5 ms·

I don't think that is the same - There is no claim that rules of written law always gives the most favourable outcome. But rather that the written law (or contr

by Alexx 10y ago

I don't think that is the same - There is no claim that rules of written law always gives the most favourable outcome. But rather that the written law (or contract, in this case) allows for the reality of human error or omission by leaving space for human interpretation, enforcing the underlying intent, rather than strictly enforcing 'bugs' in the contract. After all, there are almost always small mistakes in complex systems. The system of case law is, essentially, a structured way of turning differing interpretations into a stricter framework over time.

Chris2048 10y ago
There are no bugs, there is just the contract, and the intent, and the difference between the two. My point is, the institution of law needs to be trusted, yet patent-trolling exists because the institution has failed to apply fair judgment and common sense such that ridiculous legal structures have prevailed.
- Alexx 10y ago
  A bug is the difference between the intent and the produced document.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    I disagree. While the use of the word 'bug' is often stretched (i.e. feature requests being made in the issue tracker), the contracts in this case are not purely the product of a writer - they are also a contract, as in a written, explicit agreement. Calling an unintended consequence a bug may be true from the perceptive of the writer, but not necessarily from the perspective of the second-party, who may have agreed to the written contract, but not the "intent". Hence a document with two parties does not have objective bugs in that sense, unless both parties agree, which is not the case in disputes requiring a judge.
    - Alexx 10y ago
      I agree with your analysis there. But my point was the patent trolling exists because the law is unfavourable. Not because there is a system of mediation in place. If the patent system should be abolished or not doesn't really relate to how inconsistencies in contracts are handled, as far as I can see?

by Alexx 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

There are no bugs, there is just the contract, and the intent, and the difference between the two. My point is, the institution of law needs to be trusted, yet patent-trolling exists because the institution has failed to apply fair judgment and common sense such that ridiculous legal structures have prevailed.

Alexx 10y ago
A bug is the difference between the intent and the produced document.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  I disagree. While the use of the word 'bug' is often stretched (i.e. feature requests being made in the issue tracker), the contracts in this case are not purely the product of a writer - they are also a contract, as in a written, explicit agreement. Calling an unintended consequence a bug may be true from the perceptive of the writer, but not necessarily from the perspective of the second-party, who may have agreed to the written contract, but not the "intent". Hence a document with two parties does not have objective bugs in that sense, unless both parties agree, which is not the case in disputes requiring a judge.
  - Alexx 10y ago
    I agree with your analysis there. But my point was the patent trolling exists because the law is unfavourable. Not because there is a system of mediation in place. If the patent system should be abolished or not doesn't really relate to how inconsistencies in contracts are handled, as far as I can see?