化体物 [Kataibutsu?]
Shane Jones
情報が実体化したという意味で「化体物」と定義しています。
例えば、金型や発表前の試作品等がこれに当たります。
2) "embodied products"
Jim Lockhart
> The client asked me to choose between the following two glosses:
>
> 1) "embodying products"
> or
> 2) "embodied products"
>
> 2) certainly seems to be the better of these two options, but I've never
> encountered this term before, so I wonder if anyone who has can perhaps
> suggest something a bit more appropriate?
The first thing I would do would be to look around the Internet to see
if either of these two expressions has currency, and if one or the other
does, whether its definition matches that offered by your client for 化
体物. If a definition matches, then the word it's associated with is
your answer.
If you can find no matching definitions, I would search for a word whose
definition does match that of 化体物. I'm sure that the fields that deal
with intellectual property and objects that embody it, would have a term
of art for this.
Note that if 化体物 is a neologism cooked up by your client (I don't
know), you're not going to find it anywhere; and likewise, if the
English terms are home-cooked as well, they aren't going to have any
currency or communicate anything to any audience. You need to look for an
existing term of art, and only as a last resort use in translation--with
a definition somewhere--something you have (or your client has) made up.
HTH, and best of luck with it,
--Jim Lockhart
Richard Thieme
to be better than either of the alternatives you are given.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Jim Lockhart" <jamesal...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年5月16日 16:42
件名 : Re: 化体物 [Kataibutsu?]
James A Lockhart
Although if you have to use "embody" then "embodiments" would probably seem
to be better than either of the alternatives you are given.
Isn't that what's used in patents, embodiments?
--Jim Lockhart
Makoto Sakamoto
*Ketai-butsu" is the correct pronunciation for 「化体物」.
Regards,
Mak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lockhart" <jamesal...@gmail.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 4:42 PM
Subject: Re: 化体物 [Kataibutsu?]
>
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 22:41:27 -0700
> "Shane Jones" <sajho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[The rest suppressed]
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "James A Lockhart" <jamesal...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年5月16日 17:18
件名 : Re: 蛹紋ス鍋黄 [Kataibutsu?]
Yes, but it seems to fit here as well.
Regards,
Richard Thieme
James A Lockhart
>> Although if you have to use "embody" then "embodiments" would probably
>> seem
>> to be better than either of the alternatives you are given.
>>
>>
> Isn't that what's used in patents, embodiments?
>
Yes, but it seems to fit here as well.
Yup, that was my point all along. And I'm sure if the OP follows my advice (about how to find it--I would think that googling for "化体物" or "化体物とは" would be the first thing anyone would do, and indeed the Proz.com stuff that the honorable Mr. Mak Sakamoto 先生様 pointed us to was at the top of my search results), he would have stumbled across it sooner or later. <g>
Have a good one,
Shane Jones
You can find a straightforward, full account in the following:
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/japanese_to_english/engineering_general/2430299-%E5%8C%96%E4%BD%93%E7%89%A9.html
*Ketai-butsu" is the correct pronunciation for 「化体物」.
Regards,
Mak
Alan Siegrist
> A client has emailed me asking my opinion on an English gloss it is
> using for "化体物" where "化体物" means:
And Makoto Sakamoto helpfully pointed him to:
> You can find a straightforward, full account in the following:
>
> http://www.proz.com/kudoz/japanese_to_english/engineering_general/2430299-
> %E5%8C%96%E4%BD%93%E7%89%A9.html
>
> *Ketai-butsu" is the correct pronunciation for 「化体物」.
I think that "tangible embodiments" can be fine, but it depends on how it is
used. The phrase "tangible embodiment" cannot stand on its own, but it begs
the question "embodiments of what?"
I suppose 化体物 would be used in largely the same way in Japanese, but it
sounds somewhat more self-standing and "tangible" so to speak.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
Shane Jones
I think that "tangible embodiments" can be fine, but it depends on how it is
used. The phrase "tangible embodiment" cannot stand on its own, but it begs
the question "embodiments of what?"
I suppose 化体物 would be used in largely the same way in Japanese, but it
sounds somewhat more self-standing and "tangible" so to speak.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Orinda, CA, USA
--
Shane Jones
sajho...@gmail.com
Jim Lockhart
> Thank you to all who responded. I ended up suggesting that the client use
> "tangible embodiments" upon first defining the term in the document.
