I work for a company that pays a reward for patent submissions so I have done a fair number of them, and what has amazed me since I started doing them is that I prepare a submission that by most estimations if a readable, understandable explanation of the invention and I usually include some diagrams. The company evaluates it and they deem it patentable, they then pay special outside council, firms that specialize in such things, and they proceed to turn it into incomprehensible legaleeze babble. They also take my nice diagrams and turn them into those patent stick diagrams. It is too bad that my nice understandable synopsis could not be included. But that is the process, I think reversing the process seems almost impossible.
> It is too bad that my nice understandable synopsis could not be included.
I suspect the issue here may be the same as the one that besets people who want to - for example - include a nice human readable version of a EULA alongside the legal version.
It introduces the opportunity for conflicts between the two version. Which is the actual legally binding version?
Your nice understandable synopsis should be used by the PR department for the press release that goes out explaining the newly awarded patent (if the PR department does such things).
If you take a easy to read and understandable explanation to a patent office, the people who work there will more likely find prior art.
The firms that specialize in patent applications are paid to increase the chance that a patent is granted, so its natural that clear and understandable language is the first to go.
