Re: what does a patent restrict?

On Thu, Oct 21, 1999, Andrew C. Greenberg <werdna[_at_]gate.net> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Oct 1999, Mr. Hayward <chayward[_at_]hbmaynard.com> wrote:
> >
> > A technical writer can take a 100 page legal "brief" (boy isn't
> > that an oxymoron) and make it into 25 pages (ok, I'm being liberal
> > here). Whereas, I've known a few in the legal profession (and
> > insurance) who can take this same 100 pages and make it 200 pages.
>
> Mr. Hawyard professes an experience with the law and lawyers, but in
> making this pretense, his statement proves too much.

Firstly, my name is Hayward... (I've lived my life with it being misspelled)

> There isn't a court in this country whose rules permit the filing of
> a 100-page brief. Indeed, had he the slightest experience with
> actual lawyers and lawyering, he would discover that the art of
> lawyering is to do precisely what he suggests: taking 100 pages of
> content, and reducing it to the 20-page limits required by most
> courts.
>
> Even if you could get the permission of the court to file a 100-page
> brief, to do so would be foolish and futile -- no one, least of all
> the judge, would read it.

Secondly, I was making an analogy. About long-windedness, which has been further reinforced by the comments made since my last posting.

> Based upon my substantial experience in this area, it would appear that
> Mr. H is simply making this up as he goes along.

Thirdly, I never claimed to have experience in the legal profession itself, only with those who are in the legal profession. Several in my own family and friends, come to mind. I didn't mean any offense by what I wrote. And I apologize if everyone took me so literally. This goes back to a time when writers were paid by the word, instead of by intention. The point being made was more related to the lay person and their reading.

> > This all means, describing what's appropriate and using language
> > that conveys meaning. Eliminate unnecessary words, that only cause
> > confusion because don't modify anything they make readability a bear.
> > English is suitable for description, it all depends on how deep you
> > go. The old tech writing adage says, "If it speaks well, it reads
> > well." In other words write as you would speak. Transmogrification
> > may work well in a brief, but in a conversation, I would think it's
> > difficult.
>
> Putting it well is difficult. Putting it right is harder. Putting
> it well, right and so it cannot be misunderstood is harder yet. So
> what?

The point is: if it speaks well, it reads well. Putting it right doesn't mean having to put in more language than necessary. I repeat necessary. It may take more words to describe something. I'm not belittling the fact that there is a need for sufficient language to describe things. You do what is necessary to get the job done. Readability and use of language are not mutually exclusive. It can be done well and has been done well.

In reality, I applaud those who do it well. All I was doing was making an observation. You can run with the ball any way you want.

> > I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone out there. I know
> > also a great many in the legal profession who do their best to make
> > sense of legalese, for those who are less-informed. I understand
> > that this is the way it is done, and will remain that way. I just
> > found a little humor in how long-winded you can make a subject of
> > discussion.
>
> Pot. Kettle. Black. (Terse enough?)

Touche

Hey, it does describe what you are saying. :-)

Regards,

Craig

Craig Hayward
<chayward[_at_]hbmaynard.com> Received on Mon Oct 25 1999 - 18:37:25 GMT