4 ms·

Mostly, because it's easier to abuse old and poorly written laws to our own ends than it is to try and legislate for new problems and technology. It seems the

Mostly, because it's easier to abuse old and poorly written laws to our own ends than it is to try and legislate for new problems and technology. It seems the core of this issue is the definition of "tangible". Why does the law profession choose to use such obtuse wording? There doesn't appear to be any way for normal people or even lawyers to identify if something is tangible in the way the law describes it.

linker3000 10y ago
> Why does the law profession choose to use such obtuse wording? I'm not 100% $ure, but I have my $u$picion$...
- pc86 10y ago
  Have you ever tried to have a clear written agreement with another person? > pc86 will build a WP brochure site for linker3000 for $1,500. But you need it by a certain date? > add date clause But I'm not taking a risk that you might not have the money > add non-refundable deposit clause But what if my house gets flooded or I lose electricity for a month? > add Force Majeure class But what if you give me a bunch of stolen images to use? > add indemnity clause > add IP clause But what if I violate half a dozen labor laws while completing your work? > add another indemnity clause Repeat over and over again until you have a 15+ page single-spaced contract for a piddly $1,500 website. Words mean things. In law, words typically mean very specific things. That's why "trespass" doesn't fit here, even though I think we can all agree you shouldn't be able to project messages onto someone else's property no matter what the message is or where you happen to be standing.
  - klibertp 10y ago
    I think your argument is inconsistent. First you talk about whole "clauses", then you get back to words and you don't seem to connect these in any way. Anyway, having a bunch of many very specific terms is hardly specific to lawyers, that's not the problem. The problem with legalese, as I see it, is that it lacks higher-order types and lambdas... Erm... efficient means of generalization or specialization inline, without a need for two sentences to add one minor detail and the need for a full, multi-paragraph clause when adding a somewhat "standard" - without any modifications - piece of an arrangement. Heck, even a simple inheritance would help (you get a GeneraIPClause and while writing an agreement you just write `OurIPClause is GeneralIPClause with { ...modifications... }`.
    - pc86 10y ago
      My point was that when you actually look at the entire agreement and all the possible edge cases it is meant to cover, legalese makes perfect sense in context. English isn't code. You don't get "higher-order types and lambdas" in English, come on now.
JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Same reason programmers do - to be understood by the machine. The words are essentially in code, and you use different ones at your peril.
Natsu 10y ago
> There doesn't appear to be any way for normal people or even lawyers to identify if something is tangible in the way the law describes it. Tangible normally means "touchable" though who knows what the law makes of the word. I don't think one can touch light in any meaningful sense.

linker3000 10y ago

> Why does the law profession choose to use such obtuse wording? I'm not 100% $ure, but I have my $u$picion$...

pc86 10y ago
Have you ever tried to have a clear written agreement with another person? > pc86 will build a WP brochure site for linker3000 for $1,500. But you need it by a certain date? > add date clause But I'm not taking a risk that you might not have the money > add non-refundable deposit clause But what if my house gets flooded or I lose electricity for a month? > add Force Majeure class But what if you give me a bunch of stolen images to use? > add indemnity clause > add IP clause But what if I violate half a dozen labor laws while completing your work? > add another indemnity clause Repeat over and over again until you have a 15+ page single-spaced contract for a piddly $1,500 website. Words mean things. In law, words typically mean very specific things. That's why "trespass" doesn't fit here, even though I think we can all agree you shouldn't be able to project messages onto someone else's property no matter what the message is or where you happen to be standing.
- klibertp 10y ago
  I think your argument is inconsistent. First you talk about whole "clauses", then you get back to words and you don't seem to connect these in any way. Anyway, having a bunch of many very specific terms is hardly specific to lawyers, that's not the problem. The problem with legalese, as I see it, is that it lacks higher-order types and lambdas... Erm... efficient means of generalization or specialization inline, without a need for two sentences to add one minor detail and the need for a full, multi-paragraph clause when adding a somewhat "standard" - without any modifications - piece of an arrangement. Heck, even a simple inheritance would help (you get a GeneraIPClause and while writing an agreement you just write `OurIPClause is GeneralIPClause with { ...modifications... }`.
  - pc86 10y ago
    My point was that when you actually look at the entire agreement and all the possible edge cases it is meant to cover, legalese makes perfect sense in context. English isn't code. You don't get "higher-order types and lambdas" in English, come on now.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago

Same reason programmers do - to be understood by the machine. The words are essentially in code, and you use different ones at your peril.

Natsu 10y ago

> There doesn't appear to be any way for normal people or even lawyers to identify if something is tangible in the way the law describes it. Tangible normally means "touchable" though who knows what the law makes of the word. I don't think one can touch light in any meaningful sense.