5 ms·

IANAL, but I AM a patent agent, which means I passed the Patent Bar. So I haven't dealt in contracts, but a lot of the same considerations apply to patent claim

IANAL, but I AM a patent agent, which means I passed the Patent Bar. So I haven't dealt in contracts, but a lot of the same considerations apply to patent claims. There is some claim language which is absolutely not required and any lawyer who uses it is just showing off. The article mentioned "aforesaid" which is a prime example in contracts (in patent claims, it's just "said"). For example: A TCP packet, comprising TCP header and body, where said header comprises etc. etc. -- or -- A TCP packet, comprising TCP header and body, where the header comprises etc. etc. The second is absolutely as valid as the first. "The" is just as good as "said." Another example: What is claimed and desired to be secured by US Letters Patent, is -- or -- I claim The first one is just pretentious. It adds nothing. Maybe you don't like "comprising"? Well, that one is specialized language. A chair, comprising four legs, a seat, and a back -- or -- A chair, consisting of four legs, a seat, and a back The second is not just as good as the first. "Comprising" allows for the chair to have arms, while "consisting of" does not.

lamontcg 4y ago
Your last example is why reading the law is tricky and why we need both a push for plain language and a push to explain language that is necessarily very specific.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  In general, yeah, but I have mixed feelings on that particular one. Claims wouldn't be much more understandable if they said: A chair, with four legs, a seat, and a back, and possibly other elements. A good explanation for obtuseness in legal language is: In normal writing, you're trying to be understood. In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood.
  - watwut 4y ago
    imo, actually they would be more understandable. Because that sentence is using words everybody knows.
  - inetknght 4y ago
    > In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood. I would argue that many legal documents have completely missed that mark.
  - pas 4y ago
    there's no way around it. if you want to avoid getting misunderstood, misinterpreted, especially by in a somewhat adversarial setting, then you need to build a mental model that grasps what you want to communicate, and then spend the pages and ink to write it down. structural language, plenty of examples to narrow down possible points of false interpretations, etc. (at least 3+ examples for each thing, to have a quorum of examples that can break ties in case of opposing interpretations) obviously quantification is good, measurability is great, directionality is important (so then as you try to specify this abstract concept by its boundary in some mental space you can say what's inside and what's outside the boundary, which examples point in which direction ... so you can say things like "we mandate providing shelter for every resident" with a lot more precision, after all in no time someone would argue that it's a tautology, since "residents reside somewhere, which means they have an address, and therefore they already have shelter there".)
chx 4y ago
This here reminds me of George Carlin: > People add extra words when they want things to sound more important than they really are. "Boarding process". Sounds important. It isn't. It's just a bunch of people getting on an airplane. People like to sound important. Weathermen on Television talk about shower activity. Sounds more important than showers. I even heard one guy on CNN talk about a rain event. I swear to God. He said, "Louisiana's expecting a rain event". I said, "holy shit I hope I can get tickets to that!" > News people like to say “police have responded to an emergency situation.” No they haven’t, they’ve responded to an emergency. We know it’s a situation… everything is a situation!
- cwillu 4y ago
  My personal peave is “utilize”: it's just an excuse to use the letter “z” in a sentence.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Great example. Also "access" as in "they can access health care." How about "they can receive health care"? "They can get health care"?
    - Dracophoenix 4y ago
      I'm not a doctor, but there are differences between the two words: "access" generally refers to capability and/or proximity whereas "receive" generally refers to eligibility for a particular service or prescription. The word "get", is a vague expression of either of the former two words, but in common parlance is understood to be the latter.
    - derbOac 4y ago
      The case of "access" I think is partly two avoid two things. First, it's to avoid implying that the concern is about getting treatment, as opposed to being evaluated for it or being set up in the system. Second, it's to avoid implying that the potential patient's concern is about "getting" something at all, as opposed to being eligible for it, in the sense that they could get it if it were necessary. Access as an idea is very important in healthcare equity, because it avoids a lot of the political baggage that is attached to the less resourced obtaining those resources. If you have critics that are accusing the poor of just hoarding things, you want to clarify that what they're getting is eligibility or entrance, not the resources per se. Access is about being able to get drugs if you want and need it, not getting drugs per se.
dtgriscom 4y ago
In 1990 I worked with a lawyer to submit a patent (cool idea, although it never made me any money). We were both new to the process, so it was a learning opportunity all around. A priority of mine was to use clear and transparent language. So, I'd write something up that was human-readable, he'd legalese it, I'd re-human-readable it, and we'd iterate. It felt like we were taking a walk through document space; he'd push towards the "Legally Tight" pole, and I'd push towards the "Intelligible" pole. I think the result [0] was pretty good. [0]: https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&d=PTXT&s1=5012080.PN.&OS=PN/5012080&RS=PN/5012080 https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=... (P.S. Why isn't there a simple PTO URL for "show patent number XXXXXXX"???)
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  in Chrome, you can just type "US<patent number>" in the address bar and it will probably work.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Not bad! Except you used "said": > a plurality of non-intersecting surfaces arranged in layers, each surface comprising multiple units, combinations of said units forming passing and blocking tuples, each tuple comprising one unit from each of said surfaces such that the projected path of any specific particle through the filter traverses a single tuple In fairness, I'm not sure "the" was generally accepted in 1991.
- _ggwa 4y ago
  > (P.S. Why isn't there a simple PTO URL for "show patent number XXXXXXX"???) It's going to get even worse at the end of the month when they retire the website you linked to. Patent documents can't be linked to directly in the replacement as far as I'm aware. https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-launches-new-patent-public-search-tool-and-webpage https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-launches-n...

lamontcg 4y ago

Your last example is why reading the law is tricky and why we need both a push for plain language and a push to explain language that is necessarily very specific.