Having poked around a bit more online (the question intrigued me), I'd
say you (and Alan) were pretty much on track with this.
Mak Sakamoto's explanation of the reading notwithstanding, I also found
the following on 化体:
か-たい 【化体】
観念的な事柄を，有形物によって具体的な感知できるものにすること。特に，
有価証券法において，権利を証券上に表すことを示す。
(大辞林。広辞苑も同じような説明を載せる。）
け-たい 【化体】 （名）スル
姿・形を変えること。他のものになること。
(大辞林。）
embody
1 化体する; 体現する
(英米法辞典)
HTH,
--Jim Lockhart
Steve Venti
>> "Shane Jones" <sajho...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "tangible embodiments" upon first defining the term in the document.
>
> Having poked around a bit more online (the question intrigued me), I'd
> say you (and Alan) were pretty much on track with this.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know if the term "intangible
embodiment" really has much currency? Googling, I do find a number of
hits for the term, but reading a few of them, it seems to be
synonymous with implementation in technical contexts and reification
in non-technical ones. In any case, "tangible embodiment" strikes me
as a pleonasm and "intangible embodiment" as an oxymoron.
But then again, what do I know? I use "countermeasure" as a verb all
the time. <g>
--
Steve Venti
And the sad truth is nothing but a cold, hard fact: I'm riding the
Blue Train over the miles left to cover, a ghost in a hurry to fade.
--Jennifer Kimball & Tom Kimmel
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makoto Sakamoto
Intangible Asset is sire to be ... Each of those is a tangible embodiment of
an owner/operator's trade secret, and each has intellectual property
content. ...
www.cpschumannco.com/business.asp?subject=102
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Lockhart" <jamesal...@gmail.com>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 2:21 PM
Subject: Re: 化体物 [Kataibutsu?]
>
>
Makoto Sakamoto
trade secrets as i
QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Examples of product/process trade
secret documentation include: food product recipes, chemical formulations,
engineering drawings, production process schematics, process flow charts,
plant layouts and designs, distribution system drawings/mylars, computer
software programs, clothing and other product patterns, blueprints,
laboratory notebooks, system flowcharts and diagrams, employee manuals, user
manuals, customer files, etc. Each of those is a tangible embodiment of an
owner/operator's trade secret, and each has intellectual property content.
http://www.cpschumannco.com/business.asp?subject=102
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<UNQUOTE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFS...@Comcast.net>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Steve Venti
> The term "Intangible embodiment" seems to be legitimately used in describing
> trade secrets as i [http://www.cpschumannco.com/business.asp?subject=102]
Sorry, but I couldn't find the term "Intangible embodiment" anywhere
on the page you gave as reference. Am I missing something?
There was one instance of "tangible embodiment," however, which serves
as a good example of my point. I feel that the word is superfluous in
this case as well, although I can see why the writer might feel that
it provides emphasis.
Makoto Sakamoto
> I ended up suggesting that the client use "tangible embodiments"
> upon first defining the term in the document.
The term "tangible embodiment" is indeed legitimately used
for describing trade secret as an intellectual property.
You might find the following worth reading:
QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Examples of product/process trade secret documentation include: food product
recipes, chemical formulations, engineering drawings, production process
schematics, process flow charts, plant layouts and designs, distribution
system drawings/mylars, computer software programs, clothing and other
product patterns, blueprints, laboratory notebooks, system flowcharts and
diagrams, employee manuals, user manuals, customer files, etc. Each of those
is a tangible embodiment of an owner/operator's trade secret, and each has
intellectual property content.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<UNQUOTE
Source: C. P. Schumann & Co., P.C.
http://www.cpschumannco.com/business.asp?subject=102
Regards,
Mak Sakamoto
ps. My apologies for referring to that somewhat old-fashioned
pronunciation "ketai" for 「化体」, which seems to be still
valid, though.
QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
以上にあるように、「商標」は、売上やイメージを上げるのに大変強力なツールである一方で、全くその逆にも働きます。 何ででしょうね？ それは、「商標」に企業の信用力がそのまま
反映（化体（ケタイ）とも言います）されるからです。 ...
www.sakai.zaq.ne.jp/dudpr908/patriyoushom.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<UNQUOTE
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFS...@Comcast.net>
To: <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:54 PM
Subject: RE: 化体物 [Kataibutsu?]
