4 ms·

I've been a CTO at companies in various bits of the Anglosphere, and signed contracts in all of the bits (and some other places). I'm also married to an Anglos

I've been a CTO at companies in various bits of the Anglosphere, and signed contracts in all of the bits (and some other places). I'm also married to an Anglosphere lawyer (which gives me lots more exposure than I might have guessed to the idiosyncrasies of the profession). In my experience, I very much agree with the headline (and abstract) here, but would emphasise that the US is the worst for archaic language, creating a worse barrier to entry. Most other countries in the Anglosphere have been through a "plain english" language push in both contract & legislation, while the US has stuck to "this language is proven through precedent" more stubbornly than anywhere else. This seems to be particularly prevalent in IP law, although that might be my tech bias showing. I would very much argue against those (even in this thread), that say that the lay-person isn't the intended audience for lots of contracts, particularly for T&Cs where they are often written by a contracts lawyer, for a contracts lawyer or judge, but should ABSOLUTELY be written for the lay-person to understand. Anyway, I think the legal profession can & should do better.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
American patents are written in a language that isn't English. It's very precise if you can learn to read it, though. The same seems to hold for contracts, but to a lesser degree.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Usually when people say this, they mean the claims. The specification, which most engineers read, are not constrained by legal precedent.
- _ggwa 4y ago
  I'm a patent examiner and I can't agree with "It's very precise if you can learn to read it". A large fraction of patent applications I've worked on are unclear. I even wrote a linter to help catch some problems. (DOC lawyers make me add this: This post is just my personal opinion, not that of the USPTO, DOC, US govt., etc.) Edit: I will agree that patent claims can be precise, but so can normal English. I think patent claims are too often not precise.
  - dctoedt 4y ago
    I'm curious what you think about a post I did ten years ago, on "defying" the Single Sentence Rule when drafting patent claims: https://www.oncontracts.com/multi-sentence-claims/ https://www.oncontracts.com/multi-sentence-claims/
    - _ggwa 4y ago
      Your proposed claim format would greatly improve clarity. I particularly like the definitions and examples being included in the claims. Too often patent attorneys define terms contrary to their ordinary meaning. I might not think to check the specification for a definition, and end up wasting a lot of time. With that being said, I sometimes do 112(b) rejections for exemplary language in claims as they can make the claims unclear (for example: "for example"). I think if the claim or specification was written to make it clear that the examples are just examples and not limiting the claim then it would be okay. Reference numbers are common in patent claims outside of the US, but it seems that US patent attorneys worry that adding reference numbers would limit the breadth of the claims. There's no statute or USPTO rule against reference numbers in the claims and I'm not aware of any case law justifying not adding them. Not having reference numbers in the claims is a loss for clarity, particularly when the claims use different terminology than the specification (which is unfortunately common). (Again, this is just my opinion, not that of the USPTO, US govt., etc.)
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    How do you become a patent examiner? Could anyone do it for their area of expertise or is it more like being a specialized researcher specifically for patent applications?
    - _ggwa 4y ago
      Apply on USAJOBS: https://www.usajobs.gov/Search/Results?k=patent+examiner https://www.usajobs.gov/Search/Results?k=patent+examiner Looks like the USPTO is hiring in multiple areas right now. It might take a couple attempts to get hired. I was rejected the first time I applied. The USPTO doesn't care much about an applicant's background aside from whether the applicant has a technical degree. New examiners with expertise in particular areas probably won't be assigned to their areas of expertise, even if there's a strong demand for examiners in those areas. Yes, this makes no sense, but it's how the USPTO operates at the moment. I had zero experience with the areas I was assigned before I became an examiner. (Again, this is all just my opinion, not that of the USPTO, US govt., etc.)
lelandfe 4y ago
> Most other countries in the Anglosphere have been through a "plain english" language push in both contract & legislation The US has seen big pushes for plain English. Nixon, Carter, Clinton and, most recently, Obama have all championed this. It has been federal law since 2010 for all executive branch agencies to use plain language in any official document they produce, for instance. Similar desires in law and contracts exist, though I'm less aware of that. See: https://centerforplainlanguage.org/2021-federal-plain-language-report-card/ https://centerforplainlanguage.org/2021-federal-plain-langua... And: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  I feel like this happens in Canada too because federal (and lots but not all provincial (“state”)) law/websites/guides has to be bilingual and they’ll have equal force. If the translations don’t mean exactly the same thing, hilarity ensues! https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25comma.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25...
  - johndhi 4y ago
    Tangent: Montreal francinization laws are such a pain in the ass.
- zwkrt 4y ago
  On the other hand, if it’s been championed since Nixon, that means his problem is not solved.
  - dc-programmer 4y ago
    Nixon was the last “liberal” president. Not really surprising no meaningful reform has been pushed through since him
  - lelandfe 4y ago
    Yeah, I doubt it ever will be. Reading some of these before/afters gives me hope, though: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/ Before: > This form will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review and comment procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process, have been given an opportunity to review the applicant’s submission. After > If your State requires an opportunity to review your application, use this form to certify that you have done so. Include the form in your application.
johndhi 4y ago
I tend to disagree. US law does require "plain language" in certain places (privacy policies for example) and that doesn't help. Also, while EU law is, perhaps, written in clearer language, the ambiguity of how it will be interpreted and enforced is actually so much less clear that overall their legal requirements are harder to decipher.
- Quarrel 4y ago
  Yeah, the EU one can be quite an issue. Often the EU "principle" that is then enshrined in individual country's laws is fairly straight forward. However, you really need to understand the individual country and their regulator to understand their take on it and enforcement. There can be a huge disparity between countries, despite all being rooted in the same principle.
- Closi 4y ago
  > Also, while EU law is, perhaps, written in clearer language, the ambiguity of how it will be interpreted and enforced is actually so much less clear that overall their legal requirements are harder to decipher. This may be true, but the ambiguity of legal requirements is a separate issue entirely (i.e. the reason the requirements are amgibuous isn't because the language is simple, it's because the legal systems are very different, and sometimes the ambiguity is a feature rather than a flaw as it can help provide member countries a level of flexibility if maintaining the spirit of the law).
vjk800 4y ago
> I would very much argue against those (even in this thread), that say that the lay-person isn't the intended audience for lots of contracts, particularly for T&Cs where they are often written by a contracts lawyer, for a contracts lawyer or judge, but should ABSOLUTELY be written for the lay-person to understand. I would argue that if a lay-person is expected to comply with the law/contract, then lay-person should be the intended audience.
limograf 4y ago
Yeah. England&Wales legislation is fairly comprehensible. Of course it could be better. I just ran a random tax law through Hemingway and it scores between Grade 9 and 11, occasionally hitting Grade 13. So that's sort of fine, I think? Apart from the bonkers preamble which decorates every act, of course! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/40/introduction https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/40/introduction (Postgraduate, poor)
jgust 4y ago
Having exposure to other anglosphere (neat) lawyers, this is 100% on purpose and thought of as job security. Law school is an expensive wizard school where you learn how to speak the right incantations.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

