Being unreadable in 2015 is a kind of intellectual dishonesty. A defense against being read by dissenters when access is no longer a barrier
Conversation
Replying to
False. Unreadable to who? Every expression implies an audience, and every audience is limited in some way.
2
Replying to
. I mean unreadability as a consciously deployed defensive strategy, as with patent lawyers. Much more common than people think
Replying to
the scariest part is when the strategy is enforced on every level: not just with the originator of the obfuscation.
Replying to
as a patent lawyer, I can agree that there is some of that, but also jargon that is part of evolved protocol
1
1
Replying to
patent claims are not formal mathematical logic, but they have some formal structure



