Search the archive.

Defendant argues that the "should" and "also desired" is "plainly permissive,"  while plaintiff points out that "should" is a past tense of "shall." While "shall" denotes a mandatory action when used in statutes and contracts, "should" does not ordinarily  [**10]  express such certainty.  By examining the context in which "should" is used within the policy statements, this Court concludes that it is not used in a mandatory manner. In setting out the requirements of board membership at that time, the Navy consistently used "will" or "must." The subsection addressing minority officers was the only one in this memorandum that used "should," instead of "will" or "must."

Like the rules governing the use of shall and will on which they are based, the traditional rules governing the use of should and would are largely ignored in modern American practice. Either should or would can now be used in the first person to express conditional futurity: If I had known that, I would (or somewhat more formally, should) have answered differently. But in the second and third persons only would is used: If he had known that, he would (not should) have answered differently. Would cannot always be substituted for should, however. Should is used in all three persons in a conditional clause: if I (or you or he) should decide to go. Should is also used in all three persons to express duty or obligation (the equivalent of ought to): I (or you or he) should go. On the other hand, would is used to express volition or promise: I agreed that I would do it. Either would or should is possible as an auxiliary with like, be inclined, be glad, prefer, and related verbs: I would (or should) like to call your attention to an oversight. Here would was acceptable on all levels to a large majority of the Usage Panel in an earlier survey and is more common in American usage than should. · Should have is sometimes incorrectly written should of by writers who have mistaken the source of the spoken contraction should've. See Usage Notes at , , .

'shall' describes something that is mandatory. If a requirement uses 'shall', then that requirement _will_ be satisfied without fail. Noncompliance is not allowed. Failure to comply with one single 'shall' is sufficient reason to reject the entire product. Indeed, it must be rejected under these circumstances.   Examples:  "Requirements shall make use of the word 'shall' only where compliance is mandatory."  This is a  good example.    "C++ code shall have comments every 5th line."  This is a bad example. Using 'shall' here is too strong. should 'should' is weaker. It describes something that might not be satisfied in the final product, but that is desirable enough that any noncompliance shall be explicitly justified. Any use of 'should' should be examined carefully, as it probably means that something is not being stated clearly. If a 'should' can be replaced by a 'shall', or can be discarded entirely, so much the better.  Examples:  "C++ code should be ANSI compliant."  A good example. It may not be possible to be ANSI compliant on all  platforms, but we should try.    "Code should be tested thoroughly."  Bad example. This 'should' shall be replaced with 'shall' if this requirement is to be stated anywhere (to say nothing of defining what  'thoroughly' means).

George Dvorsky, Gizmodo, A Single Typo Nearly Killed the Paris Climate Accord, 12/14/15, gizmodo.com/a-single-typo-nearly-killed-the-paris-climate-accord-1747908970

When it comes to legally binding terminology, there’s a big difference between “should” and “shall.” Whereas “should” is a kind of wishy-washy call to action, the word “shall” implies an obligation, and this is why Secretary of State John Kerry could not abide the unexpected change. The New York Times reports:

Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, 802 P.2d 813 (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). 14 In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to

"Should" is "used . . . to express duty, obligation, propriety, or expediency." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2104 (2002). Courts [**15] interpreting the word in various contexts have drawn conflicting conclusions, although the weight of authority appears to favor interpreting "should" in an imperative, obligatory sense. HN7A number of courts, confronted with the question of whether using the word "should" in jury instructions conforms with the Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections governing the reasonable doubt standard, have upheld instructions using the word. In the courts of other states in which a defendant has argued that the word "should" in the reasonable doubt instruction does not sufficiently inform the jury that it is bound to find the defendant not guilty if insufficient proof is submitted at trial, the courts have squarely rejected the argument. They reasoned that the word "conveys a sense of duty and obligation and could not be misunderstood by a jury." See State v. McCloud, 257 Kan. 1, 891 P.2d 324, 335 (Kan. 1995); see also Tyson v. State, 217 Ga. App. 428, 457 S.E.2d 690, 691-92 (Ga. Ct. App. 1995) (finding argument that "should" is directional but not instructional to be without merit); Commonwealth v. Hammond, 350 Pa. Super. 477, 504 A.2d 940, 941-42 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1986). Notably, courts interpreting the word "should" in other types of jury instructions [**16] have also found that the word conveys to the jury a sense of duty or obligation and not discretion. In Little v. State, 261 Ark. 859, 554 S.W.2d 312, 324 (Ark. 1977), the Arkansas Supreme Court interpreted the word "should" in an instruction on circumstantial evidence as synonymous with the word "must" and rejected the defendant's argument that the jury may have been misled by the court's use of the word in the instruction. Similarly, the Missouri Supreme Court rejected a defendant's argument that the court erred by not using the word "should" in an instruction on witness credibility which used the word "must" because the two words have the same meaning. State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958). [*318] In applying a child support statute, the Arizona Court of Appeals concluded that a legislature's or commission's use of the word "should" is meant to convey duty or obligation. McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 49 P.3d 300, 306 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (finding a statute stating that child support expenditures "should" be allocated for the purpose of parents' federal tax exemption to be mandatory).

