Is a Photocopying Machine Ambiguous?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the ambiguity of the term "photocopying machine," sparked by a humorous legal deposition. Participants explore the implications of terminology in legal contexts, the evolution of language surrounding photocopying technology, and the cultural differences in naming such devices.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants find the legal dialogue about the definition of a photocopier to be absurdly humorous, noting the unexpected seriousness of the discussion.
  • Others suggest that the lawyer's insistence on precise definitions may have been overly pedantic, leading to comedic misunderstandings.
  • A few participants express that the term "photocopying machine" seems outdated, preferring simply "copier," and question the implications of this terminology.
  • One participant highlights the historical context of photocopying technology, mentioning older processes like blueprints and photostats, which could also fall under the umbrella of photocopying.
  • Another participant points out the cultural differences in naming photocopiers, referencing how they are called "ksero" in Poland and discussing the generic use of brand names like "Xerox."
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of precision in legal language, suggesting that the questioner may have had ulterior motives in their phrasing.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the humor of the situation but express differing views on the implications of the terminology and the seriousness of the legal context. Multiple competing views remain regarding the appropriateness and clarity of the term "photocopying machine."

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions about the definitions of terms used in the legal context and the evolution of language surrounding photocopying technology. The discussion reflects a mix of personal experiences and cultural perspectives without reaching a consensus on the ambiguity of the term.

Greg Bernhardt
Admin
Insights Author
Messages
19,875
Reaction score
10,880
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.