>
<eom>
Makoto Sakamoto
messy uploads.
Your intent of denying "pleonasm" is indeed a good lesson to me as an
apprentice of pseudo-JE translator.
Nevertheless, this seemingly questionable usage is quite popular as you
see below.
Here is another one:
QUOTE>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
UCITA: Letter from 50 intellectual property law professors on 17.Nov.1999.
... but does not distinguish between a "license" of the intellectual
property right and a "license" of a particular tangible embodiment of that
right. ...
www.jamesshuggins.com/h/tek1/ucita_ipp_19981117_letter.htm
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<UNQUOTE
Couldn't you put up with it?
Thanks and regards,
Mak Sakamoto
<eom>
Richard Thieme
----- Original Message -----
送信者 : "Steve Venti" <jsn...@gmail.com>
宛先 : <hon...@googlegroups.com>
送信日時 : 2008年5月17日 21:24
件名 : Re: 蛹紋ス鍋黄 [Kataibutsu?]
>
> Makoto Sakamoto <saka...@e-mail.jp>:
>
>> The term "Intangible embodiment" seems to be legitimately used in
>> describing
>> trade secrets as i [http://www.cpschumannco.com/business.asp?subject=102]
>
> Sorry, but I couldn't find the term "Intangible embodiment" anywhere
> on the page you gave as reference. Am I missing something?
>
> There was one instance of "tangible embodiment," however, which serves
> as a good example of my point. I feel that the word is superfluous in
> this case as well, although I can see why the writer might feel that
> it provides emphasis.
>
> --
I agree that it is intellectually clumsy, but see "intangible embodiment" in
the following
Alan Siegrist
> In any case, "tangible embodiment" strikes me
> as a pleonasm and "intangible embodiment" as an oxymoron.
Now that I have looked up "pleonasm" <g> I think I understand your
objection. I am afraid I cannot address the philosophical issues, but I can
talk about the phrase "tangible embodiment" in regard to patents and
inventions.
An invention is a concept. It is naturally intangible. For it to be
patentable, an invention must also be useful. You generally cannot patent
abstract ideas. An "embodiment" in the patent context is a specific example
of the working of the general concept of the invention. An embodiment may be
a tangible object, such as a new widget, or it may also be a process (a
method). A process, while being intangible itself, usually involves tangible
objects, often in the course of creating widgets or what have you, so most
processes as embodiments of inventions are probably tangible in a certain
sense.
However, there are certain useful inventions such as mathematical algorithms
that are intangible and even the embodiments thereof are intangible. These
intangible embodiments are typified by computer software, as in the example
of the usage of the phrase "intangible embodiment" found by Richard Thieme.
Although the computer is of course tangible, the software inside it is not.
You cannot reach in and touch the software running inside the processor.
A specific computer program certainly can be an intangible embodiment of
some invention. It is specific and concrete and thus embodies the concept,
but it is in and of itself intangible.
Countermeasuringly,
Mika Jarmusz
化体物とは、機密情報が実装された「モノ」や、「モノ」自体のことで、
情報が実体化したという意味で「化体物」と定義しています。
例えば、金型や発表前の試作品等がこれに当たります。
「ある特定の無体物」からの化体である関連性が
既存事実として認められている場合に、
化体物と呼ばれるのではないでしょうか？
無体物→化体→化体物（有体物）
解釈に不正確な点がありましたら、訂正よろしくお願いします。
－－－－－－－－－
著作権者が著作物（という無体物）を有体物に化体して動産＝商品として市場に出した場合には、
無体物たる知的創作物を化体した有体物（製品）の生産、譲渡、輸入等
登録商標に化体された信用を
伝統的に「有体物」に化体した情報の財産的価値を認める
譲渡権が消尽したか否かは、著作物が化体した有体物の1つ1つについて判断されるものであって、
有体物に化体しているものが没収で問題になりますので
電磁的記録を化体している有体物が犯罪組成ないし供用物件でないのに
--
Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
English to Japanese Translator
Salem, Oregon