American patents are written in a language that isn't English. It's very precise if you can learn to read it, though. The same seems to hold for contracts, but to a lesser degree.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
AlbertCory 4y ago
Usually when people say this, they mean the claims. The specification, which most engineers read, are not constrained by legal precedent.
_ggwa 4y ago
I'm a patent examiner and I can't agree with "It's very precise if you can learn to read it". A large fraction of patent applications I've worked on are unclear. I even wrote a linter to help catch some problems. (DOC lawyers make me add this: This post is just my personal opinion, not that of the USPTO, DOC, US govt., etc.) Edit: I will agree that patent claims can be precise, but so can normal English. I think patent claims are too often not precise.
- dctoedt 4y ago
  I'm curious what you think about a post I did ten years ago, on "defying" the Single Sentence Rule when drafting patent claims: https://www.oncontracts.com/multi-sentence-claims/ https://www.oncontracts.com/multi-sentence-claims/
  - _ggwa 4y ago
    Your proposed claim format would greatly improve clarity. I particularly like the definitions and examples being included in the claims. Too often patent attorneys define terms contrary to their ordinary meaning. I might not think to check the specification for a definition, and end up wasting a lot of time. With that being said, I sometimes do 112(b) rejections for exemplary language in claims as they can make the claims unclear (for example: "for example"). I think if the claim or specification was written to make it clear that the examples are just examples and not limiting the claim then it would be okay. Reference numbers are common in patent claims outside of the US, but it seems that US patent attorneys worry that adding reference numbers would limit the breadth of the claims. There's no statute or USPTO rule against reference numbers in the claims and I'm not aware of any case law justifying not adding them. Not having reference numbers in the claims is a loss for clarity, particularly when the claims use different terminology than the specification (which is unfortunately common). (Again, this is just my opinion, not that of the USPTO, US govt., etc.)
- ok_dad 4y ago
  How do you become a patent examiner? Could anyone do it for their area of expertise or is it more like being a specialized researcher specifically for patent applications?
  - _ggwa 4y ago
    Apply on USAJOBS: https://www.usajobs.gov/Search/Results?k=patent+examiner https://www.usajobs.gov/Search/Results?k=patent+examiner Looks like the USPTO is hiring in multiple areas right now. It might take a couple attempts to get hired. I was rejected the first time I applied. The USPTO doesn't care much about an applicant's background aside from whether the applicant has a technical degree. New examiners with expertise in particular areas probably won't be assigned to their areas of expertise, even if there's a strong demand for examiners in those areas. Yes, this makes no sense, but it's how the USPTO operates at the moment. I had zero experience with the areas I was assigned before I became an examiner. (Again, this is all just my opinion, not that of the USPTO, US govt., etc.)

