Re: what does a patent restrict?

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999, John Noble <jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com> wrote:
>
> On the other hand, lawyers are called upon all the time to translate
> technical language into words that judges and juries can understand.
>

*snip*
>
> Try an experiment Craig. Pick a patent case, any patent case. Using
> technical language describe why the accused device does meet each
> limitation of the patent. Then make an argument as though to a court,
> taking into account not only literal infringement, but the doctrine of
> equivalents, prosecution history estoppel, and whatever else might
> convince the court to give you the result you think you're entitled
> to solely by virtue of your technical argument.

This, by the way, is precisely what lawyering a case is about. Great lawyers tell it so as to compel the result, period. That is, by definition, what it means to be telling it well. As a former game designer and computer science academic who later became a lawyer, I will say this: as between effectively lawyering a patent case embodying a technology and giving a technically accurate account of a technology, the former is much more difficult.

> It will be longer, but not necessarily less intelligent.

It may even win the case. A complete and accurate presentation of the technology of a case (whether it is longer or shorter, well written or well-acted) will almost always lose. I am reminded of the scene in City Slickers, where Palance holds up one finger...

Andrew C. Greenberg
<werdna[_at_]gate.net> Received on Fri Oct 22 1999 - 03:25:13 GMT