AlbertCory 4y ago
In general, yeah, but I have mixed feelings on that particular one. Claims wouldn't be much more understandable if they said: A chair, with four legs, a seat, and a back, and possibly other elements. A good explanation for obtuseness in legal language is: In normal writing, you're trying to be understood. In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood.
- watwut 4y ago
  imo, actually they would be more understandable. Because that sentence is using words everybody knows.
- inetknght 4y ago
  > In legal writing, you're trying to make it impossible to be misunderstood. I would argue that many legal documents have completely missed that mark.
- pas 4y ago
  there's no way around it. if you want to avoid getting misunderstood, misinterpreted, especially by in a somewhat adversarial setting, then you need to build a mental model that grasps what you want to communicate, and then spend the pages and ink to write it down. structural language, plenty of examples to narrow down possible points of false interpretations, etc. (at least 3+ examples for each thing, to have a quorum of examples that can break ties in case of opposing interpretations) obviously quantification is good, measurability is great, directionality is important (so then as you try to specify this abstract concept by its boundary in some mental space you can say what's inside and what's outside the boundary, which examples point in which direction ... so you can say things like "we mandate providing shelter for every resident" with a lot more precision, after all in no time someone would argue that it's a tautology, since "residents reside somewhere, which means they have an address, and therefore they already have shelter there".)

chx 4y ago

This here reminds me of George Carlin: > People add extra words when they want things to sound more important than they really are. "Boarding process". Sounds important. It isn't. It's just a bunch of people getting on an airplane. People like to sound important. Weathermen on Television talk about shower activity. Sounds more important than showers. I even heard one guy on CNN talk about a rain event. I swear to God. He said, "Louisiana's expecting a rain event". I said, "holy shit I hope I can get tickets to that!" > News people like to say “police have responded to an emergency situation.” No they haven’t, they’ve responded to an emergency. We know it’s a situation… everything is a situation!

cwillu 4y ago
My personal peave is “utilize”: it's just an excuse to use the letter “z” in a sentence.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Great example. Also "access" as in "they can access health care." How about "they can receive health care"? "They can get health care"?
  - Dracophoenix 4y ago
    I'm not a doctor, but there are differences between the two words: "access" generally refers to capability and/or proximity whereas "receive" generally refers to eligibility for a particular service or prescription. The word "get", is a vague expression of either of the former two words, but in common parlance is understood to be the latter.
  - derbOac 4y ago
    The case of "access" I think is partly two avoid two things. First, it's to avoid implying that the concern is about getting treatment, as opposed to being evaluated for it or being set up in the system. Second, it's to avoid implying that the potential patient's concern is about "getting" something at all, as opposed to being eligible for it, in the sense that they could get it if it were necessary. Access as an idea is very important in healthcare equity, because it avoids a lot of the political baggage that is attached to the less resourced obtaining those resources. If you have critics that are accusing the poor of just hoarding things, you want to clarify that what they're getting is eligibility or entrance, not the resources per se. Access is about being able to get drugs if you want and need it, not getting drugs per se.

dtgriscom 4y ago

In 1990 I worked with a lawyer to submit a patent (cool idea, although it never made me any money). We were both new to the process, so it was a learning opportunity all around. A priority of mine was to use clear and transparent language. So, I'd write something up that was human-readable, he'd legalese it, I'd re-human-readable it, and we'd iterate. It felt like we were taking a walk through document space; he'd push towards the "Legally Tight" pole, and I'd push towards the "Intelligible" pole. I think the result [0] was pretty good. [0]: https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=OR&d=PTXT&s1=5012080.PN.&OS=PN/5012080&RS=PN/5012080 https://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=... (P.S. Why isn't there a simple PTO URL for "show patent number XXXXXXX"???)

AlbertCory 4y ago
in Chrome, you can just type "US<patent number>" in the address bar and it will probably work.
AlbertCory 4y ago
Not bad! Except you used "said": > a plurality of non-intersecting surfaces arranged in layers, each surface comprising multiple units, combinations of said units forming passing and blocking tuples, each tuple comprising one unit from each of said surfaces such that the projected path of any specific particle through the filter traverses a single tuple In fairness, I'm not sure "the" was generally accepted in 1991.
_ggwa 4y ago
> (P.S. Why isn't there a simple PTO URL for "show patent number XXXXXXX"???) It's going to get even worse at the end of the month when they retire the website you linked to. Patent documents can't be linked to directly in the replacement as far as I'm aware. https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-launches-new-patent-public-search-tool-and-webpage https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-launches-n...