On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, Quazie wrote: > On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Actually, in this case I'm pretty sure the continuity of the patent >> title (continuing to be officially held while undefined) means it's >> the same thing. -Goethe >> > > Was the definition the same the first time it existed in comparison to > now? If not, I would argue that they were different. Well, it's still a Patent Title, and that Patent Title was held by persons even while it wasn't defined in the Rules: I'm thinking that if a no longer "explicitly contained in the Ruleset" patent title is still required to be tracked by the Herald as a result of rule and precedent, it is still indirectly "defined" as long as there are persons that are defined to be holding it. So it was never fully "undefined". If it wasn't still a Patent Title, you'd be right, they'd be different (CFJ 1298, specifically). -Goethe
