[ImPostingOnHN]

in the example given, the lawyers finding ways to dismiss/challenge it would be a good thing, because the perpetrators in question are trying to patent something obvious, which society has decided we don't want them doing

so, the problem spurring such a policy is that they don't want to be implicated on the record in doing bad things - they want to get away with what society doesn't want them to get away with

that means the policy is bad for society.

[maffydub]

In the actual example, I don't think the engineers were trying to patent something obvious - it's just not unusual for engineers to casually throw around the word "obvious" for things that are not, and it's unwise to have that written down.

(I was the person who provided the ancedote.)

[ImPostingOnHN]

in the actual example, from the information given, I think the engineers were indeed trying to patent something obvious to them, or else they wouldn't have explicitly said it was obvious to them (speaking as an engineer)

I guess I need more convincing, 1st that there is indeed full context exonerating the "obvious" quote from meaning what the words mean, and 2nd that it wouldn't work to just provide that context to resolve the matter (e.g. if it truly is exonerating context, why wouldn't providing the context exonerate?)

when I asked for that detail, I just got a snide, uninformed remark about the answer being obvious, from someone who clearly could not come up with an answer

[ffhhttt]

> or else they wouldn't have explicitly said it was obvious to them (speaking as an engineer)

I’m sorry but you might consider patenting your mind reading device.

It seems pretty easy to imagine engineers spending week/months/etc. solving a specific problem the solution to which might seem pretty ‘obvious’ to them when they actually manage to arrive at it. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s actually obvious ..

> wouldn't work to just provide that context to resolve the matter

Why take the risk? And even if you end up winning at the end having to prove something like that will still result in additional costs and/or delays.

Your reasoning seems to be based on vague assumptions based on a very vaguely described situation. I find it hard to understand how can someone feel so certain about it with close to zero real context.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> Your reasoning seems to be based on vague assumptions based on a very vaguely described situation

indeed, with no detail provided, we're forced to make assumptions, or ask for detail

I chose the latter, that is why I included this in my post:

> I guess I need more convincing, 1st that there is indeed full context exonerating the "obvious" quote from meaning what the words mean, and 2nd that it wouldn't work to just provide that context to resolve the matter (e.g. if it truly is exonerating context, why wouldn't providing the context exonerate?)

when I asked for that detail, I just got a snide, uninformed remark about the answer being obvious, from someone who clearly could not come up with an answer

I would like a response to that part of the post if you feel up to providing it, please

[idiotsecant]

Have you seriously never met an engineer who assumed something was obvious to everyone that was actually only obvious to them? That like, top ten stereotypical engineer behavior.