The post before this one (here) is my critique of ISO 24495-2:2025 (Plain language — Part 2: Legal communication), published by ISO (the International Organization for Standardization).
In that post, I say the writing in ISO 24495-2 is clumsy, and I include a link to a document with some sentences from ISO 24495-2 and how I would rewrite them. In case any of you freaks find it of interest, here’s another sentence from ISO 24495-2, with my explanation of the changes I’d make, and why.
The sentence is question is from the foreword; I assume the foreword is basically the same in all ISO standards Here’s the sentence:
ISO draws attention to the possibility that the implementation of this document may involve the use of (a) patent(s).
Here are the changes I made:
- I deleted ISO draws attention to the possibility that. It’s analogous to a standard LinkedIn formula, I’m thrilled to announce that. (I did this LinkedIn post about that.) In other words, it’s performative—it’s speech that performs an act. And it’s an unnecessarily wordy performative, as possibility is established later in the sentence too. (See the paragraph after next.) But the bigger issue is that the performative is redundant, as presence of the sentence in the foreword of ISO 24495-2 means ISO is uttering it.
- Regarding the implementation of, it has three problems. First, in this context, the is extraneous. See A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting § 17.36 (5th ed. 2023). But we can ignore that, because second, implementation is an abstract noun—a verb would be less bureaucratic-sounding. See MSCD § 17.7. And third, in English one doesn’t refer to a document being implemented; adopting would be a better choice.
- In this context, the word may doesn’t refer to discretion. Instead, it refers to possibility. It would be better to use a word that conveys just possibility, namely might. See MSCD § 3.231.
- Regarding the use of (a) patent(s), I didn’t dare try to make sense of it on my own. So I activated my longtime IP whisperer, Ned Barlas. Here’s what he said: “The verb ‘use’ is imprecise. One doesn’t ‘use’ a patent. One might practice a patented invention, license a patent, or infringe a patent. I would have said it differently. For example, you could say might require practicing inventions covered by one or more patents.” There followed a back-and-forth, with Ned ultimately liking this: might require making or using inventions covered by one or more patents.
- Regarding the formulation (a) patent(s) in the original, it’s clumsy. See MSCD 13.655. Use instead one or more patents; it’s simpler. For the same reason, I could have used one or more inventions. But two one or mores in quick succession would be a little annoying. I opted to use just inventions instead—it would be unlikely to imagine anyone thinking that this sentence excludes the possibility of making or using a single invention. (I might use two one or mores in quick succession in a contract, depending on the context and what’s at stake.)
So here’s my version of the sentence:
Adopting this document might require making or using inventions covered by one or more patents.
