> Indeed, it is also trespass on someone's physical property. This is obvious, and brings into question your own understanding.
It really isn't. Trespass is about land, though in our modern day world of two-story buildings, it is more exactingly about space. See: http://thelawdictionary.org/trespass/
In order to work trespass into your convoluted example, you had to call upon several other ancillary crimes, like breaking and entering and the oddity about exploiting someone else's property, which I don't think is even codified.
Personally? If you want to figure out how to fix patents, I'd suggest dropping software as an example and going over to food recipes.
> Back to patents.
I don't particularly care about your clever table-turning unless you actually get the argument to hold up in a court of law. Patents are problematic: this is obvious to virtually everyone working in the tech industry and many more besides. Philosophical tricks are useless until legally recognized. It's nice to be able to play semantic word games, but it's an entirely different league to be using legal language.
Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was defending patents. I am not. I'm objecting to your criticism of the word "theft".
Well, to borrow a phrase, it really isn't. Or more precisely, land is one subject area.
Take a few moments to research if you're curious, but do go beyond a law dictionary.
> that I was defending patents. I am not.
It seems we agree... then?
> I'm objecting to your criticism
Ok, fair objection. I also noticed your objection was less than friendly,
so perhaps your predisposition to the abuse of certain words is so strong,
that you will recognize that indeed, using the word theft when one intends
to convey the concept of infringement, is invalid.
This is precise legal language and meaning.
As to changes to the patent laws, I can only hope. I do also hope, that as
you say, it is obvious. The more blindingly obvious this becomes to people,
the better. So hopefully, we can close on the positive note of both hoping
for the same thing?
It really isn't. Trespass is about land, though in our modern day world of two-story buildings, it is more exactingly about space. See: http://thelawdictionary.org/trespass/
In order to work trespass into your convoluted example, you had to call upon several other ancillary crimes, like breaking and entering and the oddity about exploiting someone else's property, which I don't think is even codified.
Personally? If you want to figure out how to fix patents, I'd suggest dropping software as an example and going over to food recipes.
> Back to patents.
I don't particularly care about your clever table-turning unless you actually get the argument to hold up in a court of law. Patents are problematic: this is obvious to virtually everyone working in the tech industry and many more besides. Philosophical tricks are useless until legally recognized. It's nice to be able to play semantic word games, but it's an entirely different league to be using legal language.
Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I was defending patents. I am not. I'm objecting to your criticism of the word "theft".