On Jan 10, 2008 4:58 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 10, 2008 2:38 PM, Iammars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > FACT 4: Bearing Patent Titles isn't limited to persons. (Only being awarded > > a patent title is limited to persons.) > > Devil's advocate here. What about the first sentence of Rule 649: "A > Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's > distinction"? If HP2 ceases to be a person, then eir patent titles > cease to recognize eir distinction, so they cease to be patent titles. > The question then is whether they cease to exist entirely, or whether > they regain their patent title status upon HP2 regaining its > personhood.
Counter-argument: since "[t]he status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules" and removing the patent-title for non-personhood would be only implicitly set out in the rules, it stays regardless of what the definition would seem to imply. But then there's the problem of how one can read the definition at the beginning of a rule consistently given this. Perhaps most reasonable would be that it is the recognition of the distinction of a person at the time conditions for award of the title were met. -woggle
