Sir Robin Jacob is one of the most quoted judges in the UK. I myself have a long list of savvy and sassy words he used which infallibly hit the nail on the head while delivering opinions or handing down decisions. One of them is 'nerd' he used to describe in one word an ordinary skilled worker in the art of a claimed invention. This notional technician should have a broad common and general knowledge in the field which he may use to test the applicability of the invention, but should not be a 'world champion' (to quote Sir Robin) or imaginative enough to see obviousness in every invention. I think 'nerd' is just the right word to express a one-track minded, not overly bright specialist. If there was an English equivalent to the German word 'Fachidiot', Sir Robin would not have come up with this bright word. Actually, nerd is the closest translation of Fachidiot, which exactly match the notional skilled person referred to in order to test the patentability of an invention.
The most recent one on my mental list is the word 'lackadaisical' which Sir Robin Jacob used in a post-judgement hearing of Apple v Samsung case held on 1 November 2012 in order to lead the derailed Apple along the right road of law and order; he etiquetted Apple's attitude towards the court order to publish Samsung's non-infringement in newspapers and magazines as being "lackadaisical at best". He hit again the bull's eye with this ingenious mot juste combined with "at best", which places Apple's reluctance to comply with the court order somewhere between half-heartedness and defiance.
With respect to Apple's contested notice (very haughty and opportunistic to my eyes) which appeared on its UK website in 'compliance' with the court order to publicize that Samsung tablet computers did not infringe its iPad Community Registered Design, Sir Robin began with "This is much more serious." He called the notice as "a mixture of the notice we ordered along with material added by Apple" and found those additions, three paragraphs interspersing the ordered wordings and a concluding paragraph, "false and misleading", especially the one comparing the UK judgement with that of a US jury being "misleading by omission ... calculated to produce huge confusion". In fact, as evidently intended by revengeful Apple, the contested notice gave the average reader an overall impression that the British court was biased while everywhere else in the world they say that Samsung is a copycat, as illustrated by the heading of an online magazine: "APPLE: SCREW YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us." Answering the Apple attorney's contention that Apple could not be held responsible for inaccurate reporting by journalists, Sir Robin succinctly pointed to Apple's contribution to the false impression being "false innuendo", another bull's eye.
The most recent one on my mental list is the word 'lackadaisical' which Sir Robin Jacob used in a post-judgement hearing of Apple v Samsung case held on 1 November 2012 in order to lead the derailed Apple along the right road of law and order; he etiquetted Apple's attitude towards the court order to publish Samsung's non-infringement in newspapers and magazines as being "lackadaisical at best". He hit again the bull's eye with this ingenious mot juste combined with "at best", which places Apple's reluctance to comply with the court order somewhere between half-heartedness and defiance.
With respect to Apple's contested notice (very haughty and opportunistic to my eyes) which appeared on its UK website in 'compliance' with the court order to publicize that Samsung tablet computers did not infringe its iPad Community Registered Design, Sir Robin began with "This is much more serious." He called the notice as "a mixture of the notice we ordered along with material added by Apple" and found those additions, three paragraphs interspersing the ordered wordings and a concluding paragraph, "false and misleading", especially the one comparing the UK judgement with that of a US jury being "misleading by omission ... calculated to produce huge confusion". In fact, as evidently intended by revengeful Apple, the contested notice gave the average reader an overall impression that the British court was biased while everywhere else in the world they say that Samsung is a copycat, as illustrated by the heading of an online magazine: "APPLE: SCREW YOU, BRITS, everyone else says Samsung copied us." Answering the Apple attorney's contention that Apple could not be held responsible for inaccurate reporting by journalists, Sir Robin succinctly pointed to Apple's contribution to the false impression being "false innuendo", another bull's eye.
RSS Feed
