I confess: I’m complicit in a corrupt and dishonest system.

I’m sometimes asked why the law can’t speak clearly to the average person.  I wish I had a good answer.  I’m not without answers; they’re simply not very satisfying.  My first answer is that the question why law can’t speak more clearly is like asking why pigs can’t fly.  They don’t, and it doesn’t.  I’ve given up trying to figure out why.  I’m primarily concerned these days with trying to figure out how to teach people who will practice law how they can begin to understand legal language.  I know that task itself — achieving a glimmer of understanding of legal language — takes a monumental amount of work even when attempted by incredibly well educated and bright people.

My second answer is that making oneself understood is incredibly difficult for anyone.  The President of the United States, the Governor of Alaska, and many other very powerful and accomplished people seem incapable of the art.  Why would you expect some low level lawyer at a federal agency to be clear if these people can’t be?

In the end, though, I sometimes throw up my hands in utter frustration, realizing I myself remain befuddled or, even worse, that they system is intended to be as confusing as possible.  I’ve “known” since law school (25 years ago) the purpose of the patent system is to encourage the disclosure of ideas by inventors to increase the inventiveness of others.  We offer an inventor exclusive rights to profit from his invention in exchange for his disclosure of the invention because doing so will at least allow other inventors to learn the patented knowledge and build upon it.

Now Techdirt makes clear that I’m an idiot: “Defenders of the patent system quite frequently point out that one of the main benefits (some claim the only benefit) of the patent system is ‘disclosure.’ That is, because the patent system requires you to disclose your patent, the patent system is quite helpful in spreading ideas. This is a myth that’s easily debunked on a few points.”  First, you’ll bother applying for a patent for your invention only if you know the invention will be figured out anyway.  Otherwise, why bother?  Second, since the penalties for knowingly infringing a patent are so much worse than accidentally infringing, companies actually discourage their employees from examining patents.  The companies are better off if there’s no proof they actually knew about any patents they infringe.  Finally, “Slashdot points us to a Microsoft employee admitting that looking at patents is a total waste because they never actually disclose anything useful:

When using existing libraries, services, tools, and methods from outside Microsoft, we must be respectful of licenses, copyrights, and patents. Generally, you want to carefully research licenses and copyrights (your contact in Legal and Corporate Affairs can help), and never search, view, or speculate about patents. I was confused by this guidance till I wrote and reviewed one of my own patents. The legal claims section — the only section that counts — was indecipherable by anyone but a patent attorney. Ignorance is bliss and strongly recommended when it comes to patents.