Re: The patent process [Was Re: Sharing the Family PC is Patent-Pending]

[Alun]

AES/newspost <siegman@stanford.edu> wrote in
siegman-782A56.13091611052004@news.stanford.edu:">news:siegman-782A56.13091611052004@news.stanford.edu: 

> In article <Xns94E6741B54989elektrosmdonet@130.133.1.4>,
>  Alun <elektros@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
>> I don't see how a plain language requirement would work. Patents are 
>> written from scratch, and those of us who write them use certain terms
>> and certain ways of writing things for legal precision, not to confuse
>> others, beleive it or not. 
> 
> "Legal precision"?!?  Gee, I've sat in rooms and listened to multiple 
> attorneys argue vehemently over the meaning of patent language, in 
> situations where they were all on the *same* side, and defending the 
> patent.
> 
> Besides, shouldn't it be "technical precision" that's wanted, or
> needed? 

It's hard to be precise, but much harder to do it plain language, and I say 
that from experience. And, no it's not technical precision that's required. 
The claims define the monopoly, and that's a legal matter, not a technical 
one. The abstract is the place to give a good technical summary, but there 
isn't much downside to writing a bad one, plus you can use the same one for 
a number of related inventions.