Re: Re: Help put a stop to incompetent computerforensics

[Erik Kamerling <ekamerling () snaplen com>]

sophistry

On Thursday 11 August 2005 22:39, Jason Coombs wrote:

> My conclusion is that I slipped and fell because the definition has changed
> and computer dictionaries haven't caught up yet.
>
> As for whether or not you'd roast me in front of the judge,
>
> 'Your honor, the evidence shows that the term Trojan hasn't been used in
> practice since before public dial-up access to the Internet first became
> possible. The parties clearly have adopted other language to describe the
> software in question in this case and they have formalized this language in
> contract. I believe that there was no definition of Trojan set forth in the
> contract because, your honor, neither party believed that the term Trojan
> needed a definition, because it's obvious to anyone with a high school
> education what the word Trojan means. Its only meaning to this contract (or
> in this patent) is the common sense meaning, regardless of the computer
> dictionary definitions and computer expert testimony dating back to the
> 1960s that the opposing counsel and opposing experts would have this court
> believe was in the mind of the parties (or the inventor) when they drafted
> this contract (or patent claim).
>
> We're all familiar with, and have experienced, the broadening of the
> meaning of familiar terminology. However, the narrowing of the meaning of
> familiar terminology can and does also occur. I conclude, and it is my
> opinion, that just such a narrowing has occurred and is occurring with
> respect to Trojan as the term is applied and used in computing.
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/