1

In my understanding, a sentence of the following form

A requires B, something that may be difficult even when C

means that

A is difficult since a necessary condition B is difficult. While B appears to be easier (to obtain or achieve) in the case of C, it is indeed not.

However, I came across the following sentence in a law paper (Lemley, M. A. (2007). Ten things to do about patent holdup of standards (and one not to). BCL Rev., 48, 149.):

... proving an antitrust violation requires detailed evidence of both causation and intent, something that may be difficult even when, as a policy matter, a patentee should not be permitted to extend its rights.

I don't understand the latter part of the sentence. Could you please help me to clarify the meaning of the sentence. Thank you.

(a little context: a patentee can violate antitrust laws if it abuses its patent rights)

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    This is essentially a legal question. In any event to give an opinion on the English would require much more context.
    – WS2
    Mar 26, 2014 at 18:23
  • Thanks. I am just wondering if the meaning (in plain English, superficially---I am not even a law student) is equivalent to `proving ... requires ... both causation and intent, something that may be difficult even when a patentee's rights are limited'.
    – pp35377
    Mar 26, 2014 at 18:29
  • @WS2 it's not a legal question.
    – user31341
    Mar 26, 2014 at 18:59
  • You can rephrase the sentence as follows: In a case where a patentee has obviously (to the layman) extended its right in an unlawful way, it may still be difficult to prove causation and intent (which is what is needed to obtain relief in court for such violations). My answer to a related question may be helpful.
    – user31341
    Mar 26, 2014 at 19:02
  • No. 'A is difficult since a necessary condition B is difficult. While B appears to be easier (to obtain or achieve) in the case of C, it is indeed not' should be `A requires a necessary condition B, which is difficult to achieve. While B appears to be easier (to obtain or achieve) in the case of C [when C is true], it in fact remains difficult [if slightly less so]'.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Mar 26, 2014 at 19:21

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

'even when' is used to make explicit an included situation that might be thought of as an exception. So:

  • "A soldier must obey all orders, even when he disagrees with them"
  • "The accused is entitled to a fair trial, even when he seems obviously guilty"

The sentence you quote admits of two slightly different meaning. Exactly as written, it should mean:

"proving an antitrust violation requires detailed evidence of both causation and intent. This is difficult, regardless of whether a patentee should not be permitted to extend its rights, which you might think would make it easier."

But I believe the intended meaning is:

"proving an antitrust violation requires detailed evidence of both causation and intent, and this is difficult. But it is required, regardless of whether a patentee should not be permitted to extend its rights, which you might think should make it not required."

My personal belief is that a comma after 'difficult' would make it clearer.

Improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.