Is a Photocopying Machine Ambiguous?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Greg Bernhardt
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers around a humorous legal deposition in Ohio where the ambiguity of the term "photocopying machine" is debated. Participants highlight the absurdity of the conversation, emphasizing the need for precise language in legal contexts. The dialogue illustrates how different technologies, such as xerography and photostat processes, can complicate definitions. Additionally, cultural references to photocopiers, such as the term "ksero" in Poland, are noted, showcasing variations in terminology across regions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of legal terminology and deposition processes
  • Familiarity with photocopying technologies, including xerography and photostat
  • Knowledge of cultural variations in language related to technology
  • Awareness of the importance of precise language in legal and scientific discussions
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the history and technology behind xerography and its applications
  • Explore the legal implications of ambiguous terminology in contracts and agreements
  • Investigate the evolution of photocopying technology and its impact on modern office practices
  • Learn about the cultural significance of language in technology across different countries
USEFUL FOR

Legal professionals, linguists, technology historians, and anyone interested in the intersection of language and technology in legal contexts.

Greg Bernhardt
Admin
Insights Author
Messages
19,865
Reaction score
10,854
This is bizarrely hilarious!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/28/opinion/verbatim-what-is-a-photocopier.html

In 2012, on my Facebook feed, I stumbled across a hilarious excerpt from a legal transcript. In a deposition in Ohio, a lawyer became embroiled in an absurd argument about the definition of a photocopier.

D: When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?

PL: Let me be clear. The term “photocopying machine” is so ambiguous that you can’t picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?

The dialogue was so sharp, inane and fully realized that I assumed it was fiction. I traced the deposition back to the Ohio Supreme Court and downloaded hundreds of pages of legal documents from the case. To my pleasant surprise, it was as strange as it was true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep, that's hilarious.

Poor fellow was probably prepped by the lawyer to be sure he had a VERY exact understanding of any terms used in questions. It's good that lawyers don't normally carry firearms to such depositions, else that guy would undoubtedly have been shot.
 
I'm not sure I want to watch the whole ear-rape, but when the layer says "A photocopying machine can be a machine that uses a photostatic technology, that uses..."

Welcome to Logic, may I take your order?
Yes, I don't understand that machines that use different technologies for photocopying are subsets of the singular device category "photocopier".
You want fries with that law degree?
Happy Meal size, please.

Oy.
 
Well, if they had not nailed that down solid and airtight, an agreement instead could have been reached where all scanning of the documnents would in future be free.
Oh, you want a printout, you didn't say, there is a service charge for that.
 
russ_watters said:
I'm not sure I want to watch the whole ear-rape.

It's worth waiting for the punchline :smile:
 
russ watters said:
I'm not sure I want to watch the whole ear-rape,

AlephZero said:
It's worth waiting for the punchline :smile:

You have to Russ ... the punch line made laugh out loud ... my co-workers wondered what the joke was

Thanks Greg ... a real hoot!

Dave
 
Nothing bizarre about it. It is hilarious! One of the funniest things I've seen recently. It would have been funny if it was some sketch comedy show but the fact that this is a real conversation, albeit dramatized, makes it so much funnier.
 
omg that ending made me lose it
 
To be fair... we just call it a "copier". And being a relative youngster, the term "photocopy machine" seems to imply to me a machine capable of copying photos (which our copier is, decidedly, not).
 
  • #10
Did you know photocopiers of any kind are called "ksero" in Poland?

Just like bike is "rower" and vacuum cleaner is "elektroluks". Oh, and instant coffee is "neska".
 
  • #11
Most people nowadays are used to photocopiers being synonymous with Xerox machines which use some type of electrostatic toner that is fused by heat and pressure to a piece of copy paper.

There is much older technology which could also be described as 'photocopying', to wit, the blueprint process, where a specially treated paper has a tracing placed over it, which is then exposed to light. The areas of the treated paper which were exposed to the light have undergone a chemical reaction. The tracing is removed and the treated paper is exposed to ammonia vapor, which causes the unreacted areas of the paper to turn a dark blue, reproducing the image of the tracing, hence the term 'blueprint'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint

Before xerography was invented, there was also the 'photostat' process, whereby a photograph of a document was taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photostat_machine

Like a photograph, a photostat had to be taken using specially treated paper and the image had to be developed by a chemical process.

Full disclosure: I didn't read the entire article or watch the video, but in my experience, it is better sometimes to be precise when dealing with the law than to casually make assumptions about what someone is discussing or inquiring.
 
  • #12
Borek said:
Did you know photocopiers of any kind are called "ksero" in Poland?

Just like bike is "rower" and vacuum cleaner is "elektroluks". Oh, and instant coffee is "neska".

My step father is from England - he always called a vacuum cleaner a "Hoover"!

SteamKing said:
Most people nowadays are used to photocopiers being synonymous with Xerox machines which use some type of electrostatic toner that is fused by heat and pressure to a piece of copy paper.

There is much older technology which could also be described as 'photocopying', to wit, the blueprint process, where a specially treated paper has a tracing placed over it, which is then exposed to light. The areas of the treated paper which were exposed to the light have undergone a chemical reaction. The tracing is removed and the treated paper is exposed to ammonia vapor, which causes the unreacted areas of the paper to turn a dark blue, reproducing the image of the tracing, hence the term 'blueprint'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint

Before xerography was invented, there was also the 'photostat' process, whereby a photograph of a document was taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photostat_machine

Like a photograph, a photostat had to be taken using specially treated paper and the image had to be developed by a chemical process.

Full disclosure: I didn't read the entire article or watch the video, but in my experience, it is better sometimes to be precise when dealing with the law than to casually make assumptions about what someone is discussing or inquiring.

That's pretty much how I take it. I did watch the video, and anyone who does should realize it's a dramatization acted out for comedic effect. In law, as in science, the exact meaning of words is extremely important. I think the questioner was purposefully obscuring his intent. He never offered that a "photocopier machine" could also be called a copier or a Xerox machine. I think he had his reasons for this -- lawyers are tricky with words!

Besides, "photocopy machine" sounds antiquated to my ears.
 
  • #13
For anyone surprised by his being accustomed to referring to a photocopier as a "Xerox machine", do you call aspirin "aspirin" or do you refer to it by its generic name, acetylsalicylic acid (or even more obscurely, by its IUPAC name, 2-acetoxybenzoic acid)? :-p

BTW, the original maker Bayer still holds the trademark on the name "aspirin" in many countries, and where the generic formulation is being used, the use of the moniker "aspirin" is actually incorrect.