lelandfe 4y ago

> Most other countries in the Anglosphere have been through a "plain english" language push in both contract & legislation The US has seen big pushes for plain English. Nixon, Carter, Clinton and, most recently, Obama have all championed this. It has been federal law since 2010 for all executive branch agencies to use plain language in any official document they produce, for instance. Similar desires in law and contracts exist, though I'm less aware of that. See: https://centerforplainlanguage.org/2021-federal-plain-language-report-card/ https://centerforplainlanguage.org/2021-federal-plain-langua... And: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/

Scoundreller 4y ago
I feel like this happens in Canada too because federal (and lots but not all provincial (“state”)) law/websites/guides has to be bilingual and they’ll have equal force. If the translations don’t mean exactly the same thing, hilarity ensues! https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25comma.html https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/25/business/worldbusiness/25...
- johndhi 4y ago
  Tangent: Montreal francinization laws are such a pain in the ass.
zwkrt 4y ago
On the other hand, if it’s been championed since Nixon, that means his problem is not solved.
- dc-programmer 4y ago
  Nixon was the last “liberal” president. Not really surprising no meaningful reform has been pushed through since him
- lelandfe 4y ago
  Yeah, I doubt it ever will be. Reading some of these before/afters gives me hope, though: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/ https://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/before-and-after/ Before: > This form will be used by Federal agencies to obtain applicant certification that States which have established a review and comment procedure in response to Executive Order 12372 and have selected the program to be included in their process, have been given an opportunity to review the applicant’s submission. After > If your State requires an opportunity to review your application, use this form to certify that you have done so. Include the form in your application.

johndhi 4y ago

I tend to disagree. US law does require "plain language" in certain places (privacy policies for example) and that doesn't help. Also, while EU law is, perhaps, written in clearer language, the ambiguity of how it will be interpreted and enforced is actually so much less clear that overall their legal requirements are harder to decipher.

Quarrel 4y ago
Yeah, the EU one can be quite an issue. Often the EU "principle" that is then enshrined in individual country's laws is fairly straight forward. However, you really need to understand the individual country and their regulator to understand their take on it and enforcement. There can be a huge disparity between countries, despite all being rooted in the same principle.
Closi 4y ago
> Also, while EU law is, perhaps, written in clearer language, the ambiguity of how it will be interpreted and enforced is actually so much less clear that overall their legal requirements are harder to decipher. This may be true, but the ambiguity of legal requirements is a separate issue entirely (i.e. the reason the requirements are amgibuous isn't because the language is simple, it's because the legal systems are very different, and sometimes the ambiguity is a feature rather than a flaw as it can help provide member countries a level of flexibility if maintaining the spirit of the law).

vjk800 4y ago

> I would very much argue against those (even in this thread), that say that the lay-person isn't the intended audience for lots of contracts, particularly for T&Cs where they are often written by a contracts lawyer, for a contracts lawyer or judge, but should ABSOLUTELY be written for the lay-person to understand. I would argue that if a lay-person is expected to comply with the law/contract, then lay-person should be the intended audience.

limograf 4y ago

Yeah. England&Wales legislation is fairly comprehensible. Of course it could be better. I just ran a random tax law through Hemingway and it scores between Grade 9 and 11, occasionally hitting Grade 13. So that's sort of fine, I think? Apart from the bonkers preamble which decorates every act, of course! https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/40/introduction https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2022/40/introduction (Postgraduate, poor)

jgust 4y ago

Having exposure to other anglosphere (neat) lawyers, this is 100% on purpose and thought of as job security. Law school is an expensive wizard school where you learn how to speak the right incantations.