| |||||||||||||
SarcasmSarcasmPosted Mar 3, 2010 0:29 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)Parent article: Apple's patent attack
While I enjoy our editor's dry sarcasm as much as the next reader, I wonder if it is wise for a high-profile member of our community to go on record as describing some of these patented techniques as "highly innovative" or "entirely non-obvious" when in fact the reverse is meant.
Do judges understand sarcasm?
(Log in to post comments)
Sarcasm Posted Mar 3, 2010 1:15 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] Sigh. One of the biggest bummers about legal stuff is the way it makes everybody feel they need to shut up. I have, over the years, gotten a lot more careful when I do an article like this, especially with regard to saying that specific patents might read on Linux. What a pain if I can't even be snide.Should somebody try to enter my comments as evidence, I'll happily show up to clarify what I meant...
Sarcasm Posted Mar 3, 2010 12:36 UTC (Wed) by mchehab (subscriber, #41156) [Link]
I suggest you to put the sarcastic expressions on double quotes.
Sarcasm Posted Mar 3, 2010 13:39 UTC (Wed) by njd27 (subscriber, #5770) [Link]
LWN wouldn't be such a joy without the occasional snidity.
Sarcasm Posted Mar 4, 2010 0:59 UTC (Thu) by briangmaddox (subscriber, #39279) [Link]
You know, I just glanced at that comment and thought maybe Jon had resorted
to taking pictures of himself and putting it on the website ;)
Sarcasm Posted Mar 3, 2010 1:23 UTC (Wed) by marcH (subscriber, #57642) [Link]
If Justice can be trusted so little, I am afraid there is a bigger fish to fry than software patents.
Sarcasm Posted Mar 3, 2010 16:23 UTC (Wed) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
The fish are massive, and growing daily...
Sarcasm Posted Mar 4, 2010 16:49 UTC (Thu) by pcampe (guest, #28223) [Link]
>While I enjoy our editor's dry sarcasm as much as the next reader, I
>wonder if it is wise for a high-profile member of our community to go on >record as describing some of these patented techniques as "highly >innovative" or "entirely non-obvious" when in fact the reverse is meant.
We read LWN because it helps us thinking.
...
Hey, I could patent that! It's entirely non obvious :D
Sarcasm Posted Mar 4, 2010 17:19 UTC (Thu) by lambda (subscriber, #40735) [Link]
Yes, judges do indeed understand sarcasm. Most judges are highly intelligent and well educated.
I've read some legal decisions that were quite well written and witty. There's no reason for our Editor to self-censor here in fear that someone will misunderstand his sarcasm.
Sarcasm Posted Mar 12, 2010 3:51 UTC (Fri) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
I certainly expect judges to be intelligent, well-read, and to understand a variety of literary styles; but recognizing sarcasm sometimes requires knowing in advance the falsehood of the statement; and we can't always expect that of judges or others in a courtroom, as intelligent as they may be. I'm sure it would be checked if it were a key piece of evidence presented in court, but the words may still influence some decisions made outside of courtrooms, some of which will end up influencing what happens inside of courtrooms.
Is this too indirect or rare a cost to weigh against reading pleasure? One response would be to ask whether reducing sarcasm necessarily have a cost in writing & reading pleasure. Sometimes giving thought to phrasing and exploring literary devices can be rewarding; and conversely sometimes sarcasm (“language consisting of bitter or wounding remarks”) can be unpleasant to read. So maybe good can come from what at first appears a burdensome imposition on expression.
|
|||||||||||||