Not enough to make a Kat laugh ...
It's sometimes said that cats have no sense of humour, a proposition that the Kats would keenly dispute. However, every so often something happens that makes one of them pause for reflection. One such event was an encounter between this member of the IPKat team and the Dilbert cartoon displayed above, kindly drawn to his attention by Pinsent Masons partner Iain Connor.The first panel of the triptych expresses the proposition that all future ideas are already covered by over-general patents, a premise with which many US readers will readily resonate -- though one which the less generous patent laws of Europe would render inappropriate. The second panel appears to be a conceptual disjunction. Is the sudden switch from patents to trade marks a deliberate ploy to draw the reader's attention from the field of innovation to that of branding, since (unlike ideas) all future brands have yet to be covered? Or is it a consequence of the common misconception among laymen that the monopolies conferred by patents and trade marks are synonymous?
If the second panel puzzled the Kat, the third one confused him totally. Why should the fact that one takes cases on a contingency basis be the trigger for the requirement that one knows how to be a lawyer? Is this perhaps an American in-joke, or is there something completely obvious that the Kat, wearing his normally analytical cap, has overlooked by an attempt to over-intellectualise a good joke? Readers' comments are invited, particularly if they can explain the caption. There's also a poll in the left-hand side bar, for those who are interested.
Confuse a cat here
Can cats smile? Click here
Can cats grin? Click here
