John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:50 PM,
dsummersmi...@comcast.net<dsummersmi...@comcast.net> wrote:
I wasn't clear. They don't understand enough about what is being regulated
to enforce the laws. The laws are very clear to me; its how one interprets
these clear laws in the light of facts that are far too complex for the
judge to understand.
Then they are poorly written laws. Laws should be kept to a minimum,
and when absolutely necessary, should be written in a way that makes
them as easy as possible to understand and enforce.
...
John--
I'd argue that the patent laws are not that poorly
written, the problem is that there's latitude in
their interpretation. I think that may be an
unavoidable problem.
Why don't you attempt to outline a system of patent
laws that would NOT have latitude in their interpretation?
There are of course trivial examples, such as "have no
patents, ever". I believe that's worse than the present
system.
You keep going on about "poorly written laws"--let's
see if you can produce alternatives. (Or do it for some
other system of laws. Except the US income tax code--
I'll believe that could be radically simplified.)
---David
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
