Patents used to be tools of inventors and now they are tools of lawyers.
Depressingly true. Mrs Browl works for an electronic discovery company, whose service is to organize huge volumes of documents for legal cases, and it happens that many of these are related to IT patents. For obvious reasons I can't discuss any specifics, but even casual shoulder-surfing has resulted in a great many eyerolls.
To me, a major part of the problem is that while the profession of law purports to be based on reason, it lacks a proper axiomatic framework and success frequently depends on the exploitation of ambiguity...and sadly, many lack the critical thinking skills to deconstruct arguments made this way. If I were ever unlucky enough to be defending myself in court, I'd seriously consider opting for a trial by judge rather than by jury. I would far rather have one intelligent person evaluating my case than 12 random folk.
Depressingly true. Mrs Browl works for an electronic discovery company, whose service is to organize huge volumes of documents for legal cases, and it happens that many of these are related to IT patents. For obvious reasons I can't discuss any specifics, but even casual shoulder-surfing has resulted in a great many eyerolls.
To me, a major part of the problem is that while the profession of law purports to be based on reason, it lacks a proper axiomatic framework and success frequently depends on the exploitation of ambiguity...and sadly, many lack the critical thinking skills to deconstruct arguments made this way. If I were ever unlucky enough to be defending myself in court, I'd seriously consider opting for a trial by judge rather than by jury. I would far rather have one intelligent person evaluating my case than 12 random folk.