Discussion of the article "An Example of Application of IFR to Solving a Legal Problem"

From: Pentti Söderlin <pentti.soderlin@netlife.fi>
To: karasik@sympatico.ca
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 12:04:23 +0200

Yevgeny,

I read your article of the said problem of a parking ticket. I think that you have again been overenthusiastic of applying the concept of Physical Contradiction as well as in the road bridge case. Your son seems to have sound thinking ability because he went straight to the point: is their any legal right to prosecute + what does the law say about parking during snow storms?

The case is not any problem requesting complex procedures or deep knowledge of TRIZ. We might say that this is again a Level One task. In TRIZ we define Level One problem: a simple improvement of a technical system. Requires knowledge available within a trade relevant to that system. This level is not really innovative. It provides only a solution to a technical task or an improvement to an existing system without solving any technical problem.

If one applies the definition to jurisdiction you get: a simple questionning of the case (or the law system). Requires knowledge available within the law relevant to the case. This just what your son did.

Regards

Pentti Söderlin
Puistokatu 9 A 9
FIN-00140 HELSINKI


Hello Pentti,

  1. You say that the parking ticket problem does not require TRIZ. And I agree with you. No problem requires it. You say that the problem can be solved by researching of what the law says about parking during snow storm. And I again agree with you: any problem can be solved by researching the relevant information ! But if you meant to say that finding regulation of 1964 was easy, then I disagree. If that were the case then the judge and the prosecution would have known it.

  2. Besides you missed the point of my articles. They are not about impressing the reader with difficult problems but rather about introducing new ideas. The problems just illustrate them. They do not have to be difficult to this end.

    The ideas of the latter article are multi-fold. But one of them is that IFR in Legal Disputes is proving that a law was violated by itself rather than proving that somebody violated it. You do not like the problem that illustrates the principle ?! Find other problems and apply it. What is the problem ?

  3. And the last but not the least. The definition of the level one problems is quite misleading. I explain as follows:

    To me a simple improvement may solve a difficult problem. The difficulty of a problem does not depend on the complexity of its solution but rather on the difficulty of finding it.

    Also the fact that a solution "requires knowledge available within a trade relevant to the system" does not devaluate it. Who knows where the boudaries of this knowledge lie ? Consider, for example, such a system as computer and such a trade as computer engineering. Can you please outline me the boundaries of the knowledge relevant to this particular system available within this particular trade ?

    You see the definition of the "Level One problem" is quite vague. With some imagination any problem can be related to the thus defined "level one". The TRIZ subdivision of problems into 5 levels is quite meaningless. This journal wrote about that not once. You have to read it intently.


Sincerely,

Yevgeny