 PM EDT |
I thought that was clear. After all, if the Lawyers were willing to be more
amicable, they wouldn't have to argue definitions so much. You raise an example
of how the solution will not help:
What about the words used in the
definitions? What do they mean.
If the Lawyers are going to start
bickering about the meaning of the words in the definition - then you are
correct, the solution will not help. And it certainly wouldn't surprise me if
that's what the Lawyers started doing.
When does it
end?
I would suggest it ends when Lawyers start remembering they
are Officers Of The Court. That what they are willing to do for their client is
supposed to have limitations. And that includes limitations of
reasonableness.
Quotes from Abraham Lincoln:
Discourage
litigation. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever you can ... As a
peace-maker the lawyer has a superior opportunity of being a good man. There
will still be business enough.
You must remember that
some things legally right are not morally right.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 06 2013 @ 04:33 AM EDT |
Make it so that any unclarity is biased in favour of the
defendant - the patent holder can define as much as they want
and is presumed to have made full use of that privilege so if
they haven't clearly defined anything it would be basis that
the full /clear/ concise instructions for building the
patented invention (as required by the USPTO for granting a
patent in the first place) have not been given and so the
validity of the patent would be in question, and thus the
defendant can be assumed to possibly have not infringed.
cm [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|