"Should" not only is used as a "present indicative" synonymous with ought but also is the past tense of "shall" with various shades of meaning not always easy to analyze. See 57 C.J. Shall § 9, Judgments § 121 (1932). O. JESPERSEN, GROWTH AND STRUCTURE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1984); St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Brown, 45 Okl. 143, 144 P. 1075, 1080-81 (1914). For a more detailed explanation, see the Partridge quotation infra note 15. Certain contexts mandate a construction of the term "should" as more than merely indicating preference or desirability. Brown, supra at 1080-81 (jury instructions stating that jurors "should" reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the amount of contributory negligence of the plaintiff was held to imply an obligation and to be more than advisory); Carrigan v. California Horse Racing Board, 60 Wash. App. 79, (1990) (one of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requiring that a party "should devote a section of the brief to the request for the fee or expenses" was interpreted to mean that a party is under an obligation to include the requested segment); State v. Rack, 318 S.W.2d 211, 215 (Mo. 1958) ("should" would mean the same as "shall" or "must" when used in an instruction to the jury which tells the triers they "should disregard false testimony"). In praesenti means literally "at the present time." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 792 (6th Ed. 1990). In legal parlance the phrase denotes that which in law is presently or immediately effective, as opposed to something that will or would become effective in the future [in futurol]. See Van Wyck v. Knevals, , 365, 1 S.Ct. 336, 337, 27 L.Ed. 201 (1882).

Use of a colon before a list or an explanation that is preceded by a clause that can stand by itself. Think of the colon as a gate, inviting one to go on… If the introductory phrase preceding the colon is very brief and the clause following the colon represents the real business of the sentence, begin the clause after the colon with a capital letter.

Of the mind, etc.: Freed from doubt or uncertainty, fixed, settled. Obs.

The colon introduces the following: A list, but only after "as follows," "the following," or a noun for which the list is an appositive: Each scout will carry the following: (colon) meals for three days, a survival knife, and his sleeping bag. The company had four new officers: (colon) Bill Smith, Frank Tucker, Peter Fillmore, and Oliver Lewis. A long quotation (one or more paragraphs): In The Killer Angels Michael Shaara wrote: (colon) They may find it a different story from the one they learned in school. There have been many versions of that battle [Gettysburg] and that war [the Civil War]. (The quote continues for two more paragraphs.) A formal quotation or question: The President declared: (colon) "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The question is: (colon) what can we do about it? A second independent clause which explains the first: Potter's motive is clear: (colon) he wants the assignment. After the introduction of a business letter: Dear Sirs: (colon) Dear Madam: (colon) The details following an announcement For sale: (colon) large lakeside cabin with dock A formal resolution, after the word "resolved:" Resolved: (colon) That this council petition the mayor. The words of a speaker in a play: Macbeth: (colon) She should have died hereafter.

United States of America (USA) [ju:’naitid ‘steits av e’merike] noun independent country, a federation of states (originally thirteen, now fifty in North America; the United States Code = book containing all the permanent laws of the USA, arranged in sections according to subject and revised from time to time COMMENT: the federal government (based in Washington D.C.) is formed of a legislature (the Congress) with two chambers (the Senate and House of Representatives), an executive (the President) and a judiciary (the Supreme Court). Each of the fifty states making up the USA has its own legislature and executive (the Governor) as well as its own legal system and constitution.

