Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 337 posts

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#111

Post by [deleted] »

jmugan wrote: post #107
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

For everyone commenting "laypeople aren't the intended audience", this monstrosity was a recent Texas constitutional ballot proposal, i.e. all voters in the state were asked to vote on it: > The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school pu…

Wow, I actually had to vote on that and couldn't parse out what it was saying, so I left that one blank. I have a PhD, it's in computer science, but still.

[deleted]

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#112

Post by kemitchell »

torstenvl wrote: post #103

Consider the following two function definitions: int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; } int add(int a, int b) { if ((a > 0 && b > 0) && (INT_MAX - a b)) { return INT_MAX + (b - (INT_MIN - a - 1)); } else { return a + b; } } Which one expresses the intent more simply and understandably? Which one is more robust? Which one would you bet the future of your company on? I offer that, sometimes, simplicity of expression i…

Don't let lawyers confuse form and substance as cover.

It's perfectly possible to address more possibilities in simple language. The result might run longer, but it won't hurt to read.

Too many companies run on legal docs execs don't read. Too may lawyers write those docs to put readers off. If you want robust legal work for your company, maximize accountability for your legal advisers. All the usual tools.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#113

Post by _ggwa »

dctoedt wrote: post #104
_ggwa wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a patent examiner and I can't agree with "It's very precise if you can learn to read it". A large fraction of patent applications I've worked on are unclear. I even wrote a linter to help catch some problems. (DOC lawyers make me add this: This post is just my personal opinion, not that of the USPTO, DOC, US govt., etc.) Edit: I will agree that patent claims can be precise, but so can normal English. I think pate…

I'm curious what you think about a post I did ten years ago, on "defying" the Single Sentence Rule when drafting patent claims: https://www.oncontracts.com/multi-sentence-claims/

Your proposed claim format would greatly improve clarity.

I particularly like the definitions and examples being included in the claims. Too often patent attorneys define terms contrary to their ordinary meaning. I might not think to check the specification for a definition, and end up wasting a lot of time.

With that being said, I sometimes do 112(b) rejections for exemplary language in claims as they can make the claims unclear (for example: "for example"). I think if the claim or specification was written to make it clear that the examples are just examples and not limiting the claim then it would be okay.

Reference numbers are common in patent claims outside of the US, but it seems that US patent attorneys worry that adding reference numbers would limit the breadth of the claims. There's no statute or USPTO rule against reference numbers in the claims and I'm not aware of any case law justifying not adding them. Not having reference numbers in the claims is a loss for clarity, particularly when the claims use different terminology than the specification (which is unfortunately common).

(Again, this is just my opinion, not that of the USPTO, US govt., etc.)

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#115

Post by AlbertCory »

cwillu wrote: post #110
chx wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My personal peave is “utilize”: it's just an excuse to use the letter “z” in a sentence.

Great example.

Also "access" as in "they can access health care." How about "they can receive health care"? "They can get health care"?

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#116

Post by [deleted] »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

For everyone commenting "laypeople aren't the intended audience", this monstrosity was a recent Texas constitutional ballot proposal, i.e. all voters in the state were asked to vote on it: > The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school pu…

[deleted]

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#117

Post by bluechair »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

For everyone commenting "laypeople aren't the intended audience", this monstrosity was a recent Texas constitutional ballot proposal, i.e. all voters in the state were asked to vote on it: > The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school pu…

I've rewritten the clause by moving "prepositional phrases" into the noun phrases to avoid as much nesting as possible. For example, instead of saying "the husband of the woman, I'd replace it with the woman's husband."

Here's what I think it says: "This constitutional amendment authorizes the legislature to set the ad valorem taxes total reduction amounts that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school purposes on the residence homestead of an elderly or disabled person in order to reflect any statutory reduction from the preceding tax year in the maintenance maximum compressed rate and operations taxes imposed for those purposes on the homestead."

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#118

Post by mistrial9 »

max51 wrote: post #73

At my job I have to deal with the structural design part of the building code for US and Canada (ei. calculating loads on structure). Part of my job is to find the differences in each new version to see if we need to implement anything new in our software. For seismic, the Canadian code is easy enough to understand that teachers use it in college instead of manuals or notes. To calculates something (eg. a specific wi…

thank you for this reply -- here in California, there is no secret that much building activity has been legally curtailed to such an extent that it becomes another endeavor entirely.. that of seeking and obtaining permission at every turn. Obscure and contradictory rule books specifically enable this kind of gatekeeping IMHO.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#119

Post by torstenvl »

deanmen wrote: post #109
torstenvl wrote: post #103

Consider the following two function definitions: int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; } int add(int a, int b) { if ((a > 0 && b > 0) && (INT_MAX - a b)) { return INT_MAX + (b - (INT_MIN - a - 1)); } else { return a + b; } } Which one expresses the intent more simply and understandably? Which one is more robust? Which one would you bet the future of your company on? I offer that, sometimes, simplicity of expression i…

Why not int add(int a, int b) { unsigned res = (unsigned) a + (unsigned) b; return (int) res; }

"When a value with integer type is converted to another integer type ... [if] the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented in it; the result is implementation-defined." C99, 6.3.1.3.

"When a value with integer type is converted to another integer type ... [if] the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an implementation-defined signal is raised." C23 Draft, 6.3.1.3.

Calling add(2147483647, 2147483647) with your code could trap, not from the overflow (which is well-defined for unsigned integers) but from casting 4294967294 to a signed integer.

I also don't know if it would work with one's complement.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#120

Post by ok_dad »

_ggwa wrote: post #90
pclmulqdq wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American patents are written in a language that isn't English. It's very precise if you can learn to read it, though. The same seems to hold for contracts, but to a lesser degree.

I'm a patent examiner and I can't agree with "It's very precise if you can learn to read it". A large fraction of patent applications I've worked on are unclear. I even wrote a linter to help catch some problems. (DOC lawyers make me add this: This post is just my personal opinion, not that of the USPTO, DOC, US govt., etc.) Edit: I will agree that patent claims can be precise, but so can normal English. I think pate…

How do you become a patent examiner? Could anyone do it for their area of expertise or is it more like being a specialized researcher specifically for patent applications?
Post reply on HN