sophistry On Thursday 11 August 2005 22:39, Jason Coombs wrote:
> My conclusion is that I slipped and fell because the definition has changed > and computer dictionaries haven't caught up yet. > > As for whether or not you'd roast me in front of the judge, > > 'Your honor, the evidence shows that the term Trojan hasn't been used in > practice since before public dial-up access to the Internet first became > possible. The parties clearly have adopted other language to describe the > software in question in this case and they have formalized this language in > contract. I believe that there was no definition of Trojan set forth in the > contract because, your honor, neither party believed that the term Trojan > needed a definition, because it's obvious to anyone with a high school > education what the word Trojan means. Its only meaning to this contract (or > in this patent) is the common sense meaning, regardless of the computer > dictionary definitions and computer expert testimony dating back to the > 1960s that the opposing counsel and opposing experts would have this court > believe was in the mind of the parties (or the inventor) when they drafted > this contract (or patent claim). > > We're all familiar with, and have experienced, the broadening of the > meaning of familiar terminology. However, the narrowing of the meaning of > familiar terminology can and does also occur. I conclude, and it is my > opinion, that just such a narrowing has occurred and is occurring with > respect to Trojan as the term is applied and used in computing. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
