0
TRANSLATING FOREIGN-LANGUAGE PATENTS' JULIAN F. SMITH Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, North Carolina
T. E. R. SINGER New York, N. Y. T H E programs of this division have often contained papers on various aspects of patent work; they have alsb offered many papers on foreign-language prohlems. This discussion is probably the first on one of our programs t o combine the two general subjects. One of the topics in a symposium on foreign-language problems, arranged for the last meeting of the A. C. S., was: An Approach to Biochemical, Pharmacological, and Medical Terminology in French and German Chemical Literature. I n a sense this may he ronsidered parallel t o this paper, for patent attorneys do not often make their own translations. It is the chemist who must learn the meaning of legal terms, and not the attorney who learns the relation of monoacetic acid ester of salicylic acid to aspirin. However, the parallel between these two papers cannot be carried too far; it is not a question, here, of extending the knowledge of one subject terminology over to another, hut rather one of superimposing a second language or terminology, foreign to the chemist, on a nomenclature with which he is supposed to be thoroughly familiar. The results are usually confusing, sometimes unintelligible, and nearly always frustrating for the chemist. Why something "depends" instead of just "hanging"; why "plurality" has to be used instead of "some," or "several," or "a number of" is puzzling. The phrase in a claim: "at least one of a group consisting of copper, iron, and nickel" does not make sense, for these metals are not related chemically; and "a substantially evacuated transparent envelope containing an energy translating device" seems a particularly opaque way of describing an ordinary electric lamp bulb. Moreover, although chemists are certainly accustomed t o using long words and groups of words, the custom (not harked by any legal requirement, as far as we know) of writing each patent claim as a single sentence appears pointless. Certainly it adds nothing to the ease of understanding or of translating the claim. If patents written English are confusing, how much more so are those written in a linguistically foreign language. The common quip, that all patents in English read as if they had been translated from German, is an exaggeration, even if only slightly so. Somewhat more hyperbolic is the statement that if a translation of a patent makes sense, it is a poor translation.
' Presented before the Division of Chemical Literature at the 127th Meeting of the American Chemical Society, Cincinnati, March, 1955.
We have tried to point out a few of the problems of patent terminology in relation to the lay chemist, and, as already stated, foreign languages add even more twists and quirks to the maze. Moreover, differences in patent practice in foreign couutries introduce additional complications. Even the term used for "patent" has its peculiarities. Nordic languages (including English) use "patent," and Slavic languages followsuit; its root meaning isZ'opened" (to the public). The Romance languages favor their own forms of "brevet," since a patent is a "brief." The Dutch "octrooi" came from Latin"auctori"; i. e., the government "authorizes" the grant. Pet foreign patent terms can be particularly troublesome when there are no exact legal equivalents, such as the distinction between "granted" and "issued," or "laid open for inspection" (for purposes of opposition). Payne2 gives a most. valuable table of the following terms: inventor, assignee, filing date, granted, open for public inspection, issued, characterized in that . . . (before the novel matter in patent claims of certain foreign countries), example, priority, and claims. The languages included are German, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Polish, Czech, and Croatian. The names of the months are also given for the three Slavic languages. Some legal terms of patent interest are inclnded in Austin M. Patterson's familiar German-English and French.English dictionaries for chemists. The late Arthur Worischek, a patent attorney, was noted (among numerous other accomplishments) for his knowledge of many foreign languages. He contributed a "plurality" of patent terms to Regen & Regen, "German-English Dictionary for Electronics Engineers and Physicists." The German-English-French and English-German-French volumes of Thali's "Technisches Worterhuch" also contain a selection of patent. terms. Again, the many available legal and commercial dictionaries from foreign languages into English have patent terms scattered through them. These are not specifically so designated as a rule, unless the term "patent" or "claim" appears in the term being defined. In the actual process of translating, the chemisttranslator should hew to the same wavy line of indefiniteness and apparent vagueness which is laid out in the original text. The natural tendency of any scientist, to he precise has to be suppressed, and vagaries of
