It all comes down to the wording and I do not believe there isn’t a safe path to solve this issue.
By wording I mean, often those who write these things are often trying to be clever.
The following is an example of wording issues that is subject to law and the consequence of how it was written.
In the U.K. is illegal to have a Cathode Ray TV in the front of a car.
Well, that makes sense, right? No one would want others on the road to be able to watch a TV whilst they drive.
Superb, all TVs are banned from cars.
Erm, nope, you may have missed a bit.
It said Cathode Ray TVs, those who wrote it thought they were smart, it was an old law and in the olden days (mine) TVs were actually still called Cathode Ray TVs. There were no commercially successful other techniques than Cathode Ray, so, it was included.
The worlds spins a few thousand times and suddenly, a new way of displaying TV is available, LCD, then LED, and OLED and more.
The law still exists, but, the only way to convict someone of watching TV in the U.K. now is evidence of actually driving without due care and attention, an entirely different law with different standards.
The position pushed by the person claiming not to be a lawyer makes sense. Like him, I have not read anything else, but, when someone describes a specific process it is usually for one of two main reasons.
- Something else exists that requires a tight rope walk to claim your own stake.
- Someone is trying to be smart and uses words that make them feel smart.
I was recently told about a patent that might affect me, the person (actually three different people) all believed they were so smart sharing this news that might cause me issues. The problem is, they do not understand the basic principles of patents and they scope to which they can claim.
I chose not to correct them as two of them were doing something in the same field and stopped becuase they misunderstood a patent!