DIYbanter - View Single Post

Smitty Two

In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article ,
Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

Yeah, that's why so many people make their living debating how to
interpret law.

Actually, the vast majority of those debates do not involve what the law
means, but rather whether it is applicable to a particular situation.

I'd call that a somewhat irrelevant semantic difference. The law could
easily be said to have *no* meaning outside of how it's interpreted for
a "particular situation."

Patent law is a particularly good example of that; in that it's widely
understood as a given that a patent is toothless until it's been
successfully defended in court.