4til
J. CHEM.EDUC., 25, 389 (1948).
462
chemical nomenclature or even of definition have to be followed in preparing a translation which aims at the straightest possible parallelism from a legal point of view. It is not necessary (for example) to point out t o an attorney that there is a great deal of difference between the use of "a" and "the" in a legal text; but translators of technical-legal matter often need to have this emphasized. This is especially true in translating from the Slavic and certain Oriental languages which have no equivalent for either "a" or "the." Thus, at one and the same time the translator needs to be both indefinite and precise, and in just the manner that is most difficult for him. He must hew to the wavy line in using the technical terminology with which he is familiar, and in which he is trained to undeviating due-west linearity when heading west. On the other hand, he must a t the same time h e r exactly to a straight line of unfamiliar legal terminology which often reveals no sensible meaning t o his frnstrated vision. Why, for instance, does the subject of a patent "relate to" something, instead of simply being "about" it? Or why, again, is earlier work in a certain field cited in a patent text as "prior art"? I n translating patents, moreover, the correct rendering of such terms is complicated by the fact that their legal equivalents in foreign patents are not always linguisticequivalents as are the accommodaling pair "example" and "Beispiel." Thus, a knowledge of English-language patent terminology and, it is to be emphasized, of its correct legal use, is quite necessary for the translator. There has been many a discnssion among technical translators as to whether the French term "resum6" is or is not correctly translated as "claim," quite apart from the legal significance of the term as used in a patent. The same argument might arise about the correct rendition of the Dutch word "conclusie." There is a crumb of comfort for the chemist-translator. A patent is a bargain; in returnformonopolistic privileges granted by the government (U. S. or foreign) the patentee tells the world his treasured secret. Legally a patent specification is a "disclosure" and everybody knows it is written to reveal only as much as the government demands, no more. So the business of prosecuting a patent application is a battle of wits between the examiner (seeking the best bargain for the government) and the attorney (seekingthe most for the least, to make his client happy). Exactly as with the Star Spangled Banner over Fort McHenry, the resulting wind of controversy "as it fitfully blows half conceals, half discloses." If the two portions (half is purely imaginative, not mathematical) do not strictly coincide in the translation and the original, the difference has as good a chance of favoring as of disfavoring the translator's client. So the objective is to allot vagueness and precision exactly where they belong, but there is no profit in worrying over small deviations from perfection. Patent specifications have examples: we will offer a few here, taken from foreign-language patents. Among other points, they illustrate the translator's lack of
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL EDUCATION
freedom to inject personal knowledge into translations. Even an incorrect or untrue statement must be translated as is, assuming that the client's expert knowledge will recognize error; and typographical errors should be indicated in a form such as "(error for-?)," leaving final interpretation to the client. Example I . When a specification says "917 million micrograms" instead of "917 grams" there is probably a reason; go and do likewise. Example 2. Such an expression as "0.1N Kalilauge' is likely to involve intentional vagueness as to exact composition or purity to offset the precision as to conrentration; better render it "caustic potash" rather than formalize it as "KOH." Example 5. Beware of the difference between "basic" meaning "fundamental," and meaning "alkaline." "Base material" is safe for "grundmaterial" whereas "basic material" would imply too much. Example 4. Occasionally chemical patent terminology violates the translator's sense of propriety without giving him a sure guide to the correct term. If a German patent says "propin" and offers no evidence that it means "propyne," the translator can do no more than raise the question; e. g., by the rendering "propin (propyne?)." But if the patent says "methyl acetylene (propin)," then he can safely say "propyne." Example 5. I n biochemical patents the nomenclature trouble sometimes arises from differences between European and American terminology, and sometimes from use of obsolete or obsolescent names. Thus, a patentee may insist on referring to Bacterium acati instead of Acetobacler acetus. The translator's cue is to follow suit. If be knows his client's interests and temperament well enough t o feel safe he may add "(synonym Acetobacter acetus)," but he is not free to take greater liberties with the terminology he finds. Example 6. In German technical literature, outside of patents, ''Fachmann" means anyone engaged in the practice of a "Fach" which originally meant any trade or orcupation (more or less excluding the ancient three "estates" of law, medicine, and the clergy). As science and technology advanced, any branch of either became duly recognized as a "Fach," and the lowliest cleaner of messy vats is a "Fachmann" (at, least in his own view). So is the Nobel-prize winner who gave the instructions which messed up the vats; so are all the practitioners in that branch of knowledge, between the top and bottom levels. In Germsn patent literature, however, "Fachmann" almost always means exactly the same as the U. S. patent phrase "one skilled in the art." All patents have claims, hut this discourse has none. It cannot claim erudition and declines to risk claiming validity. If in following our advice a translator hews to a wavy line of vagueness and learns too late that the valleys are where the crests belong, we accept no responsibility. We have enough trouble with our own valleys and crests. We hope these remarks will help a little here and there in unsnarling problems of waves and parallels, but me make no promises.
