Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Karl Randolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>]

Joel:

I just looked up my English dictionary, wherein the first 
definition for "patent" is a document open to public 
examination, as opposed to a secret. It was a public 
document whereby others were enjoined from copying 
the idea until a certain period had passed.

By extension, it then refers to the legal protection 
provided by such documentation (e.g. "violate a patent").

What you are confusing is the document itself, and the 
legal requirements set up for awarding a patent. If an 
idea is obvious, other people will violate that patent 
inadvertently. (One of the problems with modern patents 
is that so many of them are obvious: someone takes a 
known practice and somehow using a computer or the 
internet to do the same action is patentable (worthy of 
receiving that legal document open to public scrutiny)? 
Such actions are obvious to those in the field hence 
such patents (legal prohibitions connected with the 
documents) are often inadvertently violated.)

Therefore, at least for patent, the etymology does work for 
understanding the term. Not perfectly, but the connection 
can be seen.

Karl W. Randolph.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <joel AT exc.com>
> 
> >> One example I often use in discussing etymology is the English word
> >> "patently."  By definition, a "patent" must be non-obvious.
> >>
> > On the contrary, Joel. The original meaning of "patent" is "Obvious; [...]
> 
> That's interesting, and it reinforces my point.  If "patent"
> originally meant "obvious," that etymological bit of knowledge helps
> not at all in deducing that in the US today, a "patent" is awarded
> only for something that's not obvious.
> 
> Really, don't we all agree here that etymology doesn't tell you what a
> word means?
> 
> 
> -Joel M. Hoffman
>   http://www.exc.com/JoelHoffman

-- 
___________________________________________________
Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/