tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post4333608402059226141..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Microsoft Monday: it was defeat by a judicial whisker ...Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-25554006185489185112008-09-11T08:49:00.000+01:002008-09-11T08:49:00.000+01:00"aynonym"? "a aynonym"?No slips are too obvious or..."aynonym"? "a aynonym"?<BR/><BR/>No slips are too obvious or trivial for us to overlook them.<BR/><BR/><I>DME</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32241389081961244462008-09-09T12:57:00.000+01:002008-09-09T12:57:00.000+01:00Thank you for your support, Jeremy. Departmental p...Thank you for your support, Jeremy. Departmental policy is that of officials everywhere - that the good is the enemy of the best. But 'less acceptable' is not even good - mediocre, rather. IP Kat, aim higher!<BR/><BR/><I>DME</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-17259311443251324692008-09-06T22:24:00.000+01:002008-09-06T22:24:00.000+01:00DME: I went to rap the IPKat's knuckles over this ...DME: I went to rap the IPKat's knuckles over this misleading usage of "may" for "might". He tells me that Collins English Dictionary says of this usage that it is "frequently encountered ... but regarded as less acceptable". He adds that "less acceptable" is still acceptable and is not a aynonym for "unacceptable" or wrong".Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60739312578953038382008-09-06T16:40:00.000+01:002008-09-06T16:40:00.000+01:00IPKat should say "...Microsoft might as well have ...IPKat should say "...Microsoft <I>might</I> as well have carried its arguments to the full Court...". This is not mere pedantry (though the promotion of all kinds of pedantry is part of the Department's brief). To many English readers, if you say 'may' about something in the past, you imply that you don't know if it's happened or not. So, although it has happened, you may make such readers think that perhaps it didn't (or that you don't know if it did or not). It is not good to irritate readers, but worse to mislead them.<BR/><BR/><I>DME</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87176643906625981332008-09-06T11:47:00.000+01:002008-09-06T11:47:00.000+01:00"according to two anonymous informants who reporte..."according to two anonymous informants who reportedly had direct knowledge of the outcome"<BR/><BR/>Does that merit reporting at all?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68262652594578548712008-09-05T19:49:00.000+01:002008-09-05T19:49:00.000+01:00Where exactly should I look for the "poor quality ...Where exactly should I look for the "poor quality reasoning"?<BR/><BR/>Merpel only stated "Microsoft has two months in which to appeal (on points of law only) and it must be a 100% certainty that that company will do so", which seems to be more a statement about Microsoft (plenty of money to finance an appeal) than a statement about the quality of the ruling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-24904474630214932552008-09-05T17:11:00.000+01:002008-09-05T17:11:00.000+01:00What do you mean by IP rights?What do you mean by IP rights?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com