============================== CFJ 2306 ==============================
P17 has the Patent Title of Left in a Huff
Called by Sgeo: 09 Dec 2008 00:26:25 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli: 10 Dec 2008 22:42:21 GMT
Machiavelli recused: 11 Dec 2008 02:33:58 GMT
Assigned to omd: 23 Dec 2008 00:36:29 GMT
Judged TRUE by omd: 23 Dec 2008 02:28:42 GMT
R649 talks about awarding persons patent titles, but then
does seem to imply that non-person entities can hold patent titles.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
CFJs 1862 and 2093. Unless something relevant has
changed since then, FALSE.
Gratuitous Arguments by Sgeo:
Proposal 5412 changed a lot of instances of "person" with
"entity", but not the instance referred to in CFJ 1862. Proposal 5437
did not change any part of the rule relevant to this discussion.
Judge omd's Arguments:
CFJ 1862 was judged under a former Rule. CFJ 2093 was judged FALSE
under the current Rule, but it was about a patent title that had
already ceased to exist. At no point in P17's existence was Rule 649
the older version, so the case merits investigation.
The rule formerly read
A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's
It now reads:
A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a
because Proposal 5412 attempted to loosen Patent Title ownership to
entities after CFJ 1682. There is no longer any language in Rule 649
indicating that only a person can 'possess' a Patent Title; it only
says that Patent Titles are given in recognition of a person's
distinction. Therefore, P17 has the capability of possessing the
Patent Title in question. ais523 did, in fact, deputise to award the
Patent Title to P17 (along with P1-P16 and P18-P100), so P17 possesses
the patent title.
A more interesting question is whether e Bears it. Rule 649 is very
unclear about the term:
When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said
to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from
an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The
status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as
explicitly set out in the Rules.
Is it the case that P17 was 'said' to Bear the PT at the moment e was
awarded it, and then ceased to Bear it? What is the definition of
when a non-person Bears a Patent Title? I'm afraid of Bears... but I
think we can agree that, immediately before P17 ceased to be a person,
e held the Patent Title Left in a Huff. In this case, the third
sentence prohibits P17's status of Bearing it from being changed
implicitly (as the Rule does not _explicitly_ describe any such
change). Therefore, P17 still Bears the Patent Title. TRUE.