Index ← 3468 CFJ 3469 3470 → text
=============================  CFJ 3469  =============================

      At least one Patent Title to be held by something other than a 


Caller:                      ais523

Judge:                       Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement:                   DISMISS           



Called by ais523:                                   10 Nov 2016
Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:        19 May 2017
Judged DISMISS by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  20 May 2017


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 649 states that Patent Titles can only be /given/ to a
person. In some instances, a legal construct that was a person at the
time was given a Patent Title, and then ceased to be a person (and,
indeed, to be an Agoran legal construct). For example, P2 was a short-
lived agreement between ehird and omd. The actual agreement between the
persons in question no longer exists (having served its purpose); the
rules making em a person (and allowing em to have been a player) also
no longer exist. However, in eir brief existence, e managed to
participate in a scam. E also wrote some fairly moving poetry:
(Incidentally, the fact that things like agreements between people have
a tendency to become persons and even players is part of the reason
we've kept Spivak around in Agora: "e" is neutral not just between "he"
and "she", but also "it".)

Anyway, at this point P2 no longer exists as a player or person, and
you could reasonably argue that it isn't even an entity. However,
during the time it was a person, it managed to earn a Patent Title. I
definitely believe that the Herald should continue to record em in eir
report; the sad tale of P2 is something that deserves to be told to
future generations of Agorans. But given eir ontological dubiousness,
is there a legal requirement to record the patent title in question?

(There are other examples, too; for example, P1 and P3-P100 also hold
Patent Titles, as does The President. I picked P2 in the example above
as it has a particularly poignant history, but I think all patent
titles held by nonpersons have similar circumstances.)


Judge's Arguments:

I judge CFJ 3469 DISMISS because of the typo. However, I find the
statement could be corrected as "At least one Patent Title is held by
something other than a person." or "At least one Patent Title is able
to be held by something other than a person." I find the first of
these to be dependent upon the second and as I will find the second
FALSE, I find the first FALSE as well. I find the second to be FALSE
because a Patent Title is "a legal title given to a person in 
recognition of the person's distinction." This suggests to us that
only persons may be given Patent Titles. However, to analyze this
statement we must first list the verbs that can be applied to patent
titles. In the rules we find the following verbs:
* to award (a patent title)
* to revoke (a patent title)
After reviewing CFJs we find that one is able:
* to possess (a patent title) [CFJ 904]
* to have (a patent title) [CFJ 2306]
* to bear (a patent title) [CFJ 1874]
However, all uses of these verbs have as their subject a person. Given
the way the rule is phrased that a patent title is "in recognition of
the person's distinction." I believe that there can exist a patent
title in the distinction of anything, which was a person at the time
of the award. However, if the entity is no longer a person, it can no
longer be held by the entity, but shall still exist and must be
tracked as a patent title "in recognition of the person's
distinction." because it is in recognition of the person who once
existed, but is no longer held by the entities current state.