[blhack]

That isn't what I asked. This has nothing to do with understanding the world around you, this has to do with understanding things that were written down on small slips of paper and filed away in boxes inside of a building in Virginia.

The slips of paper (which have now been scanned into a computer; images of them are now available on the internet) are there to mark the occasion of the first person writing that particular series of symbols down on that particular piece of paper. The idea is that if you write a certain series of symbols down on the paper, you are the only person that is to be allowed to do whatever it was that you described with the symbols. If somebody doesn't know about the occasion of you writing down the symbols and does whatever it was you described (well, in this case, predicted they might do), then you are entitled to a portion of that unlucky person's assets.

The entire thing is absurd, and if you can't see that, then I suggest you devote more time to "understanding how the world around you works".

[mkramlich]

> That isn't what I asked. This has nothing to do with understanding the world around you, this has to do with understanding things that were written down on small slips of paper and filed away in boxes inside of a building in Virginia.

Unfortunately, the Vogon Destructor Fleet was not moved by this appeal to reason.

[gfodor]

His point is that people who read the abstract to a patent and declare that it's not novel are making the people who actually read the patent and come to the same conclusion look bad.

The abstract is not the patent. It's not meant to be the patent. It's not a legally binding part of the patent. So talking about it in a way that refers to its novelty is just as useful as talking about the novelty of the typeface they used or the brand of paper they used.