U.S. Federal Government - The three branches of U.S. government—legislative, judicial, and executive—carry out governmental power and functions.

Roger E. Schecter and John R. Thomas, “Introduction to Intellectual Property,” in Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks, West Group 2003, non-paginated epub.

The principal intellectual property alternative to patents is trade secret law. 20 Valuable information that is not publicly known and that is subject to measures to preserve its secrecy may be granted trade secret rights under state statutory or common law. Unlike patents, no formalities are required to maintain trade secret protection. Trade secret protection is more limited than that offered by the patent law, however. Trade secret law does not prevent reverse engineering or independent discovery of the protected information, for example, while patent rights would. Trade secret rights endure for as long as the protected information is not known to the public.

Bailey C. Moseley, “McClain v. State,” 269 S.W.3d 191, 17 October 2008, pp. 6, Lexis.

The principal modes for protection of intellectual property rights include patent, copyright, trademark or trade dress, and trade secrets. Id. at 1-2. Unlike the other principal modes of intellectual property protection, trade secret protection only protects an owner from misappropriation of or the unlawful discovery of an idea. In order for there to be a violation of the right to protect a trade secret, the actor must have wrongfully acquired the information. Id. at 35.

“Intellectual Property Law,” Georgetown University Law Center, https://www.law.georgetown.edu/your-life-career/career-exploration-professional-development/for-jd-students/explore-legal-careers/practice-areas/intellectual-property-law/, accessed 26 May 2024.

Trademark law protects a word, phrase, symbol or design that is used by an entity to identify its product or service. Examples are Dunkin Donuts orange and pink sausage style lettering, Apple’s apple logo, and Adidas’ three stripes. Trademark owners can prevent others from using their marks, or marks which are confusingly similar so that consumers would not be able to identify the source. Federal and state laws govern trademarks but the Lanham Act is the primary source of trademark protection. These laws protect against infringement and dilution. Rights in trademarks are gained by being the first to use a trademark in commerce or being the first to register the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Roger E. Schecter and John R. Thomas, “Introduction to Intellectual Property,” in Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks, West Group 2003, non-paginated epub.

Trademarks consist of any word or symbol used by a merchant to identify its goods or services, and to distinguish them from those of others.21 To be subject to protection under the trademark laws, a mark must successfully distinguish the origins of its associated goods, and not be confusingly similar to marks used by others or merely describe the characteristics of those goods.22 Trademark rights arise under state law as soon as the mark is used on goods in commerce.23 However, trademarks may be registered with the PTO, a step that affords significant substantive and procedural advantages.24 Trademark law also protects the appearance of product packaging and, in some cases, the actual physical configuration of the goods, if these serve as brand identifiers. A trademark owner may prevent others from using any mark that creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of the associated goods or services.25 Trademark rights persist so long as the mark continues to be used and retains its distinctiveness.26

Roger E. Schecter and John R. Thomas, “Introduction to Intellectual Property,” in Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks, West Group 2003, non-paginated epub.

Patents provide exclusive rights to inventors of new, useful and nonobvious inventions.12 The patent law concerns hard technologies, including chemical, electrical and mechanical products and processes, as well as other pragmatic innovations in fields ranging from biotechnology to business methods.13 An inventor may obtain a patent by filing a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). Such an application must completely describe and precisely claim the invention.14 Issued patents confer the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing into the United States the patented invention.15 The term of a patent is 20 years from the date the application was filed.16

“Patents,” American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2018, https://www.aipla.org/about/what-is-ip-law/patents.

A patent is a document, issued by the federal government, that grants to its owner a legally enforceable right to exclude others from practicing the invention described and claimed in the document. Congress allows this right, for a term ending twenty years from the date of filing of an application for patent, to encourage the public disclosure of technical advances and as an incentive for investing in their commercialization.

“Circular 1: Copyright Basics,” U.S. Copyright Office, September 2021, pp. 1-2, https://copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf.

What Works Are Protected?

“Copyright in General,” U.S. Copyright Office, https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#:~:text=Copyright%2C%20a%20form%20of%20intellectual,%2C%20computer%20software%2C%20and%20architecture.

How is a copyright different from a patent or a trademark?