(This referenced a long dead link)
In a way, it's kind of fun to watch people stumble through analogies when trying to get a handle on something like this. Of course, the problem is that this really is complicated and hard to understand, and one of the later comments there about "If this case ever comes to trial, analogies like this will be very important to both sides, as they struggle to make their cases understandable to jurors" is very true.
Trouble is, it's going to be very hard to find judges or jurors who are capable of understanding this stuff at all. Anyone with a background that could comprehend the arguments (how many of them are likely to turn up in a random jury pool?) will likely be challenged off by one side or the other. That'll leave you with the typical assortment of people who know very little about technology trying to resolve a case that really needs that knowledge. Heck, I can't even follow those analogies, how is someone with no background supposed to?
Got something to add? Send me email.
More Articles by Tony Lawrence © 2012-06-26 Tony Lawrence
Anyone who puts a small gloss on a fundamental technology, calls it proprietary, and then tries to keep others from building on it, is a thief. (Tim